Attachment_1_-_Amendment_1.pdf

1 23

Attachment 1

Amendment #1 - Request for Proposals (RFP) No. SOL-720-482-18-R-00002 Promoting Rule of Law in Myanmar

Part I. Changes to the Solicitation:

1. In Section C.3.1, revise and replace the second paragraph with the following:

“The activity’s broad theory of change is: if rule of law institutions are strengthened and empowered to hold the State accountable under the law and ensure fundamental rights are protected and applied equitably, and if access to justice is available to all; this in turn will advance the democratic transition by establishing standards of due process and equality under the law.”

2. In Section C, revise and replace “UALB” with “ULAB” wherever it appears.

3. In Section L.9.2. Format, Page Limitation and Content, revise and replace:

“The proposal must be written in English and typed on standard 8.5” x 11” paper (216mm x 297mm), single spaced, Times New Roman font not less than 12 points in size, with margins no less than one inch of each border. Number each page consecutively. The text in any text boxes included within the technical proposal must not be less than 12 points in size. All graphs and charts must be included in the annexes. Text in graphs, charts and text boxes may be less than 12 points in size but no less than 8 points and must be legible. Proposals which do not include all of the items listed below will be considered incomplete and may be eliminated from further consideration, in accordance with the instructions set forth in Section L.6. The Technical Proposal Body is limited to 30 pages.

The TECHNICAL PROPOSAL must be structured as follows:

1. Cover letter (1 page)

2. Title page (1 page)

3. Table of contents (2 pages)

4. Acronym list (2 pages)

5. Executive Summary (2 pages)

6. Technical Proposal Body (30 pages)

a. Technical Approach

b. Institutional Experience, Management Approach, and Key Personnel

The following are to be included in the TECHNICAL PROPOSAL as an annex (not included in the Technical Proposal page limit):

● Annex A: Not applicable

● Annex B: Organizational Chart (maximum 5 pages)

● Annex C : Letters of Commitment (Subcontractors)

● Annex D: CV/Resumes for proposed Key Personnel

● Annex E : Statement of Qualification and Letter of Commitment (Key Personnel)

(maximum 4 pages)

● Annex F: Past Performance Information (not page limited)

● Annex G: Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan (maximum 2 pages)

● Annex H: Relevant graphs and charts referenced in Technical Proposal (maximum 5 pages)”

4. In Section L.7.2(a) Delivery Instructions, revise paragraph 1 and replace with the following:

“a) Closing Date and Time. All proposals in response to this RFP must be due not later than the date and time stated in the cover letter of this Solicitation.”

5. In Section F.4.2. Deputy Chief of Party and Senior Justice Sector Advisor (DCOP), revise and replace minimum required qualification number 1 with the following:

“1. A degree in law or equivalent advanced degree in another relevant field.”

6. In Section F.4.3. Human Rights Advisor (HRA), revise and replace minimum required qualification number 2 with the following:

“2. Seven years of experience in the implementation of human rights activities in transition and/or conflict-affected countries.”

7. In Section L.9.2.3 Contractor Past Performance Information, revise and replace paragraph (f) with the following:

“(f) This paragraph (e) is not applicable to offers from small business concerns.”

8. In Section L.10. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF THE COST/BUSINESS PROPOSAL, Part 2 - PROPOSED COSTS/PRICES/ DETAILED BUDGET NARRATIVE, incorporate the following after subparagraph 13:

“EXEMPTIONS FOR SMALL BUSINESS OFFERORS ONLY.

All the above instructions apply to small business Offerors. However, if the small business Offeror does not have a NICRA, the proposal must include either Audited Financial Statements or Reviewed Financial Statements as defined below:

1. Audited Financial Statements provide the auditor’s opinion that the financial statements are presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with the applicable financial reporting framework. In an audit, the auditor is required by auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS) to obtain an understanding of the entity’s internal control and assess fraud risk. The auditor also corroborates the amounts and disclosures included in the financial statements by obtaining audit evidence through inquiry, physical inspection, observation, third-party confirmations, examination, analytical procedures and other procedures.

The auditor issues a report that states that the audit was conducted in accordance with GAAS, the financial statements are the responsibility of management, provides an opinion that the financial statements present fairly in all material respects the financial position of the company and the results of operations are in conformity with the applicable financial reporting framework (or issues a qualified opinion if the financial statements are not in conformity with the applicable financial reporting framework. The auditor may also issue a disclaimer of opinion or an adverse opinion if appropriate).

2. Reviewed Financial Statements provide a certified CPA accountant’s (referred to as “Accountant” or “CPA” herein) review; the accountant is not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the financial statements for the statements to be in conformity with the applicable federal financial reporting framework. During a review engagement, the Accountant obtains limited assurance that there are no material modifications that should be made to the financial statements. Therefore, the objective of a review of the financial statements is to obtain limited assurance that there are no material modifications that should be made to the financial statements. A review does not include obtaining an understanding of the entity’s internal control; assessing fraud risk; testing accounting records; or other procedures ordinarily performed in an audit. The CPA issues a report stating the review was performed in accordance with Statements on Standards for accounting and Review Services;

that management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework and for designing, implementing and maintaining internal control relevant to the preparation.

The proposal must not include compiled financial statements. Compiled financial statements will not be accepted because the Accountant does not obtain or provide any assurance that there are no material modifications that should be made to the financial statements. That is, there is no assurance that the organization is misrepresenting costs on compiled financial statements which puts the agency at risk. The objective of compiled financial statements is to assist management in presenting financial information in the form of financial statements without undertaking to provide any assurance that there are no material modifications that should be made to the financial statements.

If the small business Offeror receives an award based on the submission of Reviewed Financial Statements, within six months after the end of the small business Offeror’s fiscal year, they must submit an adequate final incurred cost proposal to the to the Contracting Officer (or cognizant Federal agency official) and auditor within the 6-month period following the expiration of each of its fiscal years in accordance with the Allowable Cost and Payment Clause FAR 52.216-7.

The receipt of an adequate proposal by the audit office starts the audit process. This audit will establish the final indirect cost rate(s) for the audited year.

Provisional rates will be updated as needed based on current information. USAID auditors will work with the small business to issue a NICRA establishing the proposed provisional indirect cost rates after award based upon acceptable information submitted above.”

Part II. Questions and Answers

General / Cover Letter

1. If USAID takes longer than 5-7 days to respond to questions would USAID kindly consider extending the deadline for submission of proposals by an appropriate number of days so that Offerors have adequate time to follow up on any new information and clarifications, prepare and deliver responsive proposals?

USAID Response: USAID is not extending the deadline for the submission of proposals.

2. Please reconsider the guidance that “offerors are discouraged from meeting with the Government of Burma officials due to the delicate nature of government to government relations” (cover letter, paragraph 3).” The RFP is public record and we will never claim that we represent the USG at meetings with Government of Burma officials. The incumbent contractor meets with host government officials on a regular basis, so this guidance creates unfair competition.

L.9.2.2 Technical Approach states, in part: “The technical proposal must describe an approach that shows a clear understanding of the country context and responsiveness to all PRLM Activity principles and objectives as outlined in Section C. The Offeror must propose realistic activities and approaches that achieve the objectives in Section C of the RFP…. Offerors must identify and analyze potential risks that may negatively affect project implementation and outcomes and identify methods of mitigation.”

M.2(f) states “The evaluation will be performed on the basis of material presented and substantiated in the proposal and not on the basis of what may be implied. Vague statements will be interpreted as a lack of understanding on the part of the Offeror and/or inability to demonstrate adequate qualifications. The Offeror’s attention is directed to Section L, which provides important instructions concerning proposal preparation.”

M.3 TECHNICAL APPROACH EVALUATION CRITERIA STATES “Technical proposals will be evaluated using the below factors (M.3.1-M.3.3). These factors will: a) Serve as the standard against which each technical approach will be evaluated in response to the requirements of the SOW; and b) Serve to identify significant matters, which Offerors should address in their proposals.

M.3.2 TECHNICAL APPROACH states, in part: ”USAID will evaluate the quality of the technical approach and how well it shows a clear understanding of the country context and its responsiveness to all PRLM Activity principles and objectives as outlined in Section C.

USAID will evaluate the realism of the offeror’s proposed activities and approaches to achieve the objectives in Section C of the RFP. USAID will evaluate how well Offerors identified and analyzed potential risks that may negatively affect project implementation and outcomes and how well they identified methods of mitigation.”

Given that the cover letter to the RFP states that “Offerors are discouraged from meeting with the Government of Burma Officials due to the delicate nature of government to government relations,” as well as, the opacity of the priorities, preferences, operations, and relationships between and among Government of Myanmar (GOM) institutions, including but not limited to the OSCU, UAGO, ministries, lower courts and legal offices, non-incumbent Offerors will be at a significant disadvantage compared to the incumbent in providing details to substantiate their analysis, approaches and activities to further the objectives of Section C. (highlight provided) For example, non-incumbents do not have access to complete specifications of the courts’ CMS and are dependent upon the more limited information provided in PRLP reports, which are not currently available for the entire project period to date and may not provide a complete picture of how CMS is actually being used on the ground, the realism of roll out under differing conditions, and/or risks associated with updating and rolling out CMS. Similarly, since the courts are de facto closed to the public, non-incumbent Offerors have little, if any, capacity to obtain verifiable information about the results of pilot courts, upon which the Offeror is expected to build, or the current status of operations and infrastructure in non-pilot courts in order to design or substantiate a roll out approach. Finally, USAID has stated that some assistance may be provided at the request of GOM institutions. Non-incumbents are at a disadvantage to identify specifics regarding the likely nature of such requests.

Would USAID consider modifying the above instructions and evaluation criteria in order to ensure a fair playing field between the incumbent contractor and other Offerors?

USAID Response: USAID has not prohibited offerors from meeting with Government of Burma officials. USAID’s concern is the potential for confusion among our government interlocutors and subsequent impact on USAID’s relationships with its government counterparts and any future contractor.

3. Is it permitted for entities to respond to the RFP through more than one submission (e.g., in one as the prime Contractor and in another as one part of a joint venture or a consortium of respondents)?

USAID Response: USAID will accept and evaluate all proposals based upon the criteria set forth in Sections L and M. The submission of proposals independently or as part of a consortium is at the discretion of individual offerors and their partners.

Section B:

4. Section B.4 includes $500,000 for exchange trips and study tours travel. Please clarify whether any commitments have been made with regard to these trips/tours or whether there have been any preliminary discussions.

USAID Response: No specific commitments or preliminary conversation have taken place with regard to study trips.

5. Should we use the $500,000 included in Section B.4 as a plug figure to cover the cost of any exchange trips, study tours and professional exchanges under Task 2.1(a)?

USAID Response: Yes

Section C:

6. To ensure that Offerors properly understand USAID’s strategic framework, goals and objectives, and theory of change could USAID please:

a) Elaborate on the link between “strengthened transparency and accountability in the legal system” and “the protection of fundamental human rights of Myanmar’s people” as described under C.3.1 Goals and Objectives?

USAID Response: USAID envisions an activity that strengthens the institutions responsible for the administration justice and builds and advances an underlying culture of respect and protection for human rights within those institutions and in the broader population.

b) Clarify the above-quoted language on theory of change under C.3.1 Goals and Objectives, in which there appears to be a word missing either in the clause “ensure fundamental rights are protected and applied equitably” or in the clause “and access to justice is available to all.” Should the sentence perhaps read in one of the following ways?

“The activity’s broad theory of change is: if rule of law institutions are strengthened and empowered to hold the State accountable under the law, ensure fundamental rights are protected and applied equitably, and facilitate the availability of access to justice to all;

this in turn will advance the democratic transition by establishing standards of due process and equality under the law.”

OR

“The activity’s broad theory of change is: if rule of law institutions are strengthened and empowered to hold the State accountable under the law and ensure fundamental rights are protected and applied equitably, and if access to justice is available to all; this in turn will advance the democratic transition by establishing standards of due process and equality under the law.”

USAID Response: The second paragraph, following “OR,” is the more accurate representation of USAID’s theory of change. See Part I.1 of this Amendment.

c) Define “rule of law institutions” as used in C.3.1 Goals and Objectives: “The activity’s broad theory of change is: if rule of law institutions are strengthened and empowered to hold the state accountable under the law, ensure fundamental rights are protected and applied equitably, and access to justice is available to all; this in turn will advance the democratic transition by establishing standards of due process and equality under the law.”

USAID Response: Rule of law institutions is a broad term used to encompass the formal state institutions responsible for the administration of justice, and also those non-state actors including, but not limited to, bar associations and legal aid providers that seek broader access and application of the rule of law within Myanmar society.

d) Explain what is meant by “access to justice is available to all?”

USAID Response: “Available to all” is an aspirational term.

Does USAID envision any limitations or any particular emphasis on specific areas of law for activities associated with the provision/expansion access to justice related services?

USAID Response: No.

7. Page 7, Result 1.2 (b)(1): The RFP states that “Plans to deliver training, technical assistance,equipment and supplies will be defined in the contractor’s work plan(s).” Since the roll out is defined to be nationwide, can USAID confirm the number of courts for which it expects the project to provide equipment and supplies as well as the estimated amount of project funds or a plug figure that should be reserved for this activity?

USAID Response: USAID expects the contractor to support the phase one roll-out in targeted states and regions, as identified by the Office of the Supreme Court of the Union (OSCU).

The OSCU will identify the target states and regions as they develop annual action plans to implement the OSCU’s 2018-2022 strategy. A plug figure will not be provided for this activity.

8. Please specify what types of systems for the OSCU, UAGO, the courts and law offices the contractor is expected to identify and design under Task 1.2(c). Are these the same as the new administration and data collection systems referred to in Task 1.2(b)?

USAID Response: Yes. 1.2(b) refers to the systems developed for the pilot courts and law offices. 1.2(c) refers to the expanded efforts expected to undertake in partnership with the Government of Myanmar based on the pilot activities.

9. Please provide further information about the scope of the PRLP designed national case management system and the future PRLM designed data collection and case management systems for the courts and law offices under Task 1.2(c)(2), and how these systems relate to each other.

USAID Response: USAID will attempt, but cannot guarantee, to post additional documents related to the national case management system. Please monitor FBO.gov for further updates.

10. The RFP refers to a “national roll-out of the PRLP designed case management system for the courts” (page 7, also page 8). Could you share with all offerors the incumbent contractor’s estimate of the cost of the national roll-out?

USAID Response: The current contract focuses on the piloting of the case management system. A national roll-out was not contemplated under the PRLP award and has not been costed.

11. Could you provide a cost estimate for the roll-outs of “other new administration and data collection systems and UAGO law offices to be included in the expanded pilot law office activity” (page 7, also page 8)?

USAID Response: No

12. The RFP asks for extensive incorporation of anti-corruption efforts. Must such anti-corruption work be limited to justice sector-specific activity, or may it consider broader anti-corruption measures?

USAID Response: Yes, broader anti-corruption measures may be considered consistent with the contract objectives.

13. In Myanmar, legal professionals seem to distinguish between “lawyers,” which tends to refer to defense attorneys and/or private and CSO attorneys on one hand and prosecutors and/or government lawyers on the other hand. While Section C sometimes specifies “lawyers” only and sometimes specifies “lawyers” and/or “prosecutors” and/or legal professionals of other government institutions (e.g. commissions, boards, ministries).

Could USAID please clarify the following regarding the use of terminology in Section C:

a) When referring to “law officers” under expected results and tasks in Section C, does USAID mean both prosecutors and other government lawyers working in UAGO offices if not otherwise specified?

USAID Response: Law Officers should be interpreted to mean prosecutors and other government lawyers working in UAGO offices, unless otherwise specified.

b) USAID does not appear to mention legally trained individuals or attorneys assigned to or working with governmental or quasi-governmental entities (e.g. Union Legal Aid Board, MNHRC, ROLCB) or within ministries or at regional/state/local levels. Could USAID please clarify whether such individuals are expected to be included in training activities?

USAID Response: Other lawyers or legally-trained individuals may be engaged as beneficial to achieving the contract objectives.

c) Does USAID include “prosecutors” and/or “law officers” in the broader category of “lawyers” when the specific terms “prosecutors,” “law officers,” and/or specific government entities are not specifically mentioned? In other words, should prosecutors and government lawyers be included in activities if they or their institutions are not explicitly mentioned under a task?

USAID Response: “Lawyers” includes all trained/certified legal individuals, including prosecutors, defense attorneys, and private attorneys.

d) Are legally trained “judicial officers, who are not judges, intended to be included in activities aimed at judges even if the term “judicial officers” is not specifically mentioned for a task or activity?

USAID Response: Yes. “Judicial Officers” may be included in activities aimed at judges to advance the contract objectives.

e) To the extent relevant to achieving an expected result or objective of Section C, may Offerors propose inclusion of additional categories of legal professionals and/or institutional and CSO staff, charged with carrying out related job responsibilities, for activities where these other categories of individuals have not been explicitly identified?

USAID Response: Yes.

14. Task 2.2(a) is entitled “Specialized Legal Skills.” The description provided focuses on knowledge rather than skills. May the Offeror propose training to build not only the knowledge base but also the skills base of legal professionals described under Task 2.2?

USAID Response: Yes.

15. The current Legal Aid Law appears to focus on the provision of legal representation to indigent, marginalized, and vulnerable individuals, who are defendants or witnesses in formal criminal proceedings. Does USAID envision the Contractor supporting a broader pilot legal aid program that covers legal or justice services in other kinds of cases adjudicated by the courts or other bodies, targeting other populations, or delivering services related to ADR or in informal justice settings?

USAID Response: The Contractor will provide support for legal aid as necessary to achieve contract objectives.

16. There appears to be a typo in the first sentence of Task 3.2 Increased access to non-governmental legal services, Support to NGOs/CSOs for Legal Services and Awareness, which reads: “In support of the legal aid program developed by the ULAB….” Should this be “UALB?” If not, could you please provide the full title for the acronym “ULAB?”

USAID Response: Union Legal Aid Board (ULAB). Please see Part I.2 of the Amendment.

17. Task 4.2: Anti-corruption themes integrated across contractor activities states that “the contractor must include and report on at least one anti-corruption indicator in its monitoring, evaluation, and learning plan” and that “each performance report must include a description of how the contractor integrated anti-corruption elements into its activities….” However, L.9.2 Format, Page Limitation and Content does not require the inclusion of a draft Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (MELP) or illustrative indicators and targets. Could USAID please confirm that the Offeror is not required to specify the anti-corruption indicator(s) it intends to use in the Technical Proposal and that no other MELP or indicator/target information is to be included in the Technical Proposal.

USAID Response: Section L states in regard to the Technical Approach, “The offeror must propose realistic activities and approaches that achieve the objectives in Section C of this RFP (including Section C.4).”

18. Could USAID provide all offerors with copies of the following documents mentioned in PRLP’s 2017 Annual Report:

a. The training curriculum modules developed on the basis of the Legal Aid Toolkit toolkit (mentioned on page 5);

USAID Response: USAID will attempt, but cannot guarantee, to post additional documents. Please monitor FBO.gov for further updates.

b. Report on Possible Procedural Interventions at the Pilot Law Offices (mentioned on page 8);

c. UAGO Public Information Office Media Disclosure Guidelines (mentioned on page 9);

i. OSCU’s national Case Management Plan (mentioned on page 10) and any caseflow management manuals, user guides and forms produced by PRLP;

ii. The new judge curriculum (mentioned on page 10);

iii. Pilot Courts - Best Practice Manual (mentioned on page 10);

iv. OSCU Strategic Plan for 2018-2022 (mentioned on page 10). The report refers to a final draft being submitted to the Chief Justice in November (page 12)

v. CMS Development and Deployment Plan (mentioned on page 11);

vi. Legal Aid Law implementation plan developed by PRLP in 2016 (mentioned on page 12) and (or any subsequent or revised plan that may have been proposed by PRLP to date).

d. PRLP’s 2017 Annual Report refers to the commencement in September 2017 of a rule of law PEA aimed at outlining the current rule of law context in Myanmar and develop recommendations on where gains can be made. Page 6 indicates that “PEA field work will continue through mid-October with initial recommendations expected by the end of

October.” Could USAID provide all offerors with a copy of the draft report containing the initial PEA recommendations; and, if available, the final report?

e. Could USAID provide all offerors with copies of the PRLP grantees’ most recent reports?

f. Could USAID provide all offerors with those documents referred to in PRLP’s Mid-Term Evaluation Report Annex III (page 43) that haven’t been made available on the DEC?

g. Please provide additional information about the post-October 2017 status of the UAGO pilot law office initiative that is referred to under Task 1.2(b)(1).

USAID Response: The pilot law office program supported by USAID is intended to mirror the work in pilot courts, providing a venue for the Union Attorney General’s Office to test and implement procedural and administrative reforms. USAID will attempt, but cannot guarantee, to post additional documents. Please monitor FBO.gov for further updates.

19. Could USAID please provide copies or access to any reports, research studies, weeklies, memos and/or analyses that have been completed by PRLP to date but are not publicly available and/or are not available on the USAID Development Exchange Clearinghouse?

USAID Response: USAID will attempt, but cannot guarantee, to post additional documents.

Please monitor FBO.gov for further updates.

20. Regarding the existing USAID Promoting the Rule of Law Project which will be completed by September 2018:

a. Are the reports filed by the existing contractor publicly available for review?

USAID Response: Please see USAID Development Experience Clearing House website.

b. Can detailed information be provided on the existing case management systems that are implemented in the relevant institutions identified in the proposal?

USAID Response: USAID will attempt, but cannot guarantee, to post additional documents.

Please monitor FBO.gov for further updates.

c. Can detailed information be provided on the IT infrastructure (e.g., internet bandwidth) that is available to the relevant institutions identified in the proposal?

USAID Response: IT infrastructure in Myanmar is limited. Most people access the internet via their smartphones. The courts, including the pilot courts, have limited or no IT infrastructure and the pilot courts use mobile modems to connect to the internet.

d. As there is emphasis on the creation of data-driven management systems, what is the current state of the data with which the Contractor will be working?

USAID Response: The Contractor will be working with courts and law offices that maintain paper records, often in ledgers with case information entered in duplicate ledgers for statistical purposes. The courts prepare calendar clearance reports with cases filed, disposed and pending. The data is gathered from case files and/or dockets. the accuracy of these data can vary from court to court. The Law Offices operate docket books - all ledger based - compile data which is submitted to the State or Region Law Office, which in turn forwards the reports to the Union Attorney General’s Office.

21. Under this proposal, who owns the copyright to the research, data, reports and other material developed in the course of the project? Would such materials be made publicly available? If copyright does not belong to the Contractor, would Contractor be able to have a license to republish or reuse such materials for its own purposes?

USAID Response: As a contract, USAID would hold copyright to all materials produced.

22. With respect to the Implementation Principles and Guidance (item C.4.), what is the anticipated standard of non-legal technical assistance (e.g., training psychologists in addressing human trafficking issues)?

USAID Response: Offerors are expected to maintain international standards with respect to non-legal technical assistance provided under the contract. For example, training provided to a psychologist may require short-term technical assistance from an individual or organization duly licensed, certified, or accredited by a nationally or internationally recognized body.

23. What is the standard of implementation with respect to the “mainstreaming” of international best practices on inclusive development? Are there specific sources of policy to which USAID expects compliance, at a minimum?

USAID Response: USAID expects offerors to be familiar with and able to integrate the principles associated with the latest USAID policies on implementing its international development programs, see for example:

https://www.usaid.gov/work-usaid/resources-for-partners https://www.usaid.gov/democracy-human-rights-and-governance-strategy https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/democracy-human-rights-and-governance/protecting-human-rights https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/democracy-human-rights-and-governance/promoting-accountability-transparency https://www.usaid.gov/trafficking

In addition, USAID expects offerors to be familiar with other reports and academic literature associated with the application of these development principles to the rule of law and justice sector programming.

24. Would USAID have assistance programs in terms of obtaining permits and approvals for the project team to access remote and border areas within Myanmar (and around Myanmar) in connection with this project?

USAID Response: The contractor will be primarily responsible for arranging the requisite permissions with the Government of Myanmar for access to remote and restricted areas. If the requested permission is delayed or denied USAID may provide assistance in clarifying the government’s rationale and obtaining access.

25. How many trips to the remote border areas of Myanmar (and around Myanmar) does USAID foresee being needed, and what types of personnel does USAID expect to be sent on such missions?

USAID Response: The majority of work with government institutions and courts is likely to take place in Nay Pyi Taw, Yangon, and other major population centers. Trips to more remote areas may be required for the implementation of legal aid activities or grant activities under the contract .

26. Are there any requirements that specific services or products can only be procured in Myanmar or requirements that certain IT hardware should only be installed and maintained within Myanmar?

USAID Response: USAID is unaware of any such requirement.

Section F:

27. F.6.1.b (page 19) indicates that the work plan must include a detailed budget for implementation including an illustrative budget breakdown per proposed intervention. Since costs are not normally included in the technical body, may Offerors omit this from the Illustrative First Annual Work Plan to be provided in Annex A, with the presumption that it will be completed by the successful Offeror after award?

https://www.usaid.gov/work-usaid/resources-for-partners https://www.usaid.gov/democracy-human-rights-and-governance-strategy https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/democracy-human-rights-and-governance/protecting-human-rights https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/democracy-human-rights-and-governance/protecting-human-rights https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/democracy-human-rights-and-governance/promoting-accountability-transparency https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/democracy-human-rights-and-governance/promoting-accountability-transparency https://www.usaid.gov/trafficking

USAID Response: An “Annex A Illustrative First Annual Work Plan (AWP)” is no longer required for submission. Please see Part I.3 of this Amendment.

Section H:

28. Section H.13 (page 36) of the RFP states, “Agency program-funded IT investments with a threshold of $100,000 or more over the full IT project life cycle up to five years must receive Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) analysis support from the USAID Chief Information Officer (CIO) pursuant to ADS 548.” It is the offeror’s understanding that ADS 548 ceased to be valid as of September 30, 2016, and is being archived. Could USAID please remove this sentence from Section H.13?

USAID Response: At this time, ADS 548 remains valid until the replacement guidance is developed and in place. The resulting contract will be modified accordingly and guidance provided to the Contractor as soon the replacement regulation is available.

29. Section H.17 (page 42) of the RFP states, “The Contractor must be responsible for all administrative support and logistics required to fulfill the requirements of this Contract. These will include all travel arrangements, appointment scheduling, secretarial services, report preparations services, printing, and duplicating.” Could USAID please confirm that this statement means USAID will still provide support letters for items such as travel permits or project registration?

USAID Response: With regard to Travel Permits and Permissions: See response to Question

26. Under its bilateral agreement with the Government of Burma, USAID will support the project registration process at the national level and obtaining visa for expatriate staff.

Section L:

30. According to L.7.2 (a) Closing Date and Time, “All proposals in response to this RFP “must be due not later than the date stated in the cover letter of this Solicitation.” However, the cover page states a specific time. Can USAID confirm that proposals are due by the date and time listed on the cover page?

USAID Response: Yes, all proposals in response to the subject RFP are due not later than the date and time stated in the cover letter of the solicitation, as follows:

Closing Date: March 2, 2018, Closing Time: 8:00 a.m. Burma, Local Time (GMT +6:30) Please see Part I.4 of this Amendment.

31. At L.7.4 RESPONSIVENESS TO RFP, the RFP states” Proposals must respond directly to the terms, conditions, specifications and provisions of this RFP. Proposals not conforming to this RFP may be determined as non-responsive, thereby eliminating them from further consideration.” Could USAID please confirm that to be deemed responsive, a proposal must only directly address those items identified and/or referenced in Section L and Section M rather than every term, condition, specification and provision contained in any section of the RFP?

USAID Response: Section L.7.4 is included in the solicitation to address situations where an offeror has not submitted a required item requested in Section L and to be evaluated by section M, such as not providing past performance references, a section of the technical proposal, or not providing a budget narrative in the cost proposal.

32. At L.9.2 Format, Page Limitations and Content, the RFP states that “Proposals which merely offer to perform in accordance with the requirements, or which merely paraphrase the RFP, or use generic, subjective phrases such as, ‘standard practices will be employed,” or “well established techniques will be employed,” etc., may be considered non-compliant and ineligible for award.”

Could USAID please clarify whether responses must elaborate on:

a) How and when the Offeror will request approval, notify the COR, or report on meetings with GOM officials of different ranks or levels of government (e.g.

Task 1.1(a) Consultation on Rule of Law Reform: “… Meetings, consultations, or other engagements at the level of Director General or higher, including Minister, require prior notification of the COR….”).

USAID Response: Offerors do not have to respond or elaborate on directions given in the RFP related to approvals by the COR or to the process or timing of submissions for approval.

b) How an Offeror will comply with requirements related to COR review, approval, direction, etc. (e.g. Task 3.2 Increased access to non-governmental resources:

“All assistance contemplated under this task is subject to the approval of the COR through the work plan.”).

USAID Response: See USAID response to number 32(a) above.

c) How an Offeror will comply with requirements related to provision of updates on planned and completed activities in work plans, reports, etc. (e.g. Task 1.1(c) Rule of Law and Justice Center Coordination Body: “The contractor must include a specific update on its planned and completed engagement and work with the ROLJCCB under its work plan and performance reports, respectively.” or “The trafficking report must be submitted no later than January 15 of each year, or the next business day if a holiday or weekend.”).

USAID Response: See USAID response to number 32(a) above.

It would be difficult not to repeat or paraphrase such requirements and/or to provide more detail about how the Offeror would accomplish such procedural requirements; however, according to L.7.4 and L.9.2, a proposal that does not respond directly to these requirements could be considered non-responsive. Similarly, an offer that merely offers to perform in response to such requirements could be considered non-compliant.

Would USAID consider allowing Offerors to provide one statement that it will comply with all of these requirements at the beginning of the Technical Approach section of the proposal or not to respond to these requirements in every instance or at last in those instances when they relate to COR direction rather than to the substance of the Technical Approach? This would have the added benefit of providing Offerors with the ability to provide more robust analysis and explanation of proposed approaches and activities to achieve the objectives described in Section C.

USAID Response: See USAID response to number 32(a) above.

33. L.9.2 Format, Page Limitations and Contents allocates 30 pages to the Technical Approach Body, including Technical Approach, Institutional Experience, Management Approach, and Key Personnel. Five pages are allocated to Annex B, Organizational Chart, the requirements for which are further described in L.9.2.1 Institutional Experience, Management Approach, and Key Personnel.

May Offerors include both the Organizational Chart and Comprehensive Staffing Plan (as described in the second paragraph of L.9.2.1, excluding the last sentence, “the management approach must include a comprehensive staffing plan and organizational chart that specify the composition and organizational structure of the entire project team, including home office support, sub-contractors, and anticipated short term technical assistance. The management approach must also describe how sub-contracts will be managed with clear lines of authority between the prime and sub-contractors and clearly state the responsibilities of each major sub-contractor.”) in Annex B?

USAID Response: Yes

Alternatively, would USAID consider reducing the allocation for Annex B to 2 pages and reallocating the remaining 3 pages from Annex B to the Technical Proposal Body?

USAID response: No

34. May Offerors make the Organizational Chart for Appendix B larger than letter size paper for ease of review by USAID?

USAID Response: Yes.

35. The Offeror has access to candidates that fit the qualifications that USAID is suggesting in the RFP. However, we feel that the way that the qualifications are cast preclude us from presenting some stronger candidates, who we feel would create a more diverse team that would have optimal experience to implement the project. One example of this is that the three key personnel COP, DCOP, and HA Advisor in the RFP must all must have a law degree. To effectively implement such a wide array of interventions USAID would benefit from a more diverse team of candidates with a wider array of talents, skills and education to implement this project. In particular, the Offeror suggests that the narrow focus on legal education may exclude individuals with the very educational and career backgrounds that are typical of the justice sector, rule of law reform, and human rights institutional communities. The Offeror suggests that it is important to consider candidates who have real experience with building justice institution and NGO capacity, strengthening the administration of justice, empowering civil society to engage in justice sector reforms. To the extent that a law degree is not the common standard or alternative degrees are commonly preferable for positions that would afford the career expertise necessary to achieve the expected results and objectives of PRLM, we believe USAID would benefit from a broader pool of candidates.

For example, a law degree is not required for positions in court or justice sector management and administration and/or justice-sector institutional leadership and development. In many cases, individuals with strong court performance backgrounds have degrees in public policy or administration, business management, social sciences, technology fields, etc. These talented individuals may have learned their justice-related professions on the job, completed only non-degree legal education courses, and/or completed other education and/or professional training in fields relevant to court management and leadership.

Similarly, we believe that candidates with experience working with international donors in similar conflict-affected and/or transitional contexts, as well as candidates with experience working in Asia or Myanmar outside of the international donor-funded projects could contribute different but relevant perspectives that would be useful to achieving the objectives of PRLM – especially in instances where isolation has limited exposure to lessons learned and innovative approaches to overcoming entrenched issues.

USAID would benefit from a key personnel team that collectively covers all needed areas of expertise, including educational, career, and regional/country experience but that also is comprised of a diverse set of individuals who offer not only cultural- and context-informed experience but also comparative and evidenced-based perspectives from environments with similar complexities, which may or may not be located in Asia.

Would USAID consider modifying the minimum required qualifications in the following manner?

a) Change the Chief of Party and Deputy Chief of Party educational requirement from “A degree in law” to “A degree in law or other relevant field.”?

USAID Response: The Chief of Party must have a law degree. USAID will consider DCOP candidates that have a law degree or equivalent advanced degree in another relevant field. See Part I.5 of this Amendment.

b) Changing requirement #4 for the Chief of Party from “Experience working with international donors in Myanmar or Asia” to “Experience working in Myanmar or Asia and working with international donors in a similar conflict-affected or transition context”?

USAID Response: This requirement will remain unchanged.

c) Changing requirement #2 for the Human Rights Officer from “Seven years of experience in the implementation of human rights activities in transition and conflict-affected countries” to “Seven years of experience in the implementation of human rights activities in transition and/or conflict-affected countries”?

USAID Response: This requirement has been revised. Please see Part I.6 of this Amendment.

36. Can USAID confirm that requirement #2 for the Deputy Chief of Party, which reads “Five years of experience in a senior management position with a demonstrated track record of building and managing a strong team” may be met through cumulative senior management experience from one or several positions/teams?

USAID Response: The technical proposal must present the Offeror’s candidates for the Key Personnel positions. For each proposed key personnel, provide a statement of qualification (SOQ) that clearly demonstrates how the individual meets the minimum qualifications for the position.

37. It has been reported that the Supreme Court and PRLP plan to present a Report on accomplishments under the existing Judiciary Strategic Plan (2015-2017) Year 3 Action Plan (2017), as well as, Judiciary Strategic Plan 2018-2022 and/or a comparable Judiciary Strategic Plan and annual Strategic Action Plan in the coming days.

Since Contractors are discouraged from contacting GOM institutions would USAID kindly provide a copy of any new progress reports on past plans and/or new plans associated with judiciary strategic and/or action planning as soon as they become available?

USAID Response: The OSCU’s 2018-2022 Strategic Plan and the 2015-2017 Strategic Plan and the annual action plans, 2015, 2016, and 2017 are available in English at the Supreme Court website www.unionsupremecourt.gov.mm Other useful documents including the Annual Report 2016 and the Code of Judicial Ethics for Myanmar Judges are also available on this site.

38. L.9.2.2 Technical Approach states, in part: Offerors must propose a grant under contract amount of at least 25% of the total proposed cost. Offerors must describe realistic strategies to meet, or to exceed, this amount. Note: Offerors must not reveal the total cost of their offer in the technical proposal.” Shall Offerors reveal the percentage of the total proposed cost represented by the grant under contract amount proposed (e.g. 25%, 27%, 45%) in the Technical Proposal?

http://www.unionsupremecourt.mm.gov/

USAID Response: Yes.

39. Could USAID please confirm that the contractor may award solely in-kind grants to government entities as per the Grants Under Contract (GUC) authorizing language of ADS 302.3.4.13?

USAID Response: Yes.

40. Clause F.4 names four Key Personnel positions. Paragraph L.9.2 Format, Page Limitation and Content, Annex E: Statement of Qualification and Letter of Commitment (Key Personnel) limits the annex to 4 pages. However, two documents are required for each Key Personnel.

Accordingly, will USAID increase the limitation to 8 pages?

USAID Response: Annex E requires a statement of qualification (SOQ) and letter of commitment, of no more than 4 pages, for each key personnel. For example, for the Chief of Party, a one-page letter of commitment and a three-page SOQ.

41. Paragraph L.9.2.1 Institutional Experience, Management Approach, and Key Personnel, near the end of the third paragraph requires 5 professional references for each Key Personnel. Should these references be added to the Statement of Qualifications in Annex E, or does USAID intend for these references to be included in the technical proposal?

USAID Response: Submit references in an additional annex.

42. Section L.10, Part 2.c.2 (page 81) of the RFP states, “The base of application of fixed fee must not include GUCs.” This statement appears inconsistent with FAR 15.404-4 and ADS 302.3.6.9, which stipulate that pre-negotiation fee objectives must be determined according to a structured approach that includes contractor effort, risk, and other special factors. Grants require significant effort to administer and carry risks for the contractor. Given these facts, and to be consistent with the FAR and ADS, could USAID please remove this statement from the RFP?

USAID Response: As stated in Section L.10, Part 2.d.13, offerors must propose fee with rationale supported by the application of the profit-analysis factors as indicated in FAR 15.404-4(d). Furthermore, the fee (per regulation) shall not exceed 10 percent of the proposed total estimated cost. However, for this activity, for purposes of calculating the amount of fixed fee, offerors must not include the amount for GUCs in the “total estimated cost” as its base of application.

43. Section L.9.2 (page 76) of the RFP states that the technical proposal must be structured with the one-page cover letter before the title page. Could USAID please confirm that the offeror may place the title page before the cover letter in the technical proposal?

USAID Response: Yes.

44. Section L.10, Part 9 (page 84) of the RFP, which is titled “LETTERS OF COMMITMENT (MAJOR SUBCONTRACTORS,” reads, “The Cost/Business Proposal must include a letter, on subcontractor letterhead, and [be] signed by an authorized representative of each subcontractor.”

Could USAID please confirm that letters of commitment are required only for major subcontractors, not for every subcontractor?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that letters of commitment are required only for major subcontractors

45. L.9.2 (page 76) states that “The text in any text boxes included…