AMENDMENT 02.pdf

Please note, additional questions received after the Pre-proposal conference will be posted via another amendment. The following documents are provided as attachments and are inclusive of this modification: a) Peace Presentation b) Bidder Conference list c) Nigeria Conflict Assessment.

1) Section L.14 “INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE COST/BUSINESS PROPOSAL”: (b)Part 2- Proposed Costs –Note is amended to reflect the following:

[Note: the figures in “Red” are figures, proposed salaries must be unburdened.

2) 2) Attachment J.7 is amended as follows:

ATTACHMENT J.7

COST EVALUATION MATRIX

The following sets forth the process to be utilized for evaluation of proposed costs under this RFP. The Offeror’s proposed costs and salaries for the 5-year period shall be incorporated into the Sample Budget below where indicated. The total cost plus fixed fee in the Sample Budget is the offeror’s proposed cost for evaluation purposes.

[Note1: The figures in “RED " are plug figures and must be used for evaluation purposes.]

[Note2: The personnel proposed for the labor categories in section C.6 (i.e., Conflict Specialist, Attorney, Subject Matter Specialist, Information Management Specialist, Technical Writer/Editor, Training Human Resources Development Specialist, Program Development Specialist, Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, Grants Manager, Administrative Support) and/or additional personnel proposed by the offeror (i.e., Senior Legislative/Parliamentary Development) shall be proposed full-time. Annual salaries for the full-time positions must be consistent with the offeror’s personnel policies and the proposed Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet submitted for each labor category. Normally a work-year is 2,080 hours (260 days x 8 hours per day), including paid absences (holidays, vacations, and sick leave). However, some organizations do not have an 8-hour workday, and some accounting systems normally provide for direct recovery of paid absences by using a work-year of less than 2,080 hours to compute individuals' unburdened daily rates. Therefore, the offeror shall propose a work-year in accordance with its organization’s personnel policies and accounting systems; however, the cost proposal must clearly indicate the number of hours and days in its normal work-day and its normal work-week, indicate how paid absences (US holidays, local holidays, vacation and sick) shall be covered, and describe the organization’s work day and work week policies in accordance with Section L.13(J)part 10)

[Note3: For evaluation purposes, only the prime offeror's proposed ceiling indirect costs allocated to these line items shall be utilized.]

[Note4: The proposed fixed fee percentage in the Cost Evaluation Matrix will be incorporated into the IQC as the maximum fixed fee percentage allowed for all task orders.]

CONTINUATION PAGE

AMENDMENT 02

SOL-OAA-12-00-000043

RFP #

SOL-OAA-12-000043

OFFEROR: [insert name of offeror]

A. Labor Categories

Rate applied

(%, where applicable)

Year 1 (sample) Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Total

Estimated

Cost (TEC) = total of columns E through I

A.1 Attorney (1) $ 100,000

Attorney (sample) 4% $ 100,000 $ 104,000 $ 108,160

A.2 Conflict Specialist (2) $ 105,000

A.3 Subject Matter Specialist (3) $ 110,000

A.4 Information Management Specialist (4) $ 115,000

A.5 Technical Management Specialist (5) $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000

A.6 Technical Writer/Editor (6)

A.7 Training and Human Ressources Development

Specialist (7)

A.8 Program Development Specialist (8)

A.9 Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist (9)

A.10 Grants Manager (10)

A.11 Administrative Support (11)

A.12 US. Based Additional STTA $ 1,200,000 $ 1,236,000 $ 1,273,080 $ 1,311,272 $ 1,350,610 $ 6,370,962

A.13 Local Hires $ 1,300,000 $ 1,339,000 $ 1,379,170 $ 1,420,545 $ 1,463,161 $ 6,901,876

SUBTOTAL DIRECT LABOR: $ 3,210,000

B. Fringe Benefits: (12)

B Sample: Fringe Benefits 15% $ 481,500

C. OH [Indirect Costs on Labor + Fringe]: (13)

C Sample: OH [Indirect Costs on Labor +

Fringe] 20% $ 738,300

C.1 Other (14)

C.2 Other (15)

C.3 Other (16)

OTHER DIRECT COSTS: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

D. Offeror Travel: 5,000,000$ 5,075,000$ 5,151,125$ 5,228,391$ 5,306,818$

E. Subcontractor Travel: 1,000,000$ 1,015,000$ 1,030,225$ 1,045,678$ 1,061,364$

F. Offeror Allowances: 2,492,291$ 2,492,291$ 2,492,291$ 2,492,291$ 2,492,291$

G. Subcontractor Allowances: 1,124,625$ 1,124,625$ 1,124,625$ 1,124,625$ 1,124,625$

H. Offeror ODCs: 7,680,000$ 7,795,200$ 7,912,128$ 8,030,809$ 8,151,272$

I. Subcontractor ODCs: 1,920,000$ 1,948,800$ 1,978,032$ 2,007,702$ 2,037,818$

J. Non-expendable equipment: -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

K. Subgrants: 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$

$ 20,716,916 $ 20,950,916 $ 21,188,426 $ 21,429,497 $ 21,674,187 $105,959,942

Rate Year 1

(proposed)

Year 2

(proposed)

Year 3

(proposed)

Year 4

(proposed)

Year 5

(Proposed)

L. Indirect Costs on Line D: (17)

M. Indirect Costs on Line E: (18)

N. Indirect Costs on Line F: (19)

O. Indirect Costs on Line G: (20)

P. Indirect Costs on Line H: (21)

Q. Indirect Costs on Line I: (22)

R. Indirect Costs on Line J: (23)

S. Indirect Costs on Line K: (24)

TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS:

(25)

BUDGET

TEC:

TOTAL ODCs:

TEC PLUS FIXED FEE:

Sample Budget (5 Year Total):

FIXED FEE:

INDIRECT COSTS:

NOTES:

This is a sample budget to be used by all offerors. Excepts for the plug in figures provided for the US Base STTA and Local Hires and Other Direct Costs Category,all other numbers are to be are to be proposed by offerors based on their approach.

Offerors are to propose salaries as part of their cost proposals.

(1) through (10): specify the escalation rate used between years for each labor category

(B) Fringe: specify rate and detail base of application used -

Sample - "B: Fringe Benefits: 15%

Base of application: [$3,210,000 (Total Direct Labor)] * 15 % = $481,500]"

(13): Overhead: specify rate and detail base of application used -

Sample - "C. Overhead: 20%

Base of application: [$3,210,000 (Total Direct Labor) + $481,500 (Fringe Benefits)] * 20% = $738,300

(14) = If applicable, specify "Other Rate" and base of application used (use format identical to the above examples)

(15) = If applicable, specify "Other Rate" and base of application used (use format identical to the above examples)

(16) = If applicable, specify "Other Rate" and base of application used (use format identical to the above examples)

(17) through (24) = specify rate (use format identical to the above examples)

(25) specify Fixed Fee (%)

3) PEACE IQC BIDDERS CONFERENCE TRANSCRIPT:

Written Record of May 31, 2012 Pre-proposal Conference, including Questions and Answers and Conference Attendees

Ousmane Faye, Contracting Officer: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of USAID I would like to welcome you here today and thank you personally for your interest in attending this pre-proposal conference.

I am going to kick off the conference before turning it to my colleague but before starting I would like to give them the chance to introduce themselves. My name is Ousmane Faye. I am a Contracting Officer. And we have:

Jose Garzon : I’m Jose Garzon, Deputy Director of the Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation.

Michelle Linder: I’m Michelle Linder. I’m the Program Officer for CMM.

Joe Hewitt: And my name is Joe Hewitt. I am the team lead for the Technical Leadership team for CMM.

Ousmane Faye: Thank you. We also have:

Stephane Bright: Stephane Bright, the negotiator.

Ousmane Faye: You’ve probably seen Stephane’s name on a lot of these emails but now you can put a face to the name. I just wanted to let you know that we are recording this pre-proposal conference so that at the end, everything that we say here can be posted on FEDBIZOPPS.GOV so that everyone has the same information. This is an opportunity for you guys to ask as many questions as you want and we will try and answer your questions as much as we can. If there are any questions that we cannot answer now, they will still be answered and it will be posted. Index card have been provided to you to ask your questions. I want to specify that what we say in here is not, cannot be considered as an amendment to the RFP unless you see the amendment actually posted. That’s important.

We are using FAR part 15 for this procurement, which is Contracting by Negotiations, which is very different from sealed bidding. What that means, is that once we post a solicitation for proposals and proposals are received, they go through an evaluation process; we determine a competitive range, and then we negotiate with those in the competitive range and then we make final award decisions. With that said and without further do, I want to leave the floor to our colleagues from the technical office (DCHA/CMM). Thank you.

Jose Garzon: Thank you Ousmane and Good afternoon. I want to walk you through the request for proposals, Programming Effectively Against Conflict and Extremism (PEACE IQC) by the Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation. The office of Conflict Management and Mitigation if you are not aware of it—is part of the

Bureau Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance. It was launched in 2002 in response to a felt need for more work and attention to conflict following the great conflicts of the 1990’s. It has three functions:

identify and analyze the source of conflict and fragility, supports responses to that conflict and it seeks to integrate conflict management and mitigation into USAID analyses, strategies and programs. The PEACE IQC supports all of these.

What do we do? We, we conduct conflict field research, perform conflict assessments. We’ve conducted about 60 of these since 2005. We support effective conflict programming toolkits. We’ve produce about nine of these on various subjects, such as gender and conflict, youth and conflict, forests, minerals, etc. We manage conflict early warning systems. You may be familiar with the Alert Lists that are produced. We’ve produced about seven of these. We conduct outreach and training, mostly for USAID staff, and other select U.S.

Government and partner staff. We manage a reconciliation programs fund and a technical leadership fund.

And finally we manage the IQC and that’s why we are here today.

The current program that is ending, for which PEACE is going to be a follow on, is the Instability, Crisis and

Recovery Program, ICRP. The ordering period under the IQC has already expired and the task orders issued under the ICRP will expire by March 2013. It has a $600 million ceiling with about 46 task orders. It has five awardees and it has relatively limited CMM involvement. It’s pretty much set up like a traditional IQC mechanism.

The purpose of the PEACE IQC is to promote the design and implementation of conflict sensitive development programming, but also to extract key lessons learned and technical insights from these programs. So the learning aspect is much more elevated in this program. And also to manage and disseminate knowledge of those programs. So you’ll see a bit of a different emphasis from the previous ICRP program. PEACE is similar to the ICRP in the sense that they are the same size(IQC ceiling $ 600M); there is a Grant Under Contract

Component which serve similar purpose, but there are some important differences I want to draw your attention to.

First of all under PEACE, there are two windows, one for critical priority countries and non-critical priority countries. A t this time, the four critical priority countries are Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and South Sudan.

That can change. The Learning component also has a great deal more of CMM involvement. That’s something that’s anticipated and we’ll talk about a little more. It also has an analytic services component reserved for small business holder.

The four components of the PEACE IQC are: Knowledge Generation , Dissemination and Management; Training

; Field Implementation Program (which is divided into two sub-components and we’ll talk about in a minute) and Analytic Services. We anticipate six awards as result of this solicitation - one award for small business under the analytic services and five awards for other areas. We’ll go into more detail for the four components, we mentioned technical guidance and conflict programming, which includes toolkits, technical briefs, other pieces that were done under the previous IQC, early warning and other analytic tools, knowledge management systems, also communications, rollout events, and other conferences and meetings.

Under Training Component, we anticipate new course development, but I would point out apart from the other areas identified here (refer to power point presentation), I won’t read them out, there are two things that are very important for everyone to understand. One is that we anticipate training to be very much a collaborative exercise between CMM Staff and the contractor. This is not a situation where we are just simply passing the training responsibilities off to the contractor, nor simply asking the contractor to serve in just a logistical capability. But it is really a partnership. The other thing is that if you look in the middle (refer to power point presentation), we are developing multimedia programs and we anticipate developing multimedia programs for all CMM courses. In terms of logistic support we anticipate supporting of course, courses offered in Washington, but also supporting, remotely, courses offered overseas and support trainings from

Washington.

In terms of field program implementation there are two types of programs. One, so you have your standard programs. They’re on the bottom there. These are probably the ones you’re more familiar with. These are programs that may include some of the learning program methodologies. But they’re really programs driven by the missions, identified by the missions, approved by CMM and then we carry out the program according to the scope of work.

We anticipate, however, this is something new, creating learning programs. Learning programs have much more CMM involvement and have much more emphasis on actual learning and feeding information back into a global knowledge management system. As I said, the learning program involves much more robust engagement between CMM and the field mission. We don’t anticipate a lot of these. We anticipate perhaps maybe one a year, I can’t say for sure how many there’s going to be, but we anticipate there will be a few key learning programs in this IQC.

The analytic services component- we anticipate one small business carrying this out and it is essentially divided between the conflict assessments, which some of you may be familiar with, but which we have been conducting since 2005. And also evaluations. And we’re looking at different kinds of evaluations. Sometimes they will be evaluations of individual projects. Sometimes it might be meta-evaluations or selecting data from lessons learned.

In terms of the management structure, this is fairly consistent with most IQCs. You have a technical director and an IQC manager. Both are key personnel. But also, what’s new, perhaps, is the learning and training coordinator required under component Knowledge Generation Dissemination and Management (KGDM), Training, Field Program Implementation. The learning and training coordinator is not required under the analytic services part of the other three components. We anticipate a grant under a contract at the Task Order level . These are incidentally small grants, $5,000-$50,000 range, maximum is going to be $100,000 range.

They require USAID approval.

The normal environmental compliance rules will pertain. In many of these projects you’ll be dealing with a categorical exclusion, such as training, or analysis, reports. But in some cases we actually have projects, especially if you’re doing any kind of physical activity, there is going to be environmental requirements.

Depending on what you’re doing, it could be more or less rigorous so you need to be familiar with those requirements.

I would draw your attention, however, to the gender component which is now falling under the new USAID

Policy on Gender Equality and Female Empowerment, which just came out in March 2012. We want the proposals under the task order to specifically address the gender dynamics, not just in one corner, not just in one paragraph, but throughout the statement of work. So under this program gender is given more attention and emphasis. This is going to conclude the technical presentation.

We are now going to move to a short break. What we’ll ask you to do is to write your questions. One question per card please. If your question pertains to a specific component, if you can, please, identify that component. If you can please identify that component by putting a label on it, training or analytic services, that makes it easier for us to sort that question and makes it easier to get to the right expert. If you’re not sure, or if it covers across several components, or it’s not related to a component, leave it blank. Don’t worry about it. The important thing is to have one question per card. Turn the cards into the front or the back of the room.

BREAK –:

Joe Hewitt: Can I have your attention please? So we have about 30 or 40 questions. Some are making specific references back to the RFP. So, if you’ll indulge us for a little bit more time, we’re just going through them all right now, making sure we have them and we’ll be back in about 15 minutes. I apologize for making you sit here, but hopefully this will make the quality of the communication a lot better if we spend a little time making sure we get this right. Thanks for your patience.

END BREAK

Jose Garzon: we had a lot of questions and there will still be time to submit the questions. So, Lisa will explain the order in which we will answer the questions.

Lisa Chandonnet-Bedoya: I’m Lisa Chandonnet-Bedoya with the Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation.

So were actually going to answer questions in the following order. First it will be general questions pertaining to the PEACE IQC, followed by Knowledge Generation, Dissemination and Management, Training, then Field

Program Implementation and the last will be Analytical Services. So we’ll actually move forward in that order and Victoria will actually begin with the general questions for the PEACE IQC.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

General Questions

Victoria Gellis: This covers more broadly general areas so they are not in a particular order within general. I’m just going to read your questions and our responses.

Question 1: How is “major subcontractor” defined for subcontractors? Section L page 120 requires past performance references for each “major partner subcontractor.”

Answer 1 : That is, any major subcontractor is any subcontractor that performs 25% or more of the work.

Post conference note. For this RFP as referenced in Section L page 115 “Major subcontractors” are those subcontractors expected to perform at least 20% of the technical effort under the IQC under this RFP. This confirms that the RFP language prevails.

Question 2: The second question, can we get an attendee list with point of contact info?

Answer 2: Yes we’ll post that along with the transcript for the event at FEDBIZOPS.

Post conference note: We will post the registration list and it will be considered part of this written record for this event; however, the registration list may not match the actual attendees of the event. All pre-proposal conference materials will be available at www.fbo.gov

Question 3: Do bidders have to be able to undertake task orders in all areas or can bids be submitted for only certain sections?

Answer 3: Bidders must be able to undertake the work in all areas for the sections for which they are applying.

Question 4: In your priority nations list, I am not aware that you mentioned Nigeria. However, a Nigeria framework is included in the package documents. What is the relevance or connection?

Answer 4: Nigeria is not a CPC - Critical Priority Country. I’m not sure if that was not the intent of the question. Jose Garzon: It is not a critical priority country at this time.

Post conference note: Nigeria is not a CPC at this time. Nigeria as is used a case study in CAF2.0 materials that are part of the RFP package; this is for illustrative purposes for those materials and is not connected to a CPC designation nor is it intended to imply an automatic guarantee of work in Nigeria.

Question 5: Definitions, what is CMM’s definition of “conflict sensitive” development?

Answer 5 : We believe that is defined in the CAF 2.0 and the appendices posted but we will put a definition in today’s transcript from those materials.

Post-conference note: Per page five of CAF 2.0, “Conflict sensitivity refers to the ability of an organization to:

(1) understand the context in which it is operating, particularly with respect to inter-group relations; (2) understand the interactions between its interventions and the context/group relations; and (3) act upon these understandings in way that avoids negative impacts and maximizes positive impacts vis-à-vis the conflict.

http://www.fbo.gov/

These effects could be knock-on effects of the program/project impact, or could arise from operational aspects of the implementation. All development activities should be conflict-sensitive, but only some are designed to directly mitigate/manage conflict.”

Question 6: Could USAID give a summary of the types of programs implemented under ICRP so as to predict the types of projects that might occur under PEACE.

Answer 6: We will post an illustrative list of the projects with the transcript, which I will skip to another question related which is.

Post-conference note: Please note that not all of the components under PEACE were components under ICRP.

The illustrative list includes:

Country Title Purpose

Kosovo Support to Peace and Stability in Kosovo Support peace and stability by fostering a transparent, participatory process that builds the capacity of civil society organizations to effectively manage the process in order to ensure a peaceful resolution to the final status of Kosovo.

Tajikistan Tajikistan Conflict Assessment Conduct assessment of current conflict dynamics in Tajikistan which will offer analysis and recommendations for best practices in this context for the USG's methodology to apply in mitigating potential key triggers of violent conflict.

Nepal Nepal Government-Citizen Partnership

Project

Supporting stability in targeted districts in the Terai region by improving the link between citizens and their local government.

Afghanistan Local Government and Capacity

Development

Assist the Government of Afghanistan to extend its reach into unstable areas and engage at-risk populations by building the capacity of provincial and local government officials to deliver services and engage citizens.

DRC Congo Stabilization Program Promote durable peace in Eastern Congo by creating tangible, short-term peace dividends in a manner that promotes the foundation for peace in the medium and longer-terms.

Question 7: How many task orders were issued under the prior IQC?

Answer 7: And the answer to that is about 45.

Question 8: How will RFTOPs have gender written into them?

Answer 8: Gender analysis is always tailored to a country and activity and as such will be defined on a

RFTOP basis.

Question 9: Ok, this is a lengthy question that we had a little trouble reading. So, I’ll do my best here. The institutional capacity instructions in section L page 119 note that each task order awarded under a USAID-awarded IQC shall be counted as a separate contract. Can unique activities performed as separate deliverables on an IQC task order be listed separately? Example a multi-year M&E services IQC task order includes a mid-term performance evaluation of a livelihoods project and a governance sectoral assessment. The activities are unique but fall under the same contract.

Answer 9: the answer is no, they should be listed at the task order level but you can explain variations in the award description box in the matrix.

Question 10: Partnering. What will be the mechanism for a small disadvantaged business to partner with a prime contractor in justice development under CARSI or CBSI initiatives?

Answer 10: In general USAID has no control over the relationship between primes and subs.

Question 11: Branding strategy and marking plan. Given that PEACE is a global IQC, how should applicants prepare the branding strategy and marketing plan given that different countries/operational environments would determine different sets of branding and marking requirements?

Answer 11: I’m not sure if I can read the response on the person who wrote that one so we’ll come back to that in a moment.

Post-conference note: Offerors are requested to submit their requirement under marking and branding plan at the IQC level. However, we recognize that marking and branding of services and products can be sensitive in certain situations and exception can be made at the Task Order level on a case by case basis.

Question 12: Would USAID consider lowering the minimum requirements for the IQC management team to broaden the pool of qualified technical experts?

Answer 12: No, the parameters are already defined in the IQC.

Question 13: We have paired the following two questions which are essentially the same. I will read the first.

The RFP Section L 10 page 111 states $200,000 should be used to propose a research agenda and first year work plan. Would USAID please explain how it will ensure that research agendas proposed by offerors are consistent with an illustrative budget of $200,000?

Answer 13: We proposed an illustrative amount so that everyone shares the same parameters. As Section M explains, the scoring reflects the ability to demonstrate a complex and sophisticated understanding of the issue selected as it pertains to the broader areas in which CMM works.

Question 14: Who are/is the incumbents for the Analytic and broader components?

Answer 14: As the introductory page to the RFP states, the ICRP holders have been AED, AMEX, ARD, DAI and MSI. PEACE is a new design so there is no “incumbent” as such for analytical services.

Question 15: The final question in the general category and we’ll come back to the branding question at the end (see Q11). Thanks sincerely for having a USAID overseas opportunity for SDBs. Many SDBs in the federal contracting sphere do not focus on one or two practice areas; thus, we would urge that the key personnel evaluative factor be much greater than the weight of this factor for the prime contractor.

Answer 15: We appreciate your feedback on the solicitation. Evaluation criteria will not be changed.

Question 16: We plan to hand deliver our proposal on July 2nd. For hand delivered copies to Federal Center

Plaza, the RFP says to contact the Contract Specialist once in the lobby. Could USAID please provide the phone number to reach Stephane Bright, as well as a back-up contact if Stephane is unavailable?

Answer 16: The instructions for hand delivery of the RFP are described in Section L8 and L10.

Post-conference note: Proposals shall be delivered to the following addresses.

If Sent Via US Postal or Courier Service:

Stephane Bright USAID Office of Acquisition & Assistance (M/OAA/DCHA/DOFDA) SA-44, Room 518-G 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523-7900

If Hand Carried:

Stephane Bright USAID Office of Acquisition & Assistance (M/OAA/DCHA/DOFDA) SA-44, Room 518-G Federal Center Plaza 301 C Street SW Entrance 301 4th Street, SW Washington, DC 20024 Tel 202-567-4523

Alternate:

Ousmane Faye USAID Office of Acquisition & Assistance (M/OAA/DCHA/DOFDA) SA-44, Room 518-D Federal Center Plaza 301 C Street SW Entrance 301 4th Street, SW Washington, DC 20024 Tel 202-567-4184

Question 17: For the corporate technical experience matrix described on page 113 of the RFP, it is stated that

“awards or subawards which do not have a primary focus on conflict prevention, management or mitigation as described in Section C will not be reviewed and will be disregarded.” Given the RFP’s emphasis on cross-sectoral programming and inclusion of economics, essential services, and governance among the featured practice areas, will USAID allow inclusion of projects primarily focused in one of these practice areas, so long as they are directly or indirectly targeting sources of conflict in conflict-affected contexts?

Answer 17: This question, we felt merited further thought and we will get back to you and make the clarifications more specific.

Post-conference note: USAID will allow inclusion of projects focused in these practice areas listed in question

17 and other cross-sectoral programs as long as they are directly and explicitly targeting sources of conflict in conflict-affected contexts.

Stephane Bright: Victoria you could say in the written record, we’ll add the contact number because we didn’t put it here.

Victoria Gellis: Ok, so amending my previous response on the hand delivered question, that we will include the phone number in the transcript today as it is not in the RFP.

Post-conference note: Please see information under Answer 16 above which includes contact information for hand delivery.

Questions on: Knowledge Generation, Dissemination and Management

Michelle Linder: These questions all relate to the section on knowledge generation, dissemination and management and they’re primarily about the knowledge management systems. These are in no particular order. The first question is under knowledge management platform question.

Question 18: Is it expected that the first task order be issued to the offeror with the best knowledge management platform or will USAID expect to have a number of different knowledge management platforms—one for each prime holder?

Answer 18 : It is expected that a task order will be issued to the offeror with the best knowledge management platform.

Post-conference note: USAID would like to clarify this response. IQC holders are asked to demonstrate in their technical approach the capacity to respond to potential Task Orders issued by both CMM and other management units within USAID, within the areas outlined in the RFP. All offerors must demonstrate capacity in all areas for which they are applying. However, any specific knowledge management system would be scoped within an RFTOP. If and when such RFTOP was issued, at that time it is expected that a task order would be issued to the offeror with the best response to the RFTOP.

Question 19: The second question, this is also a duplicate but I will read them both. Broader dissemination of lessons learned was mentioned. Who are the intended targets for this broader audience? U.S. government agencies? NGO’s? Citizens in conflict areas? Related question: who are the intended audiences for the knowledge management system?

Answer 19: The intended audience is USAID both here in Washington and in our field missions.

Post-conference note: USAID seeks to promote and share learning on a broad level. Any specific knowledge management system, however, must at a minimum meet the needs of the agency.

Question 20: USAID recommends using an existing platform. Is there a specific platform CMM would like to use? Is there latitude to create a new platform that incorporates features from existing platforms?

Answer 20: I wanted to direct you to the solicitation on page 13 it actually says, any systems developed under this IQC must not unnecessarily duplicate software or systems already on the market in use at USAID or in use among our partners. Rather it shall be designed to complement or expand existing systems and it goes on from there. So I would say the answer is that, we are not necessarily recommending an existing platform in the solicitation and yes there would be latitude to create new platform that incorporates features from existing platforms. And they’ll be additional parameters set at the task order level for the knowledge management system.

Question 21: Next question which is somewhat related to a previous question—Who are the main stakeholders/recipients/users of knowledge? Are the populations in critical priority countries included? If yes, how do you plan to overcome the contextual barriers such as low literacy levels, lack of media infrastructure, internal population migration, etc?

Answer 21: See A.19, As previously stated, the main users of the knowledge management system are expected to be USAID employees. We would hope that the knowledge generated would benefit local populations, obviously, but the primary users would be USAID. And then last question, which was submitted under this area but is a little bit different.

Question 22: Please explain what you intend by “one of several in” “an overall understanding of the as one of several key technical issues on which work will be performed under the life of the IQC”. How can offerors respond when the other research/technical issues have not been set?

Answer 22: There are illustrative areas in the solicitation, if there are additional areas—that will be specified at the task order.

Post-conference note: The reference “one of several” refers to the illustrative issue chosen by an offeror.

The offeror is to select one issue from the areas already outlined. If there are additional areas in the future, that will be specified at the task order.

Questions on: Training

Elisabeth Dallas: I’m Elisabeth Dallas I’m also with CMM. I’m going to respond to the questions that were submitted on training.

Question 23: Who will benefit from training? If other than USAID personnel, how will they be selected?

Answer 23 : It’s primarily USAID personnel and other interagency personnel including those in the field and those in Washington who will benefit from the trainings.

Question 24: The second two questions are very similar. I’ll read both of them. Can you broaden on what type of trainings e.g. rule of law community safeness, interaction between public security and justice agencies abroad? And the second question is: What are the specific training courses that will be needed? Will this include eLearning?

Answer 24: CMM’s trainings, its advanced trainings will be following the USAID programming cycle. So this includes as illustrative examples, conflict assessments, program design, monitoring and evaluation, and more specifics regarding the training requirements will be done by task order.

Question 25: Will there be a language analysis or language training component to the educational segment of the IQC?

Answer 25: And the answer is no.

Questions on: Field Program Implementation

Lisa Chandonnet-Bedoya: OK, the first question for the field and learning programs.

Question 26: Is there a program under ICRP that would be an example of a “learning program” methodology?

Answer 26: ICRP did not have a learning program component so the answer is no.

Question 27: Will the learning program involve carrying out impact evaluation?

Answer 27: The answer to that is in the solicitation which is that learning programs may also require, where funding allows, impact evaluations structured from the onset, establishing control groups. Learning programs design will incorporate other agency findings established on evaluation in complex environments.

Post-conference note: An impact evaluation may accompany a learning program but would not/not be implemented by the same implementer as that performing the work under the task order. Implementers should be prepared under a learning program to possibly make modifications in design to allow for randomization. While the contractor responsible for the impact evaluation should not be the same as the one carrying out the program, the impact evaluation may or may not be conducted by the holder of the small business set aside.

Question 28: Critical priority countries. The solicitation did not mention Haiti among the CPCs. Is Haiti considered a CPC for PEACE IQC?

Answer 28: CPC’s are determined by the Agency and at the current moment; Haiti is not one of the CPC countries.

Question 29: Regional/Country Focus. Aside from CPCs, any particular regional or country focus?

Answer 29: no, this is demand driven.

Question 30: Is it expected that the applicant chose a topic from the practice areas for the learning program?

Answer 30: no, it is not expected but if an offeror desires to do so, then you may do so.

Question 31: These are similar but I’ll still read both of them. 1) Under page 112 of field program implementation, you allude to offerors presenting a one year work plan format. 2) Could USAID elaborate more on this and what offerors are expected to put forth?

Answer 31: As Section L explains, for field program implementation, what an offer intends to do so is entirely up to you, the key is to demonstrate an understanding of specific cross-sectoral programmatic interventions suitable for conflict affected and conflict prone countries that address the causes, sources and consequences of violent conflict and extremism. As an appendix you may present an illustrative one year work plan format that demonstrates how planning under a field learning program would be exercised and linked with opportunities for knowledge management and integration of best practices. But really it is entirely up to you.

Post-conference note: The answer to question 31 as read above should be amended to read, as an appendix you MUST present an illustrative one year work plan. See RFP L12, p 112.

Question 32: Should the applicant invent a program with illustrative activities when detailing their approach to implementing a Learning Program?

Answer 32: Here again, similar to the question that was asked previously, it is entirely up to the offeror to be able to demonstrate the difference between that standard program and a learning program.

Question 33: Is the learning and training coordinator position expected to be a full - time position?

Answer 33: We actually leave that up to the offeror to propose.

Post-conference note: As reference in B.9 LABOR . The Contracting Officer has determined that a full time

IQC Management Team (see C.5)is not necessary or required to administer the basic IQC. Contractors will not be authorized to bill USAID directly for IQC management costs under this IQC or under task orders.

Contractors shall propose a centralized management structure that allows for recovery of IQC management costs as part of its indirect costs.

Question 34: Do you anticipate issuing task orders for programs that advance conflict management and mitigation amongst local populations? For example, educational programs that target children to counter violent extremism. Example, civil society training or capacity building. Example, developing curricula for schools to teach values that counter extremism.

Answer 34: And the answer is more to the broader question, less to the actual examples, in that do we anticipate issuing task orders for programs that advance conflict management amongst local populations?

The answer would be yes.

Questions on: Analytic Services

Joe Hewitt: Let me say in advance as the person who’s going last, there were a couple of my questions that I haven’t had a chance to consult with OAA about, so maybe we can do that as I go through the answers now.

Question 35: Please confirm that analytic services is now a small business set-aside and not a small disadvantaged business set-aside.

Answer 35: As amendment 1 to the RFP clarified, analytic services has been set aside for Small Business

Concerns.

Question 36: Will USAID consider making more than one small-business award for the analytic services component? There were two questions that were nearly identical on that.

Answer 36: The answer is no. There will be one award.

Question 37: Will examples of the work product (country assessments, for example) from the previous contract be made available to offerers, in order for them to accurately estimate comparable level of effort to the incumbent?

Answer 37: There are examples of past conflict assessments available on the DEC and there is at least one conflict assessment available on the deck from the last 18 months, which can serve as an example.

Post-conference note: The Nigeria Conflict Assessment (August 2010) will be provided as an attachment to

Amendment 2.

Question 38: Are any evaluations envisioned under the IQC? Not the small business set-aside?

Answer 38: The component for program evaluations is confined only to the small set-aside.

Post-conference note: This answer should not imply that programs implemented under Components 1 through 3 will not be subject to performance evaluation; evaluation will not be ordered, however, under those components.

Question 39: Can you provide more information on what type of analytic services…

Answer 39: I interpret that question as asking, is there anything beyond conflict assessment and program evaluation, the two components that are part of the analytic services piece at this point. And the answer is

no. Conflict assessment and program evaluation are the two components of the analytic service piece.

Question 40: And the other question, does CMM work with CARSI, CBSI, or is that Merida Initiative fundings?

Is that a question for OAA?

Lisa Chandonnet: Sorry, can you repeat the question?

Joe Hewitt: Does CMM work with CARSI, CBSI, or, I’m unfamiliar with this other one.

Answer 40: Victoria Gellis: The IQC will be worldwide available so it [inaudible] on various types of funding to buy into.

Joe Hewitt: Did everyone hear that?

Jose Garzon: The missions from those countries, can, use that kind of funding, can buy into the IQC.

Question 41: Some of the labor categories presented in section L6 appear to be catered more specifically for components 1-3. Should component 4 bidders present personnel for each labor category as well?

Answer 41:

Stephane Bright: We’ll have to get back to them on that. We’ll review because I think it might be a lengthy answer.

Joe Hewitt: OK. So for that one, we’ll put the answer in the transcript after this bidder’s conference.

Post-conference note: As referenced in Section C.6 of the RFP “LABOR CATEGORIES” a list of the types of labor categories that may be required under task orders has been provided in the RFP. However, other labor categories that are not listed below may also be required under task orders. We are leaving it up to the offeror expertise to propose the best labor categories as they see fit for the Analytical Services component of this RFP. However Analytical Services offerors, must at least include resumes for Conflict Specialists, Subject Matter Specialists, Monitoring and Evaluation Specialists, Technical Writer/Editor, Program Development Specialist, and Administrative Support.

Question 42. It’s very similar to that question, but letting you know in advance, the answer to this question I’m about to read will also be inserted into the transcript. Section L on page 120, analytic services, requires staffing information for all of the labor categories listed in L6, page 24. Are each of these labor categories to be considered applicable to the analytic services component and can additional labor categories be proposed by bidders?

Answer 42:

Stephane Bright: Joe, a broad answer for that is that there is separate instruction for the small business component, but we will look into the question and give them a more specific answer.

Joe Hewitt: So, there is instruction about labor categories in the RFP for the small business set-aside, but there will be additional detail provided in the transcript after this bidder’s conference.

Post-conference note: See A. 41

Question 43: Section L, institutional capacity, mentions special studies and analyses as relevant qualifications for component 4. Should bidders assume that special studies will be requested under component 4? If so, how will this work differ from what is asked for in component 1, Knowledge Management?

Answer 43: And for that one as well, we will be providing that answer in the written transcript.

Post-conference note: USAID considers prior implementation experience in special studies and analyses as demonstrative of the analytical capacity required to implement the Analytical Services described in Section C and therefore has included it here so that offerors can fully represent their institutional capacity. However the services required of the Analytical Services IQC holder remain only those described in the RFP.

Question 44: What aspects of the contract will require logistics? (Can I have more information on the logistics section?)

Answer 44: I interpreted that as a question about the logistics associated with conflict assessment planning and, if I have interpreted that correctly, I cannot provide any more information beyond what is discussed about logistics as it pertains to the work plan for a conflict assessment. And finally, Question 45: is it advisable for the small business to partner as a sub-contractor with one of the other three categories?

Answer 45: USAID does not control the relationship between prime contractors and sub-contractors.

Floor turned over to Ousmane Faye:

Closing comments:

Ousmane Faye: OK, thank you for the questions. I would like to close now by reiterating that we will prepare a written record of this meeting, which will include a summary of the presentation, a list of participants at this pre-proposal conference and answers to the questions. The written records, like we said earlier, will be posted as an amendment to the RFP. I would also like to thank you very much for attending this conference. We appreciate your taking time out of your very busy schedules to learn more about this solicitation. I truly look forward to receiving your proposals and working with you on this very exciting full and open competition. If you have additional questions before the closing date, please feel free also to submit them by the close of the business tomorrow.

Post-conference note: the PowerPoint Presentation will be attached and considered part of this transcript.

Jose Garzon: Thank you very much.

End of Conference

2) Attachment J.7 is amended as follows:

ATTACHMENT J.7

COST EVALUATION MATRIX

The following sets forth the process to be utilized for evaluation of proposed costs under this RFP.

The Offeror’s proposed costs and salaries for the 5-year period shall be incorporated into the Sample Budget below where indicated. The total cost plus fixed fee in the Sample Budget is the offeror’s proposed cost for evaluation purposes.

[Note1: The figures in “RED " are plug figures and must be used for evaluation purposes.]

[Note2: The personnel proposed for the labor categories in section C.6 (i.e., Conflict Specialist, Attorney, Subject Matter Specialist, Information Management Specialist, Technical Writer/Editor, Training Human Resources Development Specialist, Program Development Specialist, Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, Grants Manager, Administrative Support) and/or additional personnel proposed by the offeror (i.e., Senior Legislative/Parliamentary Development) shall be proposed full-time. Annual salaries for the full-time positions must be consistent with the offeror’s personnel policies and the proposed Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet submitted for each labor category. Normally a work-year is 2,080 hours (260 days x 8 hours per day), including paid absences (holidays, vacations, and sick leave). However, some organizations do not have an 8-hour workday, and some accounting systems normally provide for direct recovery of paid absences by using a work-year of less than 2,080 hours to compute individuals' unburdened daily rates. Therefore, the offeror shall propose a work-year in accordance with its organization’s personnel policies and accounting systems; however, the cost proposal must clearly indicate the number of hours and days in its normal work-day and its normal work-week, indicate how paid absences (US holidays, local holidays, vacation and sick) shall be covered, and describe the organization’s work day and work week policies in accordance with Section L.13(J)part 10)

[Note3: For evaluation purposes, only the prime offeror's proposed ceiling indirect costs allocated to these line items shall be utilized.]

[Note5: The proposed fixed fee percentage in the Cost Evaluation Matrix will be incorporated into the IQC as the maximum fixed fee percentage allowed for all task orders.]

[END OF AMENDMENT No.2]