Amendment_3_-_final.pdf

SOL-688-15-000025, Mali Sub-National Governance Project - Amendment 3 – Continuation Pages

ATTACHMENT A – RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS

1. Section 11 of Amendment 001 to SOL-688-15-000025 states, “The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended.” Section 11 of Amendment 002 to SOL-688-15-000025 also states, “The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended.” Would USAID please confirm what is meant by “is extended” on both Amendments?

Answer: This is a typo. With this Amendment, the “[x]”is deleted in Block 11 of Amendment 001 cover page and Amendment 002 cover pages.

2. Would USAID consider providing offerors five days following the proposal submission deadline to submit the French translation of the technical approach?

- As the translation to French shortens the proposal turn-around time, would USAID consider extending the proposal deadline?

Answer: No change to the RFP. The translation must be submitted with the proposal.

3. Will the Mission share its FSN salary table so Offerors can more accurately budget for key and non-key CCN personnel?

- Could the Mission please provide a Local Compensation Plan?

Answer: This was provided in the original RFP on Page 110 under Attachment 5.

4. Should the proposed budget account for VAT, or assume a VAT exemption?

Answer: Yes, the budget should assume VAT exemption.

5. How closely is this project expected to coordinate with the Emergency Education project that is currently under consideration, given that Education is one of the sectors of focus?

Answer: This project is expected to coordinate with all programs that focus on health and education sector related governance, public financial management, decentralization, and service delivery. The program should coordinate with the Emergency Education Program as closely as it coordinates with other relevant programs.

6. RFP Section B.7 (page 11) incorporates an illustrative fixed fee schedule based on completion of deliverables that will be incorporated at award. Should offerors propose a schedule in their cost proposals? Section L is silent on this matter.

Answer: Offerors are encouraged to propose a fee schedule in their cost proposals.

Could USAID confirm that the offeror should include in the Budget the total cost amount of fixed fee by year and that the fee schedule will be finalized upon award?

Answer: USAID confirms that the offeror should include in the Budget the total cost amount of fixed fee by year and that the fee schedule will be finalized upon award.

7. In reference to page 17 C.3, sections 3.2.1, 3.16, and 3.1.6.9: Could the contractor have the option to incorporate all three components together rather than separately to assure a comprehensive delivery rather than separately?

Answer: These sections refer to the standard USAID F framework for Health and Education. Section

3.2.1 is the program element for Basic Education. Section 3.1.6 is the program element for Maternal and Child Health. Section 3.1.6.9 is the program sub element for Health Governance and Finance.

Offerors should take note of the F indicators in these program sub elements and be prepared to measure these indicators throughout the life of the award. Offerors may incorporate all three components together to assure a comprehensive delivery but they will be required to disaggregate results in Health and Education as this project is funded through different funding technical funding streams. The contractor will be required to report on comprehensive service delivery improvements but also specific improvements in the Health sector and specific improvements in the Education sector

8. In reference to page 20, Illustrative Activities: Translation of National Budget into user friendly languages may pose difficulties since many of the languages are spoken and those that are written, not many people can read them (especially women). Therefore, can the Mission accept other means of communicating and explaining the Budget?

Answer: It is important to note that illustrative activities are not required activities and are listed for illustrative purpose only. In their proposal, Offerors may choose to implement some or all of the illustrative activities. Also, USAID will welcome a proposal with activities other than the ones listed in the RFP as “illustrative activities” as long as it demonstrates that they are better suited to accomplish the expected results listed in the RFP.

9. Page 26 refers to the importance of the contractor using political economy analysis to identify and address political barriers to implementing the program. There are two areas where it seems that this analysis will be particularly important: a) the reluctance of the central government to transfer funds to the sub-national levels as described on page 18. The program should investigate why the central government lacks trust in the decentralized levels - is it only because of limited capacity or are there other reasons? Also, b) on page 20, the RFP mentions that the contractor should encourage line ministries to be more ‘open’ to civil society, especially in providing information. Would USAID be willing to consider funding some up-front costs and time of conducting political economy analysis, especially in these two areas, to make sure the problem solution is sustainable in the long term?

Answer: USAID is unable to fund the up-front costs for a political economy analysis (PEA).

However, USAID Mali staff is trained on the use of PEA and has taken this into consideration when developing this solicitation. USAID is looking for creative approaches that take into consideration both the political and technical constraints associated with decentralization in Mali.

10. On page 20, a separate civil society program is mentioned. Would USAID consider having the same organization implementing both projects?

Answer: USAID has decided to split the two projects implementation into two awards. The two will be full and open competed.

11. Section D.4 (page 29) states, “USAID identity shall be prominently displayed in: commodities or equipment; audio, visual or electronic public communications; studies, reports, publications, web sites, and all promotional and informational products; and events.” Would USAID please confirm whether it would consider a less prominent and lower profile due to security concerns and in order to emphasize the role of the government of Mali in the project’s activities?

Answer: USAID confirms that it will consider a less prominent and lower profile in Branding and Marking when it comes to security reasons for dangerous areas of implementation of activities in accordance with the Branding and Marking Plan’s exceptions.

12. On page 34, the RFP states “The Contractor must submit a draft Outreach and Communication Plan with its proposal,” but this Plan is not mentioned in the list of annexes on page 68 in Section L. This plan is also not mentioned in the Summary of Deliverables table on page 37. Will USAID please clarify if this is a required component of proposal submission?

Answer: Yes, this is a required component of the proposal submission, as a part of the Branding and the Marking plan.

13. Re Section F.5.3, could USAID confirm that Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) are not required as part of the draft M&E Plan, but may be submitted by the successful offeror following award?

Answer: USAID confirms that PIRS are not required as part of the draft M&E plan in the proposal.

14. Could USAID please clarify whether the final M&E Plan is due within 90 days (p. 32) or 100 days (page 67) of contract effective date?

Answer: USAID could not find reference to the requirement that the final M&E plan is due on 100 page on page 67. There is, however, reference to 100 days on page 37. To clarify, a draft M&E plan/ Program Management Plan or PMP (without baseline information) should be submitted to the COR within 60 days of the signing of the award, as per page 37. The successful contractor will have an extra 30 days to collect baseline information, which is necessary for the finalization of the M&E plan/ PMP. An M&E plan/ PMP that includes the baseline information is due within 90 days of the signing of the award. The RFP is modified to reflect this change. i.e. replacing 100 days with 90 days on page 37).

15. Given that Section K is intended to apply specifically to US-based firms; does the requirement to fill it out extend to local subcontractors?

Answer: Yes, the requirements to fill out extend to significant subcontractors, including the local ones; with the understanding that some part of the Section may be “not-applicable” to a local contractor and or sub-contractor.

16. Would USAID please confirm that annexes to the technical proposal do not count against the 35-page limit for the technical proposal (Section L.5.1, pages 67 and 68)?

Answer: USAID confirms that annexes in the technical proposal do not count against the 35-page limit for the technical proposal body.

17. Section L.5.1 (page 67) states that the technical proposals “must be submitted in two subsections, one in English and one in French” and that the “French must reflect-summarize the technical approach body in English.” Regarding point 3 - is the French translation a full translation or a summary? Do any of the annexes need to be translated?

- Section L.5.1 (page 67) states that offerors should provide a French translation for the English

“technical approach body.” Will USAID please confirm that this is the technical approach section (Section 1.0) and NOT management, staffing, key personnel, corporate capability, and past performance (Sections 2.0–3.0)?

Answer: The French translation is the translation of the 35-page technical proposal body in English, only. The annexes do not need to be translated into French.

18. Is there a page limit for the annexes on the technical proposal?

Answer: There is no page limit for the annexes on the technical proposal.

19. In Section L.5.1 on page 68, the description for Annex two lists that the draft work plan “must indicate associated costs per activity,” yet page 67 notes that the “technical proposals must not make any reference to cost data so that the technical evaluation may be made strictly on the basis of technical merits.” Will USAID please clarify if the offeror should include activity costing in the technical proposal?

Answer: the draft workplan is a technical document, and therefore must be submitted with the technical proposal. The “associated costs” mentioned must be indicative broad lump sums per proposed activities that will be used to analyze the cost realism of the proposed technical approach.

These costs shall be coherent when compared with the detailed cost proposal, but not confused with the detailed cost-business proposal.

20. In Section L.5.1 on page 68, Annex 6 is listed as “Signed letters of commitment from key personnel and sub-partners,” yet part 11 of the budget instructions (Section L.6 on page 76) requests Letters of Commitment from Subcontractors as an annex to the cost proposal. Please confirm that LOCs are only required for either the Technical or Cost proposal, but not both.

Answer: The Letters of Commitment from key personnel and sub-partners (if applicable as a consortium) must be submitted with the technical proposal while the letters of commitments for subcontractors are required with the Cost proposal.

21. Section L.5.1.C.2.a (page 70) states, “The Management plan should include a mobilization schedule that demonstrates ability and commitment to mobilize and start implementing activities within 90 days after contract award.” However, Section M.3.2.1 (page 81) states, “Appropriateness of the management strategy for the proposed activities, which is to say the degree to which the management strategy provides the resources needed to carry out the proposed activities. This should include a clear description of roles and responsibilities, internal and external communication arrangements (i.e., within the local office as well as with home office backstops, if applicable), organizational chart and approach, and a mobilization schedule including a plan that demonstrates ability and commitment to mobilize activities within 30 days after contract execution.” Would USAID please confirm whether mobilization of activities must begin within 30 or 90 days after contract award?

Answer: USAID confirms mobilization must begin within 30 days after contract award. The plan mentioned in Section L.5.1.c.2.a shall cover a 90-day period. The last part of last sentence in Section M.3.2.1 is hereby modified with this Amendment to read: “… and a mobilization schedule that demonstrates ability and commitment to mobilize within 30 days after contract award.”

22. Section L.5.1.C.2.c (page 71) states, “The Offeror will provide resumes for the candidates proposed as key personnel and for any long-term candidates not proposed as key personnel.” Would USAID consider modifying the non-key personnel requirements to apply only to senior technical and management staff?

Answer: Resumes should be provided for both key and senior technical and management long-term personnel. The Section L.5.1.C.2.c, second paragraph, second sentence is hereby modified with this Amendment to read: “The Offeror will provide resumes for the candidates proposed as key personnel and for any senior technical and management long-term candidates not proposed as key personnel.”

23. In Section L.5.1 (page 68), offerors are instructed to include Past Performance Reports as part of Annex 7, but page 71 requests past performance information as part of “Annex D.” Please confirm that offerors are to submit past performance information as part of Annex 7, Past Performance Reports.

Answer: for the request of Past Performance Reports in annex 7, USAID is requesting for the actual past performance reports with contract numbers. As for Past Performance Information in annex D, USAID is requesting information for recently performed contracts or on-going contracts as a prime or as a major subcontractor with project name, brief project description, the period of performance, the contract amount and the name and telephone number and e-mail address of at least two contacts at the organization for which the service was performed.

24. Section L.5.1.C.3, Corporate Capability and Past Performance (page 71) states that offerors must provide information on up to five (5) recently (within the past 3 years) performed contracts or ongoing contracts. May we include up to five (5) PPRs as the prime, and up to five (5) for each major subcontractor?

Answer: No. Offerors may include five (5) PPRs for the prime and up to five (5) total for the subcontractors.

25. May we describe any quality awards or certifications that indicate exceptional capacity to provide the service described in the Statement of Work and include the information in the annex with the Past Performance Reports, which will not count against the page limitation?

Answer: Awards and certifications can be provided in the Annex 7.

26. The annexes for the technical proposal call for a Branding, Strategy and Marking Plan; the annexes for the cost proposal require a Branding, Implementation and Marking Plan. Could the Mission please confirm that a) Both plans are the same and b) That it is required to be submitted as an annex to both the technical and cost proposals?

Answer: a) Yes, both plans are the same. All references to Branding and Marking in Sections L.5.1, L.6 Part 1(8) and L.7 are about the same, namely the Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) and Marking Plan (MP); b) In accordance with Sections L.5 and L.7, the initial BIP and MP must be submitted as an annex to the technical proposal. The mention in Section L.6 is for ensuring that any cost associated with proposed plan be factored into the cost proposal.

27. Would USAID please confirm that the cost proposal requirements for subcontractors (throughout L.6, beginning on page 72) apply only to major subcontractors (those comprising more than 20 percent of the total budget)?

Answer: No. The requirement applies to all subcontractors. Offerors should submit budgets for known subcontractors at time of proposal submission.

28. Please confirm that the cost narrative should be submitted in PDF.

Answer: The cost narrative maybe submitted as a PDF or WORD version.

29. Section L.6, Parts 7, 11 and 12 list the same documentation. Please confirm that only this information is only required once in the cost narrative.

Answer: This information is required only once in the cost narrative.

30. Section L.6, Part 1, on page 74 states that “if the Offeror does not have a NICRA…the Offeror must direct charge all costs.” Could USAID confirm that this only applies to prime offerors and not subcontractors?

Answer: This applies to all entities either prime or subcontractors. Also, for any proposed sub-grant, the offerors must refer to 2CFR200, effective December 26, 2014.

31. Would USAID please provide Section L.6 Part 8 (page 75), as the Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal jumps from Part 7 to Part 9?

Answer: Part 8 is reserved. With this Amendment, the RFP is modified to insert: “Part 8

(RESERVED)”.

32. Section L.6, Part 13 (page 76) states, “Offeror Employee Biographical Data (EBD) Sheets, should be submitted for each position with identified personnel.” Would USAID consider clarifying this language to apply only to key personnel and other senior technical and management staff?

Answer: USAID confirms that EBD sheets should be submitted only for key personnel and senior technical and management staff.

33. Could USAID please provide USAID/Mali’s 2014–2019 Performance Management Plan (PMP) and annual Performance Plan and Report (p. 32)?

Answer: No. USAID’s CDCS was just approved, and the results framework is listed as an annex. All Development Objectives (Dos) and Intermediate Results (IRs) are listed in the results framework.

Offerors should use USAID/Mali’s results framework as a starting point and expand it to include additional sub IRs and indicators. USAID is unable to provide its PPR. This, like many of Mali’s DRG programs, is a new program and there was no reference to it or similar sub national governance programs in past PPRs. Since USAID/Mali is working under a new CDCS, our PPR reporting will be changing in FY16.

ATTACHMENT B – Changes to the RFP

With this Amendment, the Section L.5 is deleted in its entirety, and replaced with the following:

“L.5 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

The technical proposal must demonstrate the offeror's capabilities and expertise with respect to achieving the goals of this project and fully respond to the technical evaluation criteria.”

(End of Amendment 003)