SOL-685-15-000049_Amendment_No_4.pdf

SOL-685-15-000049 Amendment No. 4

USAID/Senegal Mission-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Project

I. AMENDMENT OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) - SOL-685-15-000049

1. Page 16 – Section C.4.1.1 COMPONENT ONE – PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT – Task 2 Paragraph 2, REMOVE in its entirety and REPALCE with the following:

“The 5 – 6 High Impact Evaluations or Population Based Survey’s to be carried out under this award must meet strict criteria for reliability and validity, including use of control groups, statistical sampling to allow data reliability at the village (for Economic Growth), or commune (for Health and Education) level, development of rigorous questionnaires, conduct in multiple local languages and result in publicly available searchable data. For Economic Growth it is expected that evaluations of this nature will cover approximately 50 percent of the national territory, 14 administrative departments (+/– 250 villages) across the country, household level surveys, with a 5 – 10 percent sample depending on village size and project parameters. For Health and Education it is expected that evaluations of this nature will cover approximately 60 percent of the national territory, 14 administrative departments (+/– 250 villages) across the country, health clinic or school level surveys, with a 5 – 10 percent sample depending on village size and project parameters. The Mission has previously partnered with the Gaston Berger University of Senegal to perform similar activities. While the Mission encourages working with Gaston Berger University due to their prior experience and the Mission’s familiarity with them, there is no requirement that offerors must work with the Gaston Berger University.”

[END OF PAGE 16– SECTION C.4.1.1]

2. Page 21 – Section E.3 – “CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION,”

REMOVE in its entirety and REPALCE with the following:

“The COR and the Contracting Officer will jointly conduct evaluation of the Contractor’s overall performance, which will form the basis of the Contractor’s permanent performance record with regard to this contract as required under the FAR 42.15 and AIDAR 742.15.

During the period of performance, the USAID COR will conduct periodic performance reviews to monitor the progress of work and the achievement of required results under this contract. A variety of mechanisms will be used to monitor the progress and success of this award and the Contractor’s performance in achieving agreed results including:

Monthly meetings with USAID;

Review of Contractor’s scheduled reports (which include updates to the Work

Plan, fiscal expenditures and accruals, progress reports, consultancy reports, etc.);

Host government official and other counterparts feedback;

USAID personnel site visits;

Periodic assessments and impact evaluations;

Regular planning meetings between USAID and the Contractor to finalize annual work plans or identify emerging priorities requiring attention; and Coordinating committee meetings with USAID, the Contractor, the host government officials, and other stakeholders as agreed.

SOL-685-15-000049 Amendment No. 2

[END OF E.3]

3. Page 24 – Section F.6.(1) – “REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES OR OUPUTS, Reports”, REMOVE 1. Reports in its entirety and REPALCE with the following:

“The Contractor must submit the following reports to the USAID/Senegal COR – or his or her designee – electronically using either the Microsoft Word, Excel, or PowerPoint applications. All reports must be written in plain, grammatically correct English and French. All reports are subject to approval by the USAID/Senegal COR.

Written reports will be in the form of regular reports (as described below) as well as ad hoc written reports for which content and length will be determined jointly by the USAID/Senegal COR and the Contractor.

The table below provides a schedule of required reports or plans to be submitted:

Deliverable Delivery Date

Initial Work Plan (covers period from award date through September 30, 2016)

Due 90 days after contract award

Management and Procurement Plan Due 45 days after contract award Assessment and Evaluation Plan Due 45 days after contract award Implementation Plan Due 60 days after contract award

Bi-weekly Updates Due the 2nd and 4th Thursday of every month

Annual Work Plan for FY 2015 – FY

Due October 15 of each year

Quarterly Progress Report Due 30 days after end of reporting quarter Annual Reports Due 30 days after reporting year

Quarterly Accruals Report Due 14 days prior before the end of each quarter

Draft of Final Report Due 45 days before end date of contract Final Report Due 60 days after end of contract

Below please find more detailed information regarding the aforementioned reports or plans above:

[END SECTION F.6.(1) - “REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES OR OUPUTS, Reports”]

4. Page 28 – Section F.6, REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES OR OUPUTS, ADD the following:

“3. M&E Plan

The M&E plan will feed into the Mission PMP and will include a detailed explanation of the steps necessary to collect data to measure progress against key indicators as well as annual targets set towards achieving the results of this requirement. The M&E Plan must include gender-related activities/actions and monitoring of gender action plans. The Contractor must submit the final M&E Plan for COR approval within the first 60 days of award of the contract.”

[END SECTION F.6.(3)]

5. Page 86 – Section L.6 – “INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL”, REMOVE the section in its entirety and REPLACE with the following:

“Offerors must organize the technical proposal to follow the information set forth below.

The Offeror must key the technical proposal to the technical evaluation criteria outlined below, and contain only the requested information. The Offeror must organize the technical proposal according to the following criteria and presented in this order for ease of Technical Evaluation Committee review per AIDAR 715.303-70.

The technical proposal outline is specified below. A page in the technical proposal containing a table, chart, graph, text box, etc., not listed as an acceptable annex, will counted against the page limitation.

Cover Page (not counted against 35-page limit);

Table of Contents (not counted against page 35-page limit);

List of Acronyms (not counted against page 35-page limit);

Executive Summary (2-page limit);

Technical Approach and Understanding;

o Technical Approach; and o Technical Understanding

Management Approach o Management/Staffing Plan, Organizational Structure; and o Key Personnel

Past Performance (Offeror and International/Major Subcontractor) (2-page limit) Annexes (not counted against 35-page limit):

A. Resumes of Key Personnel with three references (provide full contact information: name, position, relationship, email address, telephone number);

B. Resumes of proposed long- and short-term personnel;

C. Signed letters of commitment from Key Personnel;

D. Branding and Marking Plan (2-page limit);

E. Additional Past Performance Sheets (Attachment 4) (Offeror and

International/Local Sub-Offerors); and F. Project Team Organizational chart (i.e., organogram)”

Within the outline suggested above, proposals should address the issues under Section C above. In addition to the narrative section of the proposal, the annexes will be used to judge the Offeror’s past experience and management capability. The annexes may also include relevant information about partners, where applicable.”

USAID/Senegal Mission-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Project

USAID expects Offerors to utilize their expertise and experience in designing a technical approach that will best achieve the expected results described under Section C. For competitive consideration, Offerors must submit a proposal that reflects a clear approach to achieve USAID’s results outlined under Section C and outline how they would approach the Components and results described therein. The Offeror must demonstrate a clear connection between its proposed technical approach and proposed LOE and staffing plan.

[END SECTION L.6]

[END OF AMENDMENT OF RFP]

II. QUESTIONS FROM POTENTIAL OFFERORS

USAID/Senegal Mission-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Project Request for Proposal (RFP) No. SOL-685-15-000049 Submitted Questions and Corresponding Answers

Monday, June 17, 2015

1. Question 1: Reference SOL-685-15-000049, Section L.6, Paragraph 3, Page 87 lists requested annexes A – F; will USAID/Senegal review/allow additional annexes not requested in the RFP?

Answer: Yes, USAID/Senegal will accept and review additional annexes not requested in the RFP. However, unnecessary elaborate proposals or annexes that includes information beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal in response to this RFP are not desired and maybe construed as an indication of the offeror’s lack of consciousness. Offerors are encouraged to submit succinct annexes that provide greater clarification to the requested items under Section L.6.

2. Question: Reference SOL-685-15-000049, Amendment 1, Section I, Paragraph 1, Page 2: In light of the short timeline between receipt of responses to questions and the proposal deadline (June 15th and June 26th, respectively), will USAID/Senegal consider extending the deadline for proposal submission by two weeks?

Answer: No, the deadline for the submission of responses to questions has been extended to June 17, 2015. Additionally, the deadline for the submission of proposals has been extended to June 29, 2015 at 13:00, Dakar local time.

3. Question: Reference SOL-685-15-000049, Section L.6, Paragraph 4, Page 87 lists a two-page executive summary as a required portion of the technical proposal. Please confirm that the two-page executive summary is counted against the 35-page limit.

Answer: Yes, the 2-page Executive Summary does count against page 35-page limit.

4. Question: Reference SOL-685-15-000049, Section L.6, Paragraph 4, Page 87 lists a Project

Team organizational chart or organogram as a part of the annexes, while Section L.6.1.3, Paragraph 4, page 88, lists an organogram as a part of the Management and Staffing Plan. Please

USAID/Senegal Mission-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Project confirm that the requested organogram is a non-page count chart to be presented in the annexes, but evaluated as a part of the management plan.

Answer: The organogram or organizational chart is part of the annexes requested on RFP page 87, none of which are counted against the 35-page limit.

5. Question: Is the Mission willing to provide a plug figure for the cost of Impact Evaluations (IE) and/or USAID/Senegal’s expectation for IE work? While we are well versed in designing and delivering IEs, we want to ensure our expectations are aligned with the Mission’s priorities.

Answer: No, the Mission will not provide a plug figure for the cost of IEs or USAID/Senegal’s expectations for IE work. A potential offeror may propose the amount it believes best demonstrates its understanding, flexibility and adaptability to manage this project.

6. Question: Reference SOL-685-15-000049, Section F.9, Paragraph 1, Page 30 discusses the importance of subcontracting with local firms to effectively accomplish this work. Will the Mission please confirm that bidders should not require exclusive agreements with local firms for this opportunity?

Answer: No, potential offerors are not required to have exclusive agreements with local firms for this solicitation. USAID does not require any specific and is open to all teaming arrangements, exclusive or otherwise, with local organizations. Nevertheless, the Contractor is encouraged to employ Senegalese nationals, and subcontract work under this award to Senegalese firms and organizations, to support of USAID/Senegal’s Local Solutions goals.

7. Question: Reference SOL-685-15-000049, Section F.6, Paragraph 16, Page 28, deliverables table and Annex 1, page 106 of the RFP give different guidelines for the number of evaluations, assessments, etc., that the Mission is expecting from the successful offeror. Will the Mission please confirm which table should be used in determining the technical approach and budget?

Answer: Both tables are correct; however, they require further clarification. The total 48 provided on RFP page 28 is the number of tasks, which offerors should use to develop their cost proposals. The total 74 provided under ANNEX 1: USAID/SENEGAL MISSION-WIDE MONITORING AND EVALUATION PROJECT TASK LIST refers to the number of estimated actions necessary to put into action each of the tasks. For example, an impact evaluation would likely include three actions – baseline survey, mid-term evaluation, and final evaluation. Thus, the total 74 is inclusive of the estimated actions that are included in each of the tasks.

8. Question: Reference SOL-685-15-000049, Section C.4.1.2, Paragraph 2, Page 16, and Section

F.4, Paragraph 1, Page 23, discuss a need for work in the Sahel region (Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mauritania, and Guinea). Will the Mission confirm that work will be required in all of these countries under the project; and is the Mission able to give more specific guidance around when and where evaluations and assessments will take place (beyond just potential countries?)

Answer: USAID/Senegal confirms that evaluation and assessment activities will be in the Sahel region (i.e., Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mauritania, and Guinea). At this stage, USAID/Senegal cannot tell exactly where or when those evaluations and assessments will take place. Potential

USAID/Senegal Mission-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Project offerors are encouraged to refer to Annex No.1 for the development of their technical and cost proposals.

9. Question: Are there any current knowledge management systems or M&E systems in place that offerors should be aware of, which may facilitate implementation of this project?

Answer: No, USAID/Senegal has neither a current knowledge management systems nor M&E systems in place for the implementation of this project.

10. Question: Security considerations differ for alternative geographic sites of work in the Sahel region. Can the Mission indicate how it would like security matters to be considered in the technical and cost proposals? For example, should we suggest assumptions and costs for security in our pricing?

Answer: Offeors are free to suggest and propose reasonable assumptions and costs for security in their pricing to demonstrate their understanding, flexibility and adaptability to manage this project.

11. Question: Will the Mission please provide its local compensation plan?

Answer: Yes, the USAID/Senegal local compensation plan is attached to this Solicitation Amendment No. 3 (See Attachment 1).

12. Question: With regards to the above-mentioned RFP, are Canadian corporations eligible to bid?

Answer: Yes, all qualified entities are eligible to bid on this project and USAID/Senegal will consider proposals from any eligible source. Potential offerors are encouraged to refer to the Automated Directives System (ADS), Chapter 310 and other legal restrictions (e.g., Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), United Nations (UN) sanction list and the System for Award Management (SAM)). Potential Offerors are reminded that offers without a valid SAM registration at the time of submission will be considered non-responsive per the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) 52.204-7 incorporated by reference

13. Question: Page 16 - How the subcontract with the Gaston Berger University has to be treated?

Do we have to contact them and keep a budget for them? Do you plan to finance directly them in parallel to this tender?

Answer: The Mission has previously partnered with the Gaston Berger University of Senegal to perform similar activities. While the Mission encourages working with Gaston Berger University due to their prior experience and the Mission’s familiarity with them, there is no requirement that offerors must work with the Gaston Berger University. The RFP has been modified to reflect this change.

14. Question: Page 18 - Where can we find the local compensation plan for Cooperating Country

Nationals (CCNs)?

USAID/Senegal Mission-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Project

Answer: Please refer to the answer provided for Question No. 11 above. For purposes of this solicitation, cooperating country national (CCN) employees are considered as Foreign Service National (FSN) employees (NOTE: that FSN is the most widely used terminology to describe non-U.S. citizen employees). Please refer to ADS – Chapter 495 for further guidance.

15. Question: Page 41 - How can we obtain the US Embassy Dakar local employee compensation

Plan (LCP)?

Answer: Please refer to the answer provided for Question No. 11 above.

16. Question: Page 47 – Are there taxes from the Government of Senegal (GOS) applicable to this contract?

Answer: There is no tax applicable to this contract. Nevertheless, offerors are reminded that they should report tax payments annually and negative reports must be filed as well. Please refer to RFP Section H.19 - AUTOMATED DIRECTIVES SYSTEM (ADS) 302 SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ACQUISITION and ADS 302.3.5.5 REPORTING OF FOREIGN TAXES (July 2007).

17. Question: Page 62 – Is the attachment 2 to be produced for all the employees of the firm? Or has it just to be produced for the consultants put in the bid?

Answer: As per the USAID Acquisition Regulation (AIDAR), “[t]he Contractor agrees to furnish to the contracting officer on USAID Form 1420-17, “Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet”, biographical information on the following individuals to be employed in the performance of the contract: (1) All individuals to be sent outside the United States, or (2) any employees designated as “key personnel.” Biographical data in the form usually maintained by the Contractor on the other individuals employed under the contract shall be available for review by USAID at the Contractor’s headquarters. A supply of USAID Form 1420-17 will be provided with this contract. The Contractor may reproduce additional copies as necessary”

18. Question: The table of deliverables indicates the period 2014 – 2019, but we presume that it is an error and that the real period is 2015 – 2020. Are we right?

Answer: The Annual Work Plan deliverable under Section F.6(1) should read as follows “Annual Work Plan for FY 2015 – FY 2020.”

19. Question: For the Chief of Party (COP) position, it is not specified if this person has to be a

U.S. citizen or not. Could you clarify please?

Answer: The COP must be an internationally hired expatriate whose qualifications meets or exceeds those outlined under RFP Section F.9(1). However, the COP does not need to be a U.S. citizen.

20. Question: We would like to know if a Senegalese national can be the COP for the offeror, if this person is internationally hired? Does he/she have to be a U.S. citizen or does any citizenship outside of the countries listed on the RFP allowed.

Answer: Please refer to the answer provided for Question No. 19 above.

21. Question: In the first page of the TORs the RFP closing date mentioned is June 26 whereas in the text pages 2 and 85 the deadline to submit is June 24. Is June 24 the right date?

Answer: Please refer to the answer provided for Question No. 2 above.

22. Question: The SOW of the RFP includes studies in satellite countries (Guinea, Niger, Burkina

Faso, Tchad, Mauritania). Is it possible to obtain Country Strategy Documents (or other relevant documents) for these countries?

Answer: Please refer to RFP Section J.2, “Useful Links.”

23. Question: Is it possible to be informed of the sectors and scopes of work for the different studies that are to take place as part of this consultancy?

24. Question: How is the Mission structured? Can we have a list or chart of the different positions including offices in satellites countries and technical teams?

25. Question: What are the projects currently running (or planned within the next 3 years) by sector, Countries, and their contacts (Phone, E-mail)?

Answer: Please refer to RFP Section J.2, “Useful Links,” under which links to the Mission’s current Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS), the Sahel Regional Program, and the USAID/Guinea program can be found.

26. Question: Does USAID/Senegal intend for the contract award winner to work with the

Mission on developing its new CDCS in 2016 or Mission PMP six months after CDCS approval?

Answer: The evaluations and studies produced as part of this contract may inform the development of the Mission’s following CDCS; however, there are no plans that the successful offeror work with the Mission to develop future strategies.

27. Question: Does the Mission intend to rollout AidTracker+ during the contract period of performance or option years?

Answer: At this point it is not known when the Mission might rollout AidTracker+ or another portfolio management system.

28. Question: Can USAID/Senegal provide Offerors with the Mission Order (MO203-4) for monitoring and evaluating program performance listed in its CDCS?

USAID/Senegal Mission-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Project

Answer: The USAID/Senegal Mission Orders will not be shared as part of the RFP; however, the Evaluation Policy, provided as a link under Section J.2, should provide the detail required to develop a responsive proposal.

29. Question: Based on the limited number of local firms that can provide monitoring and evaluation services per USAID rules and regulations, will the Mission consider prohibiting exclusive teaming arrangements with local firms to ensure USAID/Senegal receives the greatest value resulting from open competition among local firms?

Answer: Please refer to the answer provided for Question No. 6 above.

30. Question: Could the Mission please provide a CCN/TCN table for budgetary reference?

31. Question: Does the request for five past performance references include the mandatory major subcontractor past performance references, or are the major subcontractor past performance references considered additional?

Answer: Since not all offerors will propose major subcontractors whose proposed cost exceeds 15 percent of the offeror’s total proposed cost, the major subcontractor past performance references are considered supplemental to the request for five past performance references.

32. Question: Per page 98 of the RFP, Section (j) Part 10, does the consolidated budget have to include a separate budget for “each Sub-Offeror” or each major subcontractor?

Answer: The consolidated budget must include a separate budget for each major subcontractor whose proposed cost exceeds 15 percent of the Offeror’s total proposed cost

33. Question: Could the Mission confirm that a partnership with the Universite Gaston Berger is required, per RFP page 16, section C.4.1.1 Component One, Task 2?

Answer: Please refer to the answer provided for Question No. 13 above.

34. Question: Could the Mission confirm if a new CDCS is already in development, or is pending development? Please note the extent to which the Offeror should plan to participate in CDCS development.

Answer: Please find the current CDCS under RFP Section J.2, “Useful Links.” Moreover, please refer to the answer provided for Question No. 26 above.

35. Question: What is the program effort percentage distribution between Component 1 and 2?

Answer: Offerors must provide their own program effort percentage distribution between Component 1 and 2 that best represents their understanding, adaptability and flexibility to manage this project.

USAID/Senegal Mission-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Project

36. Question: Is a bilateral tax treaty in place between the U.S. government and the government of Senegal such that the contractor would have tax exempt status?

Answer: Yes, please refer to Article 5 of the Agreement providing for Economic, Financial, Technical and Related Assistance, 12 UST 566; TIAS 4754; 409 UNTS 231, entered into force May 13, 1961.

37. Question: Will the Mission please provide its Local Compensation Plan to guide Offerors in proposing appropriate rates for local personnel?

38. Question: Section H.8 (page 41) of the RFP mentions that “it is USAID policy that cooperating country nationals (CCNs) and third country nationals (TCNs), who are hired abroad for work in a cooperating country under USAID-direct contracts, generally be extended the same benefits, and be subject to the same restrictions as TCN’s and CCN’s employed as direct hires by the USAID Mission.” Will the Mission provide the benefits and allowance authorized by the U.S.

embassy in Senegal for its U.S. Personal Services Contractor (USPSC) and Foreign Service National (FSN) employees?

Answer: AIDAR 722.170(b) provides that TCN compensation not “exceed the prevailing compensation paid to the personnel performing comparable work in the cooperating country as determined by the USAID Mission.” The Mission may provide the benefits and allowance authorized by the U.S. embassy in Senegal for its USPSC and FSN employees. However, TCNs and CCNs are not eligible for any allowances without a prior approval by USAID. There are different factors for a CO to consider in determining a reasonable salary for a TCN and whether or not to obtain higher-level approval (Mission Director or responsible Assistant Administrator).

For more information, please refer to AIDAR 722.

39. Question: During the Bidders Conference, USAID encouraged the inclusion of additional annexes within reason. Can the Mission confirm that additional annexes, such as a short term technical assistance consultant matrix will be allowed in Offeror’s submissions?

Answer: Please refer to the answer provided for Question No. 1 above.

40. Question: Is there a limit on the number or page count of annexes?

Answer: No, there is no annex page limitation. Please refer to the answer provided for Question No. 1 above.

41. Question: USAID/Senegal’s CDCS page 37 notes the Mission is one of two Mission worldwide that use the Mission Portfolio Management System (MPMS). Can the Mission confirm if the MPMS is still the Mission’s performance monitoring system and if the contract award winner will be responsible for utilizing this system?

Answer: At this point it is not known when the Mission might rollout an MPMS system or something similar. Moreover, it is not expected that the offeror would be responsible for utilizing the system.

42. Question: Can the Mission confirm if activity number 6 listed on RFP page 16 “PMP development” refers to the Mission level or at the project M&E plan level?

Answer: The Mission expects that Performance Management Plan (PMP) development will occur at the Mission and project level.

43. Question: Will the Mission clarify what is the anticipated list of activities under Component 2?

There is a discrepancy between the activities listed on page 14 of the RFP and page 16 of the RFP. Page 14 includes 7 anticipated activities, while page 16 includes 8 activities.

“Supplementary analysis of existing USAID academic, or government source data; and” appears on page 16, but does not appear on page 14.

Answer: Please refer to the answer provided for Question No. 7 above.

44. Question: Can the Mission provide greater clarity on RFP page number 16 on the anticipated sample size of the impact evaluations and population based surveys in the economic growth, health and education sectors so Offerors may more accurately budget for activities?

Answer: At this point the Mission cannot provide greater clarity on the anticipated sample size.

Please review the illustrative information provided on page 16. As many projects and activities are still in the design phase, and thus, procurement sensitive, offerors are encouraged to provide proposals that provide adaptability and flexibility, which can be responsive to the Mission’s changing needs.

45. Question: The total number of anticipated deliverables or outputs provided on RFP page 28 differs from the number of anticipated evaluation project task list on RFP page 106. Can the Mission confirm which page Offerors’ should budget against?

46. Question: On RFP page 87 under Section L.6 Instructions for Preparation of Technical

Proposal, the Mission lists “Program Management, Performance Plan, and Evaluation Methodology,” as a required section. This section is not detailed in Section L or M. Can the Mission confirm what are the requirements and instructions for this section?

Answer: The listed “Program Management, Performance Plan, and Evaluation Methodology” under RFP Section L.6 page No. 87 is not required. Please disregard.

47. Question: Can the Mission provide greater clarity what is meant on RFP page 106 in reference to the anticipated “program & resource management” evaluations?

Answer: As many projects and activities are still in the design phase, and thus, procurement sensitive, offerors are encouraged to provide proposals that provide adaptability and flexibility, which can be responsive to the Mission’s changing needs.

48. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section B.5, Paragraph 2, page 11: “Indirect costs are not allowed for local organizations. All costs for local organization shall be budgeted and billed

USAID/Senegal Mission-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Project as direct costs” Can you please clarify that this clause is only for a successful local organization bidder. If an international organization is awarded the contract and uses a local sub awardee may they calculate an indirect rate against that sub award?

Answer: As per the “Best Practices Guide for Indirect Costing” available at http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/300mah.pdf, “[m]ost local non- U.S. organizations have a handful of employees, few U.S. Government awards at one time and basic accounting systems. Indirect cost rates are generally not warranted unless an organization has many government awards at once necessitating a system to equitably allocate shared costs (i.e. indirect cost rates). Thus, it is generally best for local non-U.S. organizations to charge all costs direct when possible, rather than establish indirect cost rates. However, it is ultimately up to the management of the subject organization to determine if it will establish an indirect costing system. If a firm meets the requirements for the establishment of indirect cost rates, including an adequate accounting system, then the proposed indirect cost rates should be honored.”

49. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section C.1, Paragraph 2, page 13: Would USAID please share a list of “average or big projects” or “proof of concepts or pilots” that require impact evaluations?

Answer: Please refer to the answer provided for Question No. 47 above.

50. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section C.4.1.1, Paragraph 4, page 15: The RFP makes reference to an “attached table Annex 2.” However, “Annex 2” was not included in the RFP. Would USAID please make Annex 2 available?

Answer: The listed “Annex 2” under Section C.4.1.1, Paragraph 4, page 15 was incorporated as an attachment. Please disregard.

51. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section C.4.1.1, Paragraph 5, page 15: Task 2 states:

Evaluation reports must be provided in English and French. While RFP P24, F.6 Reports and Deliverables or Outputs, 1. Reports, states “All reports must be written in plain, grammatically correct English.” Would USAID kindly clarify in which language(s) project reports are to be submitted?

Answer: Evaluation reports are requested in English and French to ensure the largest audience both in the United States and Senegal for the lessons learned. Therefore, Section F.6(1) has been modified to reflect this change.

52. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section C.4.1.1, Paragraph 1, page 16: Would

USAID provide a list of major local languages for which the offeror should anticipate and budget?

Answer: Given the broad geographic scope of possible assessment and evaluation activities outlined in the RFP, the offeror should anticipate the need to have materials produced in or retain translation services for the following national languages in Senegal: French, Balanta-Ganja, Hassaniyya, Jola-Fonyi, Mandinka, Mandjak, Mankanya, Noon (Serer-Noon), Pulaar, Serer, Soninke, and Wolof.

USAID/Senegal Mission-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Project

53. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section C.4.1.1, Paragraph 1, page 16: The RFP lists 50 and 60 percent of national territory for Economic Growth and Health and Education respectively, yet use the same number of administrative departments and villages. Would USAID please clarify how much national territory should be covered in each High Impact Evaluation by technical sector?

Answer: Please refer to the answer provided for Question No. 44 above.

54. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section C.4.1.1, Paragraph 1, page 16: The RFP states that “a local sub award is required…to Gaston Berger University of Senegal…” Does USAID anticipate that the local sub award to Gaston Berger University will be done through a non-competitive process?

Answer: Please refer to the answer provided for Question No. 13 above.

55. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section C.5, Paragraph 5, page 17:The RFP states that “The Contractor must establish an in-country presence and support center…” responsible for all financial and reporting tasks? Would USAID please clarify how it defines a “support center?” Does USAID envision that all administrative and financial reporting is completed and submitted from the field office?

Answer: No, USAID does not anticipate that all administrative and financial reporting be completed and submitted from the field office. However, the RFP does expect that adequate management of administrative and programmatic functions are overseen by a field support center and that the Mission be able to work directly with field personnel to resolve issues.

56. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section C.6, Paragraph 3, page 18: Reference is made to the “Local Compensation Plan (LCP) for Cooperating Country National (CCN) personnel” on pages 18, 30, and 41, but no such plan is included. Would USAID please provide the LCP for Senegal?

57. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section H.8, Paragraph 2, page 42: states “No compensation for consultants will be reimbursed unless their use under the Contract has advance written approval of the Contracting Officer; and if such provision has been made or approval given, compensation shall not exceed: 1) the highest rate of annual compensation received by the consultant during any full year of the immediately preceding three years or 2) the maximum daily salary rate as described in AAPD 06-03, whichever is less.”

a. Does USAID anticipate reviewing and approving each consultants rate prior to their start of work? Does this also imply that consultants are not eligible for a raise from their previous daily rates?

Answer: Yes. USAID will review and approve each consultant’s rate prior to his or her start of work. As per AIDAR 752.7001 and 752.7007, Biographical Data and Personnel Compensation, cost-reimbursement contracts require prior approval of base salary rates by USAID Contracting Officers for “all individuals to be sent outside the United States, or any

USAID/Senegal Mission-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Project employees designated as “key personnel.”” This does not, however, imply that consultants are not eligible for a raise from their previous daily rates. Contractors must propose an average daily rate based on the applicant’s salary history for the last three years and may propose a 3 – 10 percent incentive increase. Nevertheless, approval of the increase is at Contracting Officer’s discretion.

58. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section L.3, Paragraph 9, page 84: Would USAID please confirm that there is no page limit for the Cost Proposal?

Answer: No, there is no page limit for the Cost Proposal. Please refer to the answer provided for Question No. 1 above.

59. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section L.3, Paragraph 10, page 84: Would USAID please confirm that the 5MB limit is a cumulative total for all attachments per email?

Answer: Yes, the 5MB limit is a cumulative total for all attachments per email.

60. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section L.6, Paragraph 1, page 87: Instructions for Preparation of Technical Proposal, Would USAID please clarify what the agency expects to see in a “Technical Implementation and Scaling Plan?” Does this Plan count against the 35-page limit?

NOTE: This is the only mention of the “Technical Implementation and Scaling Plan” in the entire RFP.

Answer: The listed “Technical Implementation and Scaling Plan” under Section L.6, Paragraph 1, page 87 is not required. Please disregard.

61. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section L.6, Paragraph 1, page 87: Instructions for

Preparation of Technical Proposal, Would USAID please clarify or define what the agency expects to see in the “Program Management, Performance Plan, and Evaluation Methodology” section? Do these documents or sections count against the 35-page limit?

NOTE: This is the only mention of the “Performance Plan” in the entire RFP.

Answer: The listed “Performance Plan” under Section L.6, Paragraph 1, page 87 is not required. Please disregard.

62. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section L.6, Paragraph 1, page 87: Instructions for

Preparation of Technical Proposal. Would USAID kindly confirm if the following annexes, which are referenced in different parts of the subject solicitation, may be added:

• Staffing Pattern

• Letters of Commitment from Proposed Sub-Offerors/Partners

• Short-Term Technical Experts (STTA) Matrix

Answer: Yes, the aforementioned annexes may be added. Please refer to the answer provided for Question No. 11 above.

USAID/Senegal Mission-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Project

63. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section L.6.1.3, Paragraph 6, page 88: Should the project team organogram also be included in the Management Approach section as a table and would that count against the 35-page limit?

Answer: Please refer to the answer provided for Question No. 4 above.

64. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section L.6.1.3, Paragraph 4, page 89: Should the staffing pattern be included in the Management Approach section and does that count against the 35-page limit or should it be included in the Annex?

Answer: Please refer to the answer provided for Questions No. 4 and 62 above, respectively.

65. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section L.7, Paragraph 3, page 93: States “Each part

[of cost proposal] must be separated by a tab or colored divider page.” Would USAID please confirm that colored pages are required in the electronic format/submission?

Answer: No, colored pages are not required in the electronic format/submission.

66. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section L.7, Paragraph 3, page 93: States “The

Offerors shall also provide a separate summary budget for each subcontractor.” Would USAID Please clarify whether or not this refers to only “Major Subcontractors?”

Answer: Please refer to the answer provided for Question No. 31 above.

67. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049, Section L.7 Instruction for the Preparation of the

Cost Proposal, 2. Budget Line Item Headings, Paragraph 1, Page 94. Would USAID kindly clarify how project management costs (i.e. Allowances for expatriate or Third-Country National Staff, Office equipment, General Local Operating Costs) be accounted for amongst the two (2) outlined CLINS? Would USAID consider an equitable distribution of project management costs across these two CLINS?

Answer: Offerors are free to propose how they believe project management costs should be accounted for amongst the two CLINs as well as propose an equitable distribution of project management costs across these two CLINs. As per RFP Section M.3, “[n]o rating is assigned to the cost proposals evaluation.” Moreover, “Cost will primarily be evaluated for realism, allowability, and reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1.”

68. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section L.7, Paragraph 1, page 96: The USAID

Contractor Salary Threshold is defined as $167,000 on page 96. This was the maximum for Agencies without a Certified SES Performance Appraisal System (AWCPAS) in 2014. The updated 2015 Salary Table for “Rates of Basic Pay for Members of the Senior Executive Service” indicates a maximum salary of $168,700 for AWCPAS. Can USAID kindly confirm that the correct maximum salary should be $168,700?

Answer: Yes, the maximum salary should be $168,700 per the Salary Table No. 2015-ES Rates of Basic Pay for Members of the Senior Executive Service (SES).

USAID/Senegal Mission-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Project

69. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section L.7, Paragraph 3, page 96: 5. Supporting Documentation, states that “AID Form 1420-17 – Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheets, should be submitted for each position with identified personnel.”

a. Question: Would USAID kindly clarify if the AID Form 1420-17 for local personnel should be presented in USD or local currency (West African CFA Franc)?

Answer: The AID Form 1420-17 for local personnel should be presented in West African CFA Franc in accordance with the local compensation plan.

70. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section M.2.1, Paragraph 3, page 102: Technical Understanding, states “The M&E plan for this contract is clearly articulated;” There is no other mention of an M&E Plan in Sections C or L, nor in the List of Annexes on page 87. Would USAID please clarify what M&E Plan is referenced on page 102?

Answer: Section F.6 should include the following:

“3. M&E Plan

The M&E plan will feed into the Mission PMP and will include a detailed explanation of the steps necessary to collect data to measure progress against key indicators as well as annual targets set towards achieving the results of this requirement. The M&E Plan must include gender-related activities/actions and monitoring of gender action plans. The Contractor must submit the final M&E Plan for COR approval within the first 60 days of award of the contract.”

The RFP has been modified to reflect this change.

71. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section M.3, Paragraph 4, page 104-5: Given the importance of cost realism in the evaluation of cost proposals, as described in M.3, would USAID kindly clarify the volume of work to be done under each component in light of inconsistencies throughout the RFP?

a. Section C.4.1.1 on pages 15-6 lists “38 studies, evaluations or assessment (see attached table Annex 1 […] of which 5-6 are expected to be impact evaluations,” and Section C.4.1.2 on page 17 list 31 studies, assessments or reports, for a total of 69 exercises

b. Annex 1 on page 106 has a total of 74 exercises, which includes 30-32 evaluations, 12-14 impact evaluations, and 31 studies/assessments/surveys

c. The table in Section F.6.2 lists a total of 48 exercises, distributed as 21 evaluations and 6 impact evaluations for Component 1, and 21 studies/assessments/surveys for Component 2

d. The “Task List Highlights” slide from the Pre-Proposal Conference on 2 June, which lists a total of 73 exercises, distributed as 31 evaluations and 12 impact evaluations for Component 1, and 30 studies/assessments/surveys for Component 2.

72. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section Annex 1, Paragraph N/A, page 106: Would USAID kindly provide guidance (in terms of sample size) large versus small studies/assessments and surveys?

73. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section Annex 1, Paragraph N/A, page 106: Would

USAID kindly provide guidance on large versus small evaluations with respect to both team size and geographic scope?

74. Question: Reference: SOL-685-15-000049 Section Annex 1, Paragraph N/A, page 106: Does

USAID/ Senegal expect that impact evaluations ordered under this project would begin after a new CDCS is developed?

Answer: Given that activities are anticipated to begin prior to the end of the current CDCS, some impact evaluation activities will need to start under the current CDCS. Please refer to the answer provided for Question No. 26 above.

75. Question: SOL-685-15-000049 Section B.1, paragraph 1, page 9 & Section C.4.1.2, paragraph 1, page 16 Section B.1: Purpose indicates that the scope of the aware will include assessments of activity/project design. Would the tasks mentioned on page 16 (under Section C.4.1.2 Component Two-Activity/Project/Strategy Development, Analysis and Reporting) therefore also include the assessment (technical review and recommendations) of IP project design?

Answer: Tasks listed may include assessments that inform project and activity design.

76. Question: SOL-685-15-000049 Section C.3, paragraph 2, page 14. Under Performance

Management services, the first sentence refers to supporting “implementation of the Mission’s M&E procedures and programs.” Can you provide a copy of the Mission’s M&E procedures?

This would help Offerors to tailor their implementation approach under Component 1.

Answer: Please refer to the Evaluation Policy referenced under the answer provided for Question No. 28 above.

77. Question: SOL-685-15-000049 Section C.3, paragraph 3, page 14 Would activity/project/strategy development assistance also include: a) technical review and support to Implementing Partners (IPs) during the development of their project-level Project Monitoring and Evaluation Plans (PMEPs); b) annual Data Quality Assessments; c) support to the Mission during preparation of the annual PPR?

Answer: At this point, the Mission does not envision having the successful offeror provide assistance to the IP at the activity level.

USAID/Senegal Mission-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Project

78. Question: SOL-685-15-000049 Section C.4.1.1, paragraph 3 & 5, page 15 & 16; Section C.4.1.2, paragraph 1, page 17; Section F.6, table, page 28; Annex 1, page 106. Please clarify the number of each activity we should propose for Section C (Component 1, Task 1) calls for 38 studies, evaluations or assessments and (Component 2, Task 3) 31 studies, surveys, data analyses, assessments, reports, or stakeholder consultations. However, Section F.6 (2 Deliverables or Outputs) calls for 27 evaluations for Component 1 and 21 Studies, Assessments and Surveys in Component 2. Finally, Annex 1 calls for 44 evaluations and 32 studies, assessments and surveys.

Please clarify the correct numbers so that we may plan for and budget correctly.

Answer: Please refer to the answer provided under Question No. 7 above.

79. Question: SOL-685-15-000049 Annex 1, page 106 & Section F.4, paragraph 1, page 23 Annex 1 specifies the location of 1 evaluation; however, page 23 under Place of Performance indicates that there are other places of performance outside of Senegal (Guinea, Niger, Burkina Faso, Mauritania and Chad). Is it possible that Annex 1 can be amended to include the specific programs and the location of each to be evaluated?

Answer: Please refer to the answer provided under Question No. 8 above.

80. Question: SOL-685-15-000049 Section C.4.1.1, paragraph 4, page 15 & C.4.1.2, paragraph 2, page 16 Can USAID provide the proposed set of regions where the evaluations and studies will be conducted and their frequency? For journey management planning and security, knowing the regions that will be visited and how often will help greatly in budgeting and maintaining MOSS for this project.

Answer: Please refer to the answer provided under Question No. 8 above.

81. Question: SOL-685-15-000049 Section C.4.1.1, paragraph 5, page 16. The first full paragraph on page 16 calls for “5 – 6 High Impact Evaluations.” Please specify what is meant by a high impact evaluation as opposed to an impact evaluation.

Answer: The text should read “Impact Evaluations.”

82. Question: SOL-685-15-000049 Section C.4.1.1, paragraph 5, page 16: Sample size is mentioned in terms of percentage (5% to 10%), rather than in terms of statistical significance. Would it not be more precise and provide greater clarity if this were expressed in terms of the required minimum level of statistical significance (e.g. 90% or 95%) as well as the minimum level of statistical confidence (e.g. +/- 5%)?

Answer: Please refer to the answer provided under Question No. 44 above.

83. Question: SOL-685-15-000049 Section C.4.1.1, paragraph 5, page 16 Please clarify “A local sub-award is required for this element of task two, to the Gaston Berger University of Senegal” (a) Since this sub-award is mandated, is there a pre-established scope of work, staffing plan, and budget allocated for this sub-award? If so, can this be provided to Offerors? (b) If not, are Offerors expected to make their own arrangements with Gaston Berger University? If so, can you please advise who the principal point of contact is? What common/joint provisions are in place to keep each Offeror’s information from being shared with others? (c) Does each Offeror

USAID/Senegal Mission-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Project have to submit separate past performance references, NICRA, etc. for Gaston Berger University?

Answer: Please refer to the answer provided under Question No. 13 above.

84. Question: SOL-685-15-000049 Section C.4.1.2, paragraph 1, page 16. Would support for high quality activity, program, and strategy development also include support to IPs during the development of their PMEPs?

Answer: Please refer to the answer provided under Question No. 77 above.

85. Question: SOL-685-15-000049 Section C.4.1.2, paragraph 1 bullet 8, page 16. To what extent will the contractor be called on to provide assistance in project development design? Will this primarily be limited to providing assistance in logframe development? Please clarify.

Answer: Please refer to the answer provided under Question No. 77 above.

86. Question: SOL-685-15-000049 Section C.4.1.1, paragraph 4, page 15 & Section F.6, paragraph

2, page 24, please clarify the language requirement for report. On page 15, it states that reports must be submitted in English and French; however, on page 24, under “1 Reports,” it states that “all reports must be written…