SOL-688-14-000001_M E_PLATFORM_AMEND._01.pdf

ATTACHMENT A – Responses to Questions

General –

1. As we are conducting comprehensive analyses in-country to understand RFP requirements, is it possible to kindly extend the deadline of submission for this proposal?

Response: The submission date has been extended to October 28, 2014.

2. Due time:

- On pages 1 and 3, the RFP states that the proposal is due at 9:00 PM Washington time, however on page 88 it says “all proposals in response to this solicitation shall be submitted at the address noted in Section L.10 no later than the local date and time indicated at the top of the cover letter to this RFP.” Please confirm that the proposal is due at 9:00 PM EDT, not local Mali time.

Response: Proposals must be submitted by 9pm Washington D.C, Eastern Time, October 28, 2014.

Questions Related to the Technical Proposal:

1. Working with Government of Mali (GOM):

- Are there any current USAID restrictions on supporting and/or collaborating with the Government of Mali? If so, please explain the nature of those restrictions and how they may impact the potential implementation of the M&E Platform IDIQC.

- Page 13, C.3, USAID/Mali Program Overview – Would USAID/Mali share the policy guidance regarding the avoidance of government systems, as mentioned on Page 13 of the RFP?

Response: The last sentence of the 2nd paragraph on page 13 has been deleted. All restrictions have been lifted for USAID Mali programs.

2. Re the CDCS:

- Can the Mission please clarify when the USAID/Mali Country Development Cooperation Strategy

(CDCS) is scheduled to be completed?

- We would appreciate if USAID/Mali released as an attachment to the RFP the current Mission

CDCS, Results Framework and/or PMP.

Response: The Mission anticipates to have an approved CDCS in place during 1st quarter of 2015 (calendar year). Once the CDCS is approved, a mission-wide PMP will need to be developed with the assistance of the winner of this contract. Meanwhile, the Health team and the Economic Growth team have their sectoral PMP available and could be shared with interested bidders.

For those interested, please send the a request to cocoulibaly@usaid.gov

3. Has the Mission developed Project Appraisal Documents (PADS) across its portfolio? If not completed, how close are the PADs to completion?

Response: Yes, the Mission has already developed PADs in the sectors of Health, Economic Growth and Education. The PAD for the sector of Governance is under development.

4. GPS (Global Positioning System) is mentioned in the Acronyms page, but not anywhere in the RFP.

Can you please elaborate on whether GIS will be a big component of efforts in this project?

Response: The implementer of this platform is not expected to develop, nor manage any GIS related component.

mailto:cocoulibaly@usaid.gov

5. Page 12: Can USAID provide any specificity regarding its current use of a database to store and analyze implementing partners’ data?

Response: The Mission is adopting AidTracker, a new agency-wide developed database management system. Please see a two-pager on AidTracker in Attachment C.

6. Section C.2 (p. 12) notes that the M&E Platform is intended to streamline processes and strengthen Mission and implementing partner capacities so that by the end of this 5-year IDIQC this Platform will no longer be needed. Could USAID kindly clarify its vision of this IDIQC in light of this statement?

While substantial capacity strengthening should result from efforts extended through this project it appears that after five years USAID will continue to have need for externally conducted evaluations, surveys, etc.

Response: The primary purpose of this Platform being capacity building of USAID Mali staff, it is anticipated that after 5 years of implementation the staff will be capable of properly handling its performance management activities, including developing/designing sound evaluation scopes. The mission is not envisioning conducting evaluations and surveys by its staff. Those will continue to be out-sourced.

7. RFP page 13, Section C.3.1 – Health Program notes that “while USAID implements the majority of health activities in Mali, GHI is a ‘whole of government’ initiative.” Does USAID expect the contractor to work with other U.S. Government stakeholders in providing M&E services for Global Health Initiative activities?

Response: The Contractor will be expected to work only with USAID’s implementing partners. Not with other US Government partners.

8. Impact Evaluations:

- The text on page 16 of the RFP says that the contractor will “provide assistance in the design

[only] of a minimum of two impact evaluations” while the table on page 17 references 3. Can you please confirm the number of proposed impact evaluation designs to be completed?

Response: Offerors should plan for designing three impact evaluations. The third impact evaluation will be in education sector.

9. Section C.4.1:

- Section C.4 Tasks mentions as a key component of IDIQC management and coordination “set up a management structure and management information and communications system that will ensure effective implementation of Task Order 1, plus other Task Orders that may subsequently be awarded”. Can the Mission please provide more information about its existing management information and communications system? Are offerors expected to propose to deliver a customized, automated MIS as part of this proposal?

- RFP page 15, Section C.4.1 – IDIQC Management and Implementation states that the contractor will “set up a management structure and management information and communications systems that will ensure effective implementation of Task Order 1, plus other Task Orders that may subsequently be awarded.” Could USAID confirm if the Mission has in-place an operational M&E information management system? If so, could USAID provide details on the M&E information management database specifications?

Response: The Contractor is not expected to develop and establish an independent M&E related database system for the mission. The Agency has already developed AidTracker that the mission will be using (see response to Question 5).

This section meant to say that the Mission expect the Contractor to set up an internal system capable of providing readily, complete and accurate data and information as results of the contractor’s operations:

surveys conducted, data collected during periodic visits, meetings notes, progress reports, etc.

10. Will developing the capacity of local data collection teams be a function of the projects funded under the IDIQ?

Response: The contractor of this platform is not expected to train local data collection teams. When deficiencies are identified at that level and recommendations made to USAID by the contractor, those (recommendations) will be conveyed to the appropriate implementing partner(s) in charge of the project(s) for consideration. And the USAID’s C/ORs will be responsible for follow up.

11. Section C.4.2.1 indicates that the offeror will provide technical assistance to USAID/Mali C/AORs to develop, revise and/or update USAID/Mali’s Performance Management Plan (PMP) and and Project Monitoring Plans for 8-10 Projects. Can the Mission please clarify if an existing Mission-wide PMP is currently in place at this time? How closely aligned is the new CDCS with the strategy as reflected in the current PMP?

Response: The Mission doesn’t have yet a mission-wide PMP in place. Once the CDCS gets completed and approved, a mission-wide PMP will need to be developed with the assistance of the implementer of this contract.

12. RFP page 16, Footnote #6 to Section C.4.2.1 states, “MISTI’s ability to conduct an impact evaluation will depend on whether the information made available to MISTI by other stabilization programs allows it to perform a quantitative analysis of program efforts using a random control trial or quasi-experimental design.” Can USAID please clarify the nature of the MISTI project and how it will relate to the M&E Platform IDIQC, particularly Task Order 1?

Response: Footnote has been revised (deleted).

13. Among the illustrative assessments, special studies, and survey tasks listed on page 17 is an activity to design, conduct and report on data sets that will serve as a baseline for approximately eight (8) projects. Could USAID please clarify as to whether or not such a study would be expected to feature one or more large-sample surveys to be designed and administered by the awardee?

Response: Yes it could, depending on the size of the project.

14. The Illustrative Evaluation Plan in C.4.2.2 (p. 17) lists an estimate of eight (8) design-only performance evaluations, but the yearly breakdown lists only four (4). Could USAID please clarify the expected timing of the design-only performance evaluation tasks?

Response: The plan on p.17 lists four (4) design-only performance evaluations [all in year 4] and four (4) design-implement performance evaluations [3 in year 4 and 1 in year 5].

15. RFP page 17, Section C.4.2.2 – Component 2, Impact Evaluation and Assistance includes an illustrative Evaluation Plan which estimates a total of three impact evaluation designs. Could USAID confirm that it envisions the M&E Platform providing design support only for impact evaluations or could the contractor also be required to implement impact evaluations?

Response: The contractor will be providing design support only for the impact evaluations.

16. RFP Section C.4.2.2, Component 2, is titled “Impact and Performance Evaluation Assistance.” RFP Section C.4.3, Component 3, is titled “Special Studies, Assessments, and Surveys.” RFP page 18 includes an Illustrative Assessment Plan table that includes estimates for minor evaluations and mid-term evaluations. Can USAID please clarify the difference between the evaluations anticipated under Component 2 and those anticipated under Component 3?

Response: Component 2 is purely about the USAID “required” evaluations: Performance and Impact. Please refer to footnotes 5-6-7 (on page 16) for definitions and use the link provided for more information.

17. In the Table on page-18 of the RFP that describes activities for Component-3, it states “minor evaluations” and “Mid-term evaluations.” Should these not be included in Component-2 instead of Component-3?

Response: Component 2 is purely about the USAID “required” evaluations: Performance and Impact. Please refer to footnotes 5-6-7 (on page 16) for definitions and use the link provided for more information.

18. RFP page 90, Section L.12 (b), states that “the offeror must submit a draft M&E Plan that must explain how the Offeror will monitor and evaluate activities and measure expected outcomes for Task Order 1.” Could USAID confirm that the Draft Monitoring and Evaluation Plan should only include the activities that fall within the Statement of Work for Task Order 1 included in Attachment J.1?

Response: Yes the Draft M&E Plan should only cover activities for Task Order 1.

19. Indicators – outputs – outcomes:

- On page 92 of the RFP, it requests that we provide “a list of indicators to measure achievements and progress towards the objectives of the proposed SOW.” Would it be acceptable to place this discussion in the M&E plan itself?

Response: Yes, these indicators may be included in the M&E plan.

20. Which draft Plans are required to be included in the proposal? (Mobilization Plan, Work Plan, M&E Plan, etc.)?

Response: The required plans are the following: (1) the draft M&E Plan, (2) the draft Implementation & Timeline Plan and (3) the draft Work Plan for year 1 (that includes the Mobilization Plan), as described in revised List of Annexes in Attachment B of this RFP Amendment.

21. Draft workplan/timeline annex:

- Can you please confirm that the draft timeline for implementation (Annex B) noted on page 90 of the RFP is the same thing as the draft work plan mentioned on page 92 under the Technical Approach to Task Order 1.

- If they are the same thing, please confirm that the timeline for implementation/workplan is only for the first year of the program as mentioned on page 92.

Response: As mentioned in the response 19 above, the Section L12 has been modified to reflect that offerors should submit two plans: a draft timeline plan and a workplan.

22. In reference to RFP L.12(e) page 92, the instructions require that the technical approach ensures the “integration with USAID staff and implementing partners learning activities.” Will USAID provide information on the ongoing learning activities that must be integrated to the technical approach?

Response: The Offeror is only expected to discuss its plan of integration at this stage. The successful candidate will receive all needed information upon award in order to finalize first year implementation plan.

23. In section L.12 (e), the RFP requires the inclusion of “a draft work plan for the first year of the program…” The list of annexes presented on pages 90-91 includes only a “Draft Timeline for Implementation”. Will the Draft Timeline for Implementation be fully responsive to the requirement for a draft workplan?

Response: In reference to the revised list of Annexes (Attachment B), only the draft work plan is for the first year of the program. The draft timeline is expected for the life of the program.

24. For Task Order 1 training and technical assistance: will USAID provide the venue for events that may require gatherings larger than 10-12 participants, or should offerors expect to provide this?

Response: Offerors are expected to provide.

25. Page-105 of the RFP states that Northern Mali is part of USAID/Mali objectives, but the map on page-

135 (Attachment J.8) seems to exclude Northern Mali as a priority area of intervention. Can USAID kindly clarify this matter?

Response: The Mission confirms that Northern Mali is part of its objectives and is a priority area. Currently, as one can see on the map in J.8, both FtF and Health are represented in the northern area. Others programs (Education, Governance, Global Climate Change) will be deployed once designs are completed and when security permits.

26. Approximately how many implementing partners will require assistance with revisions to their Activity M&E Plans? (page 107)

Response: This is hard to tell right now. There will be a universe of approximately 25-30 implementing partners (IP) for USAID Mali. Only 1/3 approximately is currently on the ground. New implementing partners are expected to start during 2015 and some others in 2016. So assistance with revisions to Activities M&E Plans will be on case by case basis and will be determined by USAID’s A/CORs based on deficiencies, weaknesses revealed by the IP progress reports and/or by field visits and data quality assessments conducted by USAID’s staff and the implementer of this Platform.

27. Are M&E reporting requirements included in IP contracts? If so, how many IPs routinely report program performance data vis-à-vis targets according to their M&E Plans?

Response: Yes M&E reporting requirements are included in IP contracts. And they all report data according to their plans. The issue is around the quality of data and information coming out of the M&E systems that are established by some IPs. The quality of data reflects the quality of the system it is originated from.

28. Do all required reports have to be translated in French?

Response: The Contractor of this Platform is not expected to translate the required reports. USAID remains the main client of this contract.

29. Attachment J.1, Section F.5, Deliverables and reporting requirements, pages 111 & 112: Tasks 1 through 4 all have due dates within 120 day after award. To undertake thorough job updating PMPs for various sectors, projects and implementing partners’ activities, we feel the tasks need to be spread out over the course of the first year. Can we propose a different time for completing these tasks?

Response: Due dates for Tasks 1 to 4 are estimates. Offerors are free to propose alternative deliverable due dated.

30. Is it okay to include an extra Annex for a matrix of short-term local technical experts? This will illustrate that we have local experts on the ground who are ready to respond to requests for short-term assistance.

Response: Section L.12 (b) has been revised to include Annex I for the Short-Term Technical experts and local non-key experts.

31. Can the Mission confirm that AIDTracker+ has been rolled out there or the planned date for rollout?

Response: It was planned for September 2014 but was delayed by Washington. The Mission now anticipates the roll out during first quarter of 2015.

32. The solicitation states that “USAID/Mali recently submitted a request to withdraw FTF and GCC resources from northern Mali due to the recent conflict.” What is the current status of that request?

Should the bidder budget for supporting M&E platform activities in northern Mali?

Response: The Mission confirms that FtF and other sectors projects will be deployed in the northern regions of Mali. And yes, the bidder should budget for supporting M&E platform activities in northern Mali, including routine monitoring activities of projects and data quality assessments.

33. The solicitation states that 500,000 people will be directly targeted through FTF agricultural interventions, an estimated 1.26 will benefit indirectly, and targeted nutrition interventions will reach up to 600,000 mothers and children under five years old. Is there overlap in those groups of targeted and indirect beneficiaries?

Response: Yes, the intent is for there to be as much overlap as possible.

Questions regarding the format and Cost of the proposal

34. RFP page 37, Section H.14 – Authorized Work Week, the RFP states that “on certain occasions, a six day workweek must be authorized only on a case-by-case basis with prior approval from the TOCO.”

However, page 106 of the RFP, Attachment J.1 Section C.4.1 Implementation and Management of Task Order 1, states that “a six-day workweek is authorized for work in Mali.” Can USAID please clarify if all long and short-term expatriates are authorized to work a six-day workweek under Task Order 1?

Response: the basic workweek at post is 40 hours total for long-term expatriates and permanent local staff.

The 6-day workweek mentioned in the IDIQC, Section H.14, mostly applies to short-term staff. The last sentence of the third paragraph in Attachment J.1, Task Order, Section C.4.1 is deleted with this amendment.

35. RFP page 88, Section L.9 (a) states that “the U.S. Government anticipates awarding one IDIQC and Task Order 1 as a result of this Solicitation and two task orders subsequently. Does USAID plan to issue a total of three task orders only under this IDIQ? If so, could USAID kindly clarify when these task orders are expected to be released?

Response: The sentence following in the same paragraph also states that: “The Agency reserves the right to award more or less awards than the anticipated number of contracts stated.” To avoid any confusion, the second part of the sentence highlighted above is revised with this RFP Amendment.

36. RFP page 88, Section L.9 (a) – Awards states that “the offerors must pay special attention to the RFTOPs attached to this RFP. Could USAID clarify if there are other RFTOPs intended to be included with the RFP?

Response: It is a typo. Only Task Order 1 RFTOP is attached to this solicitation. No other RFTOP is intended to be included with the RFP.

37. Page limitation and Annexes:

- RFP page 90, Section L.12 (a) – Organization of Technical Proposal states that Annexes are not included in the 30 page limit. Page 90, Section L.12. (b) “Content of Technical Proposal, Annex E- Organizational Chart” states “The Offeror should provide an organizational chart (included in the page total).” Could USAID please clarify if the organizational chart counts against the 30-page limit for the technical proposal? If it does, should the organizational chart be included in the body of the technical proposal as well as in Annex E?

Response: It is a typo. Section L.12. (b) must read “The Offeror should provide an organizational chart (not included in the page total).”

38. RFP page 90, Section L.12 (b), Annex D is “Letter of Commitment (Key Personnel)”, while RFP page 91, Section L.12 (b), Annex F is “Signed letters of commitment from key personnel and from sub-partners.” Can USAID please clarify in which annex (es) letters of commitment from key personnel and letters of commitment from subcontractors should be included?

Response: The second is an oversight. Letters of commitment for both key personnel and subcontractors must be included in Annex F only. See revised Section L.12 (b) in Attachment B of this amendment.

39. RFP page 92, Section L.12 (e) – Technical Approach to Task Order 1 states “The Offeror will include in an annex a draft work plan.” Could USAID confirm if this is the same as Annex B, Draft Timeline for Implementation referred to on RFP page 90, or are these separate annexes? If they are separate, can USAID please clarify the difference between the two and also specify where in the order of annexes offerors should submit the draft work plan?

Response: The draft workplan and the draft timeline are separate annexes. The draft workplan is a narrative supplementing the proposed technical approach. The Implementation Plan & Timeline are more a summary than a narrative for the life of the activity. See revised Section L.12 (b) in Attachment B of this amendment.

40. RFP page 92, Section L.12 (f) – Management Plan and Key Personnel states that the Offeror must include “a mobilization schedule including a plan that demonstrates ability and commitment to mobilize and start implementing activities within 90 days after contract award.” Can USAID please clarify if a mobilization plan can be submitted as an annex to the technical proposal, and, if so, where in the order of annexes Offerors should submit the mobilization plan?

Response: the mobilization plan is part of the Workplan for the first year, listed as Annex D, in the revised Section L.12 (b) in Attachment B of this amendment.

41. Past Performance format:

- Are Past Performance Reference short forms acceptable to fulfill the past performance information section? If not, can USAID clarify what information and format it expects for this section?

- Please clarify how the offeror is being asked to present past performance information. Does USAID have a preferred format for past performance information?

Response: USAID Mali does not impose a format for past performance. However, if an offeror has had previous related experience, it is expected that the offer will provide minimum information regarding this(these) project(s) implementation, such as the title and brief description of the activity, the funder, the location, total estimated cost, period of performance and contacts followed by a short evaluation of the performance and achievements.

- How many PPRs are requested from prime, how many from subs?

Response: the number is left at the discretion of the offeror, for both prime and major subs.

- Page 93, L.12, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, Past Performance Information– In the outline sequence, Past Performance is listed as coming before the annexes.

Please confirm that all Past Performance Information is excluded from the page limitation and should be included in an annex.

Response: A brief summary is expected at the end of the 30-page technical proposal. The reports are expected as the Annex J in the revised Section L.12 (b) in Attachment B of this amendment.

42. RFP page 107, Attachment J.1 – Task Order 1 requires the contractor to train “Mission staff … and selected implementing partners” and to “Provide technical assistance to USAID/Mali staff.” How many individuals does USAID estimate will be trained and/or receive M&E technical assistance under Task Order 1?

Response: USAID Mali estimate for Mission staff is approximately 40 people. Please refer to response to question 26 for the Implementing Partners.

43. Can local Malian experts have non-exclusive Letters of Commitment? I ask because we will also be having non-exclusive agreements with local Malian organizations.

Response: The non-exclusivity applies to both the subs and consultants, either local or expatriates.

44. Is the Cover Letter included in the 30-page limit for the Technical proposal?

Response: The 30-page limitation does not include the cover letter as written in L.12 (a).

45. How long should resumes of proposed local non-key experts be in the proposal? Is it possible to submit the full resumes of Key Personnel, but submit a matrix of blurbs that describe local non-key experts and but not their resumes?

Response: Resumes must be a maximum of 3 pages, and come as an annex of the technical proposal. Only resumes of Key personnel are required. Section L.12 (b) has been revised to include Annex I for the Short- Term Technical experts and local non-key experts.

46. According to L.13 Part 2 (page 94): “Completed biographical data sheets, Form AID 1420‐17 (see Attachment J.4), must be provided for all key personnel and professional positions expected to perform on the contract. Please clarify if USAID requires bio-data forms of any other personnel – including illustrative, long-term and short-term, field staff and home office staff – who are named in the proposal, or if we can limit the submission of bio-data forms to just the most significant staff?

Response: As written on page 94 of the RFP, bio-data sheets must be provided for all key personnel and professional positions expected to perform on the contract, and are part of the Cost Proposal.

47. The RFP (pages 22 & 36) notes that all deliverables should be in English. Does this include the training curricula and training materials or will they need to be translated to French?

Response: The training curricula and training materials must be in English. For the Implementing partners and their field agents, some material will need to be translated into French. Offerors can add the cost of translation into their budget.

48. Should the entire Technical Approach be written only in regards to Task Order 1 (Component 1:

Capacity building / Performance Monitoring), or should the Technical Approach address all 3 components. If the latter, then will the Evaluation Criteria (Section-M) of the RFP be revised to reflect this? Currently the Evaluation Criteria only reflect Task Order-1, as does Section L (Instructions for the proposal).

Response: As written in RFP Section M.2, the Technical Approach and Management Plan with Key Personnel must be written for implementing Task Order 1.

49. Can 11 or 12 font (Arial or Times New Roman) be used for the Technical proposal?

Response: As written in RFP Section L.11, second paragraph all that is required is a readable font and size.

50. Is the offeror able to make changes to the proposal outline as long as all of the required content is included? For example, can the offeror place the section on “Understanding of the IDIQC Needs and Offeror’s Capacity and Experience” following the “Executive Summary,” and then provide the section on “Technical Approach to Task Order 1?”

Response: The recommended order in the solicitation follows the evaluation criteria order. Please use the outline specified.

51. SF Disclosure of Lobbying Activities:

- On page 91, Annex I is listed as SF Disclosure of Lobbying Activities. Given that this is a certification; can you please confirm that the SF Disclosure of Lobbying Activities should be included in the Cost Proposal and not as an annex to the Technical Proposal?

Response: The SF Disclosure of Lobbying Activities found in Attachment J.5 must be included in the Offeror’s Cost Proposal. The Section L.12 (b) is revised to remove the SF Disclosure of Lobbying Activities from the list of Annexes to the Technical proposal.

52. Page 91, L.12, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal: May the Offeror include Corporate Capability Statements for proposed subcontractors in Annex J?

Response: Offerors must not address Corporate Capability Statements for subcontractors. The Section L.12

(b) is revised to remove the Corporate Capabilities for subcontractors from the list of Annexes as shown in Attachment B.

53. Delivery Instructions:

- Page 90, L.10, Delivery Instructions – Regarding electronic submission, the solicitation states, “… all files are to be in PDF except for cost spreadsheets, which are to be provided as Excel files with cell formulas intact.” However it is noted on Page 94, “The detailed narrative for the cost proposal must be in Microsoft Word.” – Could USAID please confirm which file type is required for electronic submission of the Cost Proposal?

- RFP page 89, Section L.10 – Delivery Instructions states that “all files are to be in PDF except for cost spreadsheets, which are to be provided as Excel files.” Does USAID not require a separate version of the budget narrative in Microsoft Word?

Response: The budget table must be in Excel files and must include all formulas and must not be password protected. The budget narrative must be submitted in Microsoft word format. Everything else should be submitted in PDF format, duly signed by both the employee and the contractor.

54. The RFP indicates on page 93 that a section should be included in the Technical Proposal on the Offeror’s Understanding of IDIQC Needs and Offeror’s Capacity and Expertise and on Page 91 it indicates that a Corporate Capability Statement for the Offeror should be included as Annex J. Could you please clarify for offerors how these two pieces, the Offeror’s Capacity and Expertise in the technical narrative and the Corporate Capability Statement for the Offeror in Annex J, are different?

Response: As deleted in the amendment of the list of annexes in question 52, Corporate Capabilities Statement are deleted from the solicitation.

55. On p. 97 in Section L.10.6 Part 5- Subcontracting Plan the RFP states: “Subcontracting plans must address the goals and the various types of small business specified in the small business subcontracting plan template (Attachment J.6). The plan will include small-disadvantaged businesses, women-owned businesses, HUBZone businesses, and service-disabled veterans-owned businesses or the SB subcontracting goal may be determined to be unacceptable.”

The goals contained in the plan template are

· Small Business (SB) 23.0%

· Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 3.00%

· Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB, includes Section 8(a) firms) 5.00%

· Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) 5.00%

· Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone) 3.00%

We respectfully request that USAID consider FAR 19.702 (b)(3) which states that Subcontracting plans are not required— “For contracts or contract modifications that will be performed entirely outside of the United States and its outlying areas”. Typically, these types of contracts require maximum use of local subcontractors to provide data gathering and other services uniquely suited to local organizations – and at a significantly lower cost than performing those same services using US organizations would be.Under the above scenario, for example, for every $77,000 contracted with local subs, we would be required to contract $23,000 to a combination of USSBs. We are concerned that this would have the effect of increasing costs and diminishing opportunities for subcontracting with local organization. Additionally, this issue is further exacerbated by requiring target goals between 3% and 5% for each category of small business. This would require Offerors to identify up to four different USSB subcontractors, creating a cumbersome and costly organizational management structure on a contract with limited or no obvious opportunities for US subcontracting.

Would USAID therefore consider one of the following alternate scenarios:

a) eliminating the requirement for a subcontracting plan pursuant to FAR 19.702 (b)(3); or

b) eliminating the minimum requirement for subcontracting with US SBs altogether to allow

Offerors to propose subcontracting in accordance with their Technical Approach; or

c) reducing the requirement to a minimum goal of 5% - 10% for all SB categories combined?

Response: RFP is amended to delete attachment J.6 as well as L.13. Part 10.

56. ATTACHMENT J.7 ILLUSTRATIVE LOCAL COMPENSATION PLAN (page 134) begins at Grade FSN-5. There are job titles in the lower grades that will be necessary for this proposal. Could USAID please provide the LCP information for Grades 1-4?

Response: The revised Local Compensation Plan is provided as Attachment D to this Amendment. It reflects the new LCP table from the FSN Grade 1 to 12.

57. RFP page 48, Section H.45 – Procurement Executive’s Bulletin No. 2012-05 states that “if you are considering the use of electronic payments in your operations and programs, please include in you [concept paper/application/proposal] a brief explanation of the selected method of electronic payment, and where feasible, how you propose to reduce the reliance on physical cash.” Would USAID prefer that this information be provided as an annex to the Cost Proposal if applicable?

Response: Yes, this information can be provided as an annex to the cost proposal.

58. In attachment J.3 – Budget Proposal Format, the prime and subcontractor budget summary spreadsheet templates both contain a column labeled “Explanation.” Since the prime and subcontractors will be submitting detailed budget notes with their budgets, would a more detailed explanation be permissible in the Offeror’s budget notes in lieu of the “Explanation” column included in attachment J.3?

Response: Yes, a more detailed explanation in the budget notes is permissible in lieu of the “Explanation” column included in attachment J.3

59. RFP page 128, attachment J.3 – Budget Proposal Format, contains a Level of Effort template that lists the staff, their current salary, their proposed salary, and a column labeled “Commentary.” Can USAID please specify what information it would like provided for each personnel in the Commentary column?

Response: Please, leave this field blank.

60. The prime and subcontractor budget summary templates in RFP Attachment J.3 contain two very similar budget categories: “Other Direct Costs” and “Other Direct Costs Items.” Can USAID clarify if these are duplicative or if they are distinct and separate cost categories? If the latter, which cost elements would USAID like to be presented in these separate budget categories?

Response: These are the same budget categories. The category “Other Direct Costs Items” should be deleted.

61. The budget summary templates in Attachment J.3 do not include a budget category for Subcontracts.

Where in the budget would USAID like these costs to be presented?

Response: The “Grants” Category, US Grantees and Local Grantees, represents the category for grants and Subcontracts.

62. Our company has historically submitted to USAID cost proposals with indirect costs using certified indirect rates supported by independently audited financial statements in lieu of a U.S. Government NICRA Letter. Previously CA-USA had USAID NICRA Letter which expired in 2009, at which time we no longer held a Prime Contract. Our established financial systems capture cost data within cost centers and pools isolating indirect costs in order to be in accordance with standard U.S. Government Contracting practices. In order to support an effort charging all costs directly, we would be less efficient, increase administrative costs, and could inadvertently create additional risk associated with not using indirect rates. Below is a clause that has been included in previous USAID RFPs:

“If the offeror or any subcontractor(s) does not have a NICRA or a cognizant U.S. Government Audit Agency, audited balance sheets and profit and loss statements for the last two complete years, and the current year‐to‐date statements (or such lesser period of time if the offeror is a newly formedorganization), must be included in the proposal. The profit and loss statements must include detail of the total cost of goods and services sold, including a listing of the various indirect administrative costs, and be supplemented by information on the offeror's customary indirect cost allocation method, together with supporting computations of the basis for the indirect cost rate(s) proposed.The proposal must include the most recent two fiscal year pool and base costcompositions along with derived rates, the bases of allocation of these rates and an independent certified audit by a certified accounting firm of these rates.”

Is it acceptable to USAID for this proposal for contractors to submit the documents highlighted above to support indirect rates in lieu of a current NICRA Letter or by budgeting all costs directly?

Response: For any offeror that does not have a NICRA, the costs must be directly charged.

63. The solicitation states that “Exclusive contracts or exclusive teaming agreements with local organizations in Mali are prohibited given the limited pool of partner organizations fitting the criteria for a locally-controlled organization.” Does this mean that the prime should only develop non-exclusive business relations with locally controlled organizations fitting USAID’s criteria for this solicitation? Is the criteria that is stated in the “Terms and Acronyms” for “Malian firm” the criteria we should follow?

Response: Yes, the prime must only develop non-exclusive business relations with locally controlled organizations fitting USAID’s criteria for this solicitation. Yes, the stated “Terms and Acronyms” for “Malian Firm” is the criteria to be followed.

ATTACHMENT B - Summary of the changes-edits to the RFP in response to the questions

Cover Letter: Proposal Due Date replaced by: “October 28, 2014”.

SF 33 Block 9: Due date replaced by: “October 28, 2014”.

C.3.1, Page 13: second paragraph, delete first sentence “All health activities, except for family planning assistance benefitting the government, have not-withstanding authority and are viewed as humanitarian, therefore having both policy and legal approval to continue during the current crisis in Mali” and the second sentence “Under policy guidance to avoid government systems where possible, emphasis has been placed on assistance to community health centers” remains.

C.4.1, Page 15: bullet one deleted and replaced by the following: “Set up an internal system capable of providing readily, complete and accurate data and information as results of the contractor’s operations:

surveys conducted, data collected during periodic visits, meetings notes, progress reports, etc.”

C.4.2.2, Page 15: Footnote #6 deleted

C.4.2.2, Page 16: second paragraph, first sentence deleted and replaced by: “The Contractor will design and conduct a minimum of four (4) performance evaluations and provide assistance in the design [only] of a minimum of three (3) impact evaluations and four (4) performance evaluations over the life of the project.”

L.9 (a), Page 88: first section deleted and replaced by: “(a) Awards: The U. S. Government anticipates awarding one IDIQC and Task Order 1 as a result of this Solicitation, and other Task Orders subsequently. The Agency reserves the right to award more or less awards than the anticipated number of contracts stated above. For details on Task Order 1, the offerors must pay special attention to the RFTOP attached to this RFP.”

L.10, Page 89: first paragraph, delete last sentence and replace by “ Each email must not exceed 5mb in size and all files are to be PDF except for cost spreadsheets, which are to be provided as Excel files with cell formulas intact and a budget narrative, which should be submitted in Microsoft Word format.”

L.12 (b), Page 90: Section L.12 (b), list of annexes is deleted and replaced by the following:

“Annex A - Draft Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (M&E Plan) (5 pages maximum): The Offeror must submit a draft M&E Plan that must explain how the Offeror will monitor and evaluate activities and measure expected outcomes for Task Order 1 (See Section F.3 in Attachment J.1).

Annex B - Draft Timeline for Implementation: The offeror must submit a timeline that demonstrates when activities proposed for Task Order 1 will be implemented.

Annex C - Resumes of Key Personnel with at least three references: full contact information to be provided: name, position, relationship, e-mail address, telephone number. (3 pages maximum per resume);

Annex D – Draft Workplan for Task Order 1 Year1.

Annex E - Organizational Chart: The Offeror should provide an organization chart (not included in the page total) that clearly illustrates how staff, either of the contractor or its partners, will be coherently organized.

Annex F - Signed letters of commitment from key personnel and from sub-partners;

Annex G - Offeror/subcontractor past performance information and Summary Chart;

Annex H - Branding and Marking Plan as described in Section L.14;

Annex I - Short-Term Technical experts and local non-key experts.

Annex J – Past Performance Reports

ATT J.1 Section C.4.1, Page 104: the last sentence of the third paragraph as follows is deleted “A six-day work week is authorized for work in Mali.”

ATT J.1, Section F.5, Page 111 & 1112, Deliverables and reporting requirements: Add the following after the table--“Note: Due dates for Tasks 1 to 4 are estimates. Offerors are free to propose alternative deliverable due dated.”

ATT. J.3 Table, Page 127: Grant Category is deleted and replaced with “Grants and/or Subcontracts.”

ATT J.7, Local Compensation Plan, page 134: delete the entire table and replace with Attachment D of this Amendment.

ATTACHMENT C - two-pager on AidTracker

ABOUT AIDTRACKER PLUS

AIDtracker Plus (AT+) is an information management system, developed by PPL and M/CIO, that helps USAID organize and simplify work streams related to the Program Cycle, ADS, and portfolio management. AT+ makes data collection easier, promotes higher quality data, facilitates reporting, and frees up time for mission staff to analyze and actively use their data in real time.

BACKGROUND

During the July 2012 Worldwide Program Officers Conference, participants asked Washington for more standardized functions, methods, and tools to help them do their jobs more efficiently. Missions especially requested a unified way to track indicators from the Result Framework down to the Implementing Mechanism level.

Building on the existing AIDtracker, which was designed to map projects around the world, USAID developed AIDtracker Plus to include more specific GIS information, indicator tracking, and performance management, to be in compliance with ADS203 and the Program Cycle reforms.

WHY USE AIDTRACKER PLUS

AT+ operationalizes the Program Cycle, allowing missions transition their data into a manageable system that breaks down the siloed data streams, provides real-time snapshots of progress toward development outcomes, and increases data analysis. It was designed especially to help with Mission PMPs, and reporting.

ISSUES ADDRESSED BY AIDTRACKER PLUS

Unified indicator management: Data can be entered by mission and implementing partners.

User ac- counts have clearly defined roles, limiting the data users have access to and providing levels of read/ write access. Supporting documentation can be kept with relevant activities. Indicator reference sheets (PIRS) are readily accessible.

Streamlining multidimensional data: AIDtracker Plus helps gather indicators across the whole mission portfolio. Unifying data streams, including indicators for Results Framework, LogFrames, PADs, Imple- menting Mechanisms, helps reduce staff time and energy.

Learning and Adapting: With data in one place, staff can devote time to research and analyzing data, shortening feedback loops and increasing learning for results.

Streamlining Reports: AIDtracker Plus streamlines reporting with 11 standard templates as well as cus- tomized reports, minimizing staff time.

Real time data and analysis: Financial information is pulled from Phoenix every night to coordinate budg-et information. Centralizing data reduces lag time of reporting and increases confidence of data quality.

Geographic Data Tagging: AIDtracker Plus has expanded capability in storing geographical information that can be exported to Google Earth or ArcMap for better mapping across projects.

OPERATIONALIZING THE PROGRAM CYCLE

The Program Cycle represents the way USAID achieves development results overseas; through a series of policies, procedures and best practices that promote strategic planning, solid design, and adaptive implementation based on evidence, analysis, and informed decision-making to increase the impact of USAID’s development programs. The Program Cycle acknowledges that development is not static and is rarely linear, and therefore stresses the need to assess and reassess through regular monitoring, evaluation, and learning.

AIDtracker Plus was designed to help missions operationalize the Program Cycle, minimizing data collection and maximizing learning and analysis.

Program Cycle and AIDtracker Plus Intersected

TOWARDS A COMMON INFORMATION SYSTEM

AIDtracker Plus is a first step towards a universal Common Information System. (CIS) Since the CIS is several years away from being developed and implemented, we are starting with AIDtracker Plus to address the most pressing issues around data collection, reporting and quality assurance. Pilot missions will be at an advantage when the new system is developed.

JOIN THE COMMUNITY

Every user is encouraged to provide feedback on AT+. We have created an AIDtracker Plus Working Group on ProgramNet for sharing lessons learned, best practices, supporting documents and FAQs. This is a closed group dedicated to the 16 pilot missions so they may share experiences and raise questions with the AT+ team.

ATTACHMENT D – Illustrative Local Compensation Plan

FSN - 1 Annual Mali 1,431,560 2,218,916 Janitor

F.CFA Driver

FSN - 2 Annual Mali 1,815,615 2,814,207 Janitor

F.CFA File Clerk

Gardener

Warehouseman

Duplicating Equipment Operator

FSN - 3 Annual Mali 2,398,999 3,718,447 Guard

F.CFA Clerk Typist

Distribution Clerck

Receptionist

Telephone Operator

Mail Clerk

FSN - 4 Annual Mali 2,723,862 4,221,990 Clerk Typist

F.CFA Office Machine Repairman

Receptionist

Telephone Operator

Federal Benefits Clerk

FSN - 5 Annual Mali 3,480,991 5,395,531 Clerk Typist

F.CFA Voucher Examiner

Data Entry Clerk

Supply Clerk

Telephone Operator/Shipment Assist

FSN - 6 Annual Mali 4,564,497 7,074,969 Document Control Clerk

F.CFA Files mgt Supervisor

Cashier

Motor Poolr Supervisor

Property Records Supervisor

FSN - 7 Annual Mali 5,898,117 9,142,089 Secretary , Office Manager

F.CFA Maintenance Foreman

Maintenance Inspector

Procurement Assistant

Cashier

FSN - 8 Annual Mali 7,724,440 11,972,872 Payroll Liaison Assist; Admin Assist.

F.CFA Shipment Specialist

Development Program Assistant

Project Mgt Assistant

Voucher Examiner; Property Mgt Supervisor

FSN - 9 Annual Mali 10,567,773 16,380,045 Budget Analyslt

F.CFA Maintenance Specialist

Human Resources Assistant

Procurement Specialist

Mgt Assist

FSN - 10 Annual Mali 12,311,218 19,082,374 Dev Assist Specialist F.CFA Supervisory Voucher Examiner Project Management Specialist Acquisition & Assist Specialist HIV/AIDS Specialist

FSN - 11 Annual Mali 14,434,295 22,373,159 Acquisition & Assistance Specialist

F.CFA Dev Program Specialist/Budget; Conflict Advisor

Executive Specialist (Admiin)

Proj Mgt Specialist; Systems Administrator

Financial Spt Advisor; Monitoring & Evaluation Specialist

FSN - 12 Annual Mali 17,413,806 26,991,390 Chief Accountant

F.CFA Supervisory Financial Support Advisor

Development Program Specialist

Econ Development Specialist

Sr. Acquisition & Assistance Specialist