EESA_RFP_Amendment_1.pdf

RFP-688-15-000012, Amendment 1 – Continuation Pages

ATTACHMENT A – Responses to Questions

General

1. Can National NGOs gather in consortium to bid?

Answer: Yes, National NGOs can gather in consortium to bid.

2. Is it possible to apply for one sole of the mentioned areas?

Answer: The proposal must follow the RFP requirements.

3. Can USAID provide guidance as to whether offerors should plan for a head office in Bamako? Please provide guidance on how many field offices outside of Bamako should be planned?

Answer: The RFP, in Section F.3 states that “The primary places of performance are: Kidal, Timbuktu, Gao, Mopti, and Ségou in Mali, where the contractor must establish an office or offices.” Regarding the location of a “head office”, and the number of offices USAID leaves it with the offeror to propose a management approach that will respond to the RFP Section L.5.2.C.2 and be cost effective.

Re: The Schedule, List of Acronyms

4. Page 4, Acronyms and Definitions, can USAID please provide complete acronym list from A to Z? The current list in RFP goes only through letter “P”.

Answer: The Acronyms list is updated with the RFP amendment. Please read the following which is from “A” to

“W”:

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ADARS: Appui Direct pour l’Amélioration des Rendements Scolaires AE: Academie d’Enseignment APS: Annual Program Statement AM: Activity Manager MOE: Malian Ministry of Education CIDA: Canadian International Development Agency CAP : Centre d’Animation Pédagogique CBO : Community-Based Organization CGS : Comité de Gestion Scolaire COR: Contracting Officer Representative CP: Pedagogical Counselor CSO : Civil Society Organization DAE : Directeur d’Académie d’Enseignment DCAP : Directeur Centre d’Animation Pédagogique DEN : Direction de l’Enseignement Normal DGP : Development Grants Program DNEF: Direction de l’Enseignement Fondamental DNP : Direction National de la Pédagogie DO: Development Objective EGRA: Early Grade Reading Assessment EMIS: Education Management Information System FARA: Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreement FOG: Fixed Obligation Grant GBV: Gender-Based Violence GDP: Gross Domestic Product GPE: Global Partnership for Education GPRSP: The Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper GOM: Government of Mali GovCom: Governance and Communication Office IDP: Internally Displaced People

IEP: Interim Education Plan IOM: International Organization for Migration IP: Implementing Partners IPR: Implementation and Procurement Reform ILPCP: Improved Literacy and Post-Conflict Project IR: Intermediate Result IRI: Interactive Radio Instruction MCH: Maternal and Child Health MOU: Memorandum of Understanding MRR: Mission Resource Request MUJAO: Mouvement pour l’Unicité et le djihad en Afrique de l’Ouest) NGOs: Non-Governmental Organizations NTD: Neglected Tropical Disease ORF: Oral Reading Fluency OTI: Office of Transition Initiatives PAD: Project Appraisal Document PAJE: Out-of-School Youth Activity PAPU Emergency Priority Action Plan PFMRA: Public Financial Management Risk Assessment Framework PHARE: Road to Reading project PIO: Public International Organization PIL: Project Implementation Letter PRODEC Education Ten Year Development Plan PTA: Parent Teacher Association PWD People with Disabilities SIP School Improvement Plan RSTF: Rapport de Suivi Technique et Financier SIRA: Selective Integrated Reading Activity SMC: School Management Committee SMA Students Mothers’ Associations TFP: Technical and Financial Partner TO: Transition Objective USG: United States of Government WASH: Water, Sanitation and Hygiene WFP: World Food Program

Re: The Schedule, Section B

5. Page 9 of the RFP, Section B.5 Indirect Costs, defines a major subcontractor as “those subcontractors expected to perform at least 20% or more of the technical effort”. However, Page 71 of the RFP, Section L.5.B.3) Corporate Capability and Past Performance, defines major sub-awardee as “a partner whose proposed cost exceeds 15 % of the offeror’s total proposed cost”. Can USAID please clarify the definition of a major subcontractor?

Answer: A major contractor is performing at least 20% of the technical effort and represents minimum 20% of the total proposed cost. The RFP Section L.5.2.B.3 is hereby modified accordingly.

Re: The Schedule, Section C

6. Page 16, Section C.3.1, refers to helping “learners resume school in safe learning environments”; page 24, Section C.6.2, result 9, refers to result of “at least 80,000 children…enrolled as new entrants in primary education”. For the purposes of achieving the required “final results” and counting children enrolled, can USAID please clarify whether the 80,000 children to be reached must only be “new entrants” (i.e. never attended school before) or whether the target includes both children who have never attended school as well as children who are returning to school and resuming their education as further defined on page 32, under Section F.5.1. 5) c (2)?

Answer: The target includes both new entrants and students resuming school after the conflict/crisis.

7. On P. 21 of the RFP the contractor is required under sub-IR 1.2 to “provide all schools with a grant or conditional cash transfer to SMCs, SMAs, and PAs to support the implementation of the SIPs and increasing access to education, especially for girls.” Please confirm that grants under contracts (GUCs) are approved for this program or clarify the references to sub-grants.

Answer: USAID/Mali at this point does not have approval for grants under contract for this activity, and encourages the conditional cash transfer or any other sub-contract mechanism in lieu of small sub-grants. The RFP is revised to read: “provide all schools with a sub-award or conditional cash transfer”.

8. Can USAID please provide working links for the following documents reference in the RFP:

a. Page 15 the Malian Ministry of Education’s 2014-2016 Interim Education Plan (IEP), Answer: The Education Interim plan is attached to this RFP Amendment in the fedbizopps.

b. Page 17 the referenced ‘findings’ from the 2015 USAID-supported Conflict Assessment.

Answer: The report will be available by the end of August 2015. The RFP Section C.4.1 is modified to read:

“USAID will share with the selected contractor the 2015 USAID-supported Conflict Assessment conducted by the MOE. The purpose of this assessment is to inform the country next ten-year education plan development process, identify what information or data already exist, and perform an initial Rapid Assessment to determine how the current delivery of educational services is impacted by the crisis or the conflict as well as the type and number of schools to be selected.”

c. Page 23 the GOM’s next ten-year education plan, e.g. PRODEC.

Answer: The plan is not yet available. On Page 23, the RFP Section C.6.1.Sub-IR 3.1 is revised to read: “and feed into the GOM’s next ten-year education plan e.g. PRODEC 2, which is scheduled to start in 2017”.

d. Page 22 the Government Of Mali’s “Communautés d'Apprentissage des Maîtres", CAM (Communities of Learning)

Answer: The national policy on in-service training for teacher that describes the ‘’Communauté d’Apprentissage des Maîtres’’ is attached to this RFP Amendment in the fedbizopps.

9. Page 24, Section C.6.2, The Final Results specify a target of 250 schools. On page 17, Section C.4.1, requires the contractor to “perform an initial Rapid Assessment to determine how the current delivery of educational services is impacted by the crisis or the conflict as well as the type and number of schools to be selected.” Can USAID please clarify if the target of 250 schools negotiable following the results of the Rapid Assessment?

Answer: The target of 250 schools may be revised after considering the findings of the rapid assessment.

10. Page 24, Section C.6.2, result 6, refers to $3,000 grants provided to SMCs, SMAs, and PAs to implement SIPs.

Can USAID please respond to the following:

a. Can we infer that separate grants are not expected to be provided to each of these different entities and that a grant is given to a school site where it is expected that these entities will collaborate in enacting an SIP?

b. Is it expected that all school SIPs are to be supported by a $3,000 grant, even if sites are in locations that are at high risk of relocation and/or implementable SIPs do not require a $3,000 grant for initial stages of school improvement?

Answer: USAID agrees that a sub-award is given to a school site where it is expected that SMCs, SMAs, PAs will collaborate in developing and implementing SIPs in a transparent manner. Also, as stated above, the RFP Section C.6.2 is revised to read “$3,000 sub-awards”.

The level of risk will be a key determinant in the selection of the schools. The rapid assessment will be used as a tool to guide the choice.

11. Page 24, Section C.6. 2, results 6 and 7. Can USAID clarify if grants are able to be applied to achieving the targeted 60 classrooms rehabilitated to take into account gender and PWDs or constructed or 250 small scale school rehabilitation to meet school safety criteria or in response to an activity outlined in a schools’ SIP?

Page 24, Section C.6.2, result 7, calls for 60 classrooms to be rehabilitated or constructed; item 8 calls for 250 schools supported with small scale rehabilitation. Can USAID please clarify if the 60 classrooms are included in the count of the 250 schools?

Answer: - The sub-awards are intended to support the implementation of School Improvement Plans (SIPs) within the 250 schools in terms of small scale rehabilitation to ensure school safety or other needs identified in the SIPs.

- The 60 sets of classrooms or kits (3 classrooms, 2 separate latrines, 1 office and storage for the headmaster, benches, drawers, desks and chairs) are included in the 250 schools

12. Page 24, Section C.6.2, result 13, calls for 80,000 conflict and gender sensitive basic education kits. This suggests that the kits are to be distributed only to the “new entrants” (page 24, Section C.6.2, result 9). Can USAID please respond to the following:

a. Please clarify if this is USAID’s intent; and

b. Please explain how USAID would expect this to be done without creating further conflict w/in a school and community context when one select group of students receives kits and all the other students do not.

Answer: No, this is not USAID’s intent. Every student must receive a kit.

13. Page 25, Section C.7 Implementation and Management, states that the contractor is responsible for “strengthening the organizational, managerial and technical capabilities of the MOE at the national and district level.” Under Final Results on page 24, Section C.6.2, there is mention of outcomes at the “school, commune, Centres d’Animation Pédagogique and central levels.” Could USAID verify at which levels capacities are expected to be strengthened?

Answer: Contractor must consider the ‘’education value chain’’ to build capacity of the different stakeholders in this new domain of education in emergency.

Re: The Schedule, Section F

14. Page 31, Section F.5.1 5) b, describes the requirements for the final PMP, which is due with the final work plan for Year 1. Can USAID please respond to the following:

a. Please confirm that only a draft PMP is required for the proposal; and

b. Please confirm that the indicator narrative details listed on page 31 are only required after award with the submission of the final PMP.

Answer: USAID confirms that the draft PMP is required with the proposal and that the indicator narrative details are only required after award, with the submission of the final PMP.

15. Page 31, Section F.5.1. 5) c. Guidance for M & E Plan, states that “indirect beneficiaries are defined as learners reached through activities that were not funded by USAID but can be plausibly attributed to USAID because USAID had an instrumental role in developing the technical approach used in the intervention”. Can USAID clarify if indirect beneficiaries be counted towards the target of 80,000 children?

Answer: USAID confirms that indirect beneficiaries can count towards the target of 80,000 children.

16. Page 36, Section F.5.1. 5) c. (9) specifies that the mid-term performance evaluation will be conducted at the end of the second quarter of Year 3 of the award and the final performance evaluation will be conducted and disseminated prior to the end of the five-year award. Since this is a three-year contract, can USAID please clarify when the mid-term and final performance evaluations will be conducted?

Answer: The RFP Section F.5.1. 5) c. (9) is hereby modified to read: “the mid-term performance evaluation will be conducted after 18 months of implementation of the award and the final performance evaluation will be conducted and disseminated prior to the end of the three-year award.”

17. Page 38 of the RFP, Section F.5.3, indicates that a draft start up plan is to be submitted with the proposal. Can USAID confirm that this should be included in an annex?

Answer: The draft start up plan is part of the workplan package, and therefore submitted as an annex to the proposal.

18. Page 38 of the RFP, Section F.5.3, states that the Draft work plan “must include a sustainability plan”. Can USAID confirm that this sustainability plan is only to be included with the Annual work plan? Can USAID confirm that the sustainability plan should be included in an annex and does not count against the page limit?

Answer: The sustainability plan is part of the workplan package, and therefore submitted as an annex to the proposal.

19. Page 39 of the RFP, Section F.8 Key Personnel, USAID notes two positions are currently designated as Key, but that other “key positions/personnel with minimum qualifications will be identified at time of award.” Could USAID confirm that at the time of proposal submission, applicants are only required to name candidates for the two currently designated Key positions of Chief of Party and Gender Specialist?

Answer: Offerors are requested to propose a staffing plan, with key positions, that will best support their proposed approach and reflect instructions in Section L.

Re: The Schedule, Section H

20. Page 45 of the RFP, Section H.6, lists the authorized geographic code for the procurement for goods and services under this contract as 935. However, on page 45, Section H.9 (a), it states that “the authorized source for procurement is Geographic Code 937…” Can USAID confirm the geographic code for this procurement?

Answer: The reference to 937 in Section H.9(a) on page 45 is deleted with this RFP modification. Please read:

“The authorized source for procurement is Geographic Code 935 unless otherwise specified in the schedule of this contract”.

Re: RFP Part IV, Section L

21. Pages 68-69, Section L.5.1 outlines the items excluded from the page limit in the technical proposal. Can USAID confirm that a cover letter does not count towards the page limit?

Answer: The RFP states that the Cover Page is limited to 1 page. It does not count towards the page limit for the Technical Body proposal.

22. Page 70 of the RFP, Section L.5.B.2 (a) requires an Annual work plan. Can USAID confirm that the Annual Work plan is just for year one of the project?

Answer: Section L.5.2.C.2(a) page 70 USAID confirms that the “Annual” Work Plan is for Year 1.

23. Page 71 of the RFP, Section L.5.B.2 (b) Staffing Plan requires a “mobilization schedule”. Can USAID please confirm that the mobilization schedule should go in an annex?

Answer: The “mobilization schedule” can be part of the start-up plan which is submitted as an annex.

Re RFP – Attachments

24. Can USAID provide the effective date of the LCP (Attachment 6) or the applicable exchange rate in order to determine equivalent local salaries in USD?

Answer: The salaries paid in CFA francs are fixed. LCP provided is the current one, used to pay USAID employees in CFA francs. The offeror must use an exchange rate fair and reasonable that will take into account the possible fluctuations of the exchange rate during the life of the award.

- END OF ATTACHMENT A -