AMENDMENT 04.doc

CONTINUATION PAGE

AMENDMENT 04

SOL-OAA-12-00-000043

PRIVATE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

PAGE OF PAGES

PRIVATE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.PRIVATE

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

07/03/2012

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO

N/A

5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

PRIVATE

6. ISSUED BY

U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

OFFICE OF ACQUISITION AND ASSISTANCE

M/OAA/DCHA/DOFDA SA44/518G

1300 PENNSYLVANIA, NW

WASHINGTON, DC 20523

PRIVATE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State, and Zip Code)

TO ALL POTENTIAL OFFERORS

FORMCHECKBOX

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

SOL-OAA-12-00-000043

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11) 07/03/2012

FORMCHECKBOX

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

CODE:

FACILITY CODE:

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

PRIVATE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FORMCHECKBOX

The above numbered, solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers FORMCHECKBOX is extended FORMCHECKBOX is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers, FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

PRIVATE

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If Required)

PRIVATE

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO., AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14

PRIVATE

FORMCHECKBOX

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify Authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

FORMCHECKBOX

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43,103 (b).

FORMCHECKBOX

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

FORMCHECKBOX

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

PRIVATE

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor

FORMCHECKBOX

PRIVATE

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.

The purpose of this amendment is to:1)Extend the RFP Closing date from July 13 , 2012 at 1:00 P.M. EST to “July 27, 2012 at 1:00 P.M. EST” ; 2) Provide answers to questions received subsequent to the Pre- proposal Conference.

Specific changes are made as follows:

1) Cover Letter Closing date: Delete “July 13, 2012 at 1:00 P.M. EST” and replace it with “July 27, 2012 at 1:00 P.M. EST”.

PRIVATE

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

PRIVATE

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

Stéphane C. Bright , Contracting Officer

PRIVATE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

15C. DATE

SIGNED

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

16C. DATE

SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Previous Edition Unusable

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Section L.7 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS paragraph (h) Deleted “July 13, 2012 at 1:00 P.M.” EST and replace with “July 27, 2012 at 1:00 P.M. EST”.

Section L.8 DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS paragraph (b): Delete “July 13, 2012 at 1:00 P.M. EST” and replace with “July 27, 2012 at 1:00 P.M. EST”.

2) PEACE RFP- Answers to Questions Received subsequent to Pre-proposal Conference.

GENERAL QUESTIONS

Q.1 Please add me to the interested vendor list for the subject solicitation

A.1 Thank you for your interest in the SOL-OAA-12-00-000043. Please find the link in the word document that has been posted on www.fbo.gov.

Q.2 It has occurred to us that USAID has here passed on the option of creating a small business set-aside for the knowledge management, training, and field-based implementation components. The procurement as presently structured appears to envision only large businesses competing for, and receiving, contracts for this work. Yet, training, and KM are certainly areas in which we (and other small businesses) have very strong capabilities. Field-based implementation is quite well represented by the small business community too. There are at least 15 field-based projects at the moment, implemented by a diverse group of small businesses. (I’d be happy to provide details.) That being said, will you consider creating one or two small business set-asides for components 1-3, in addition to the set aside for component 4? Because realistically, attempting to compete against 4 large business incumbents, and 2 or three new large businesses we know will bid, it is a very, very steep uphill battle for small businesses such as ours to compete against these firms, having access to hundreds of HQ-based employees and deep pockets to resource proposal preparation, as well as many cumulative decades’ work in these areas.

A.2 USAID does not intend to modify the solicitation. All categories of small businesses have equal opportunity to bid on all components of the PEACE IQC in response to the RFP. The Analytical Services component is reserved specifically for a small business holder.

Small businesses may also bid on the combined package of Training; Knowledge Generation, Dissemination and Management; and Field Program Implementation. It is up to individual small business offerors to decide whether they will submit offers in response to those additional components and if so whether as a prime, in a consortium with larger firms, or in tandem with other small businesses. A small business may offer as a prime for Analytical Services while still participating as a sub in an offer for the other components.

Q.3 Secondly, although we’re happy with the RFP’s amendment deleting “small disadvantaged business” and replacing it with “small business”, in general throughout the RFP, we’re concerned that in 3 instances (L.5, L.12 and M.3.1) the original language –SDBs –is preserved. This is troubling in that L.12 refers to a now-amended section L.11, and, more so, that M.3.1 refers to evaluation points (3) being awarded to SDBs. This effectively makes it harder for other categories of SBs (we are a WOSB) to find sub roles on large business teams. Will you please consider a more complete revision of the RFP?

A 3 L.5 52.219-24 SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PROGRAM--TARGETS (OCT 2000) is a FAR clause which needs to be part of the RFP.

Section L.12, SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION should read as follows:

As part of the evaluation of past performance in Section M3.1 of this solicitation, USAID will evaluate the extent you used and promoted the use of Small Business concerns under current and past contracts. The evaluation will assess the extent to which Small Business concerns participated in these contracts relative to the size/value of the contracts, the complexity and variety of the work Small Business concerns performed, and compliance with your SB subcontracting plan or other similar Small Business incentive programs set out in your contract.

In order for USAID to fully and fairly evaluate performance in this area, all offerors who are not Small Business concerns must do the following:

(1) Provide a narrative summary of your organization's use of Small Business concerns over the past three years. Describe how you actually used Small Businesses--as subcontractors, as joint venture partners, through other teaming arrangements, etc. Explain the nature of the work Small Businesses performed--substantive technical professional services, administrative support, logistics support, etc. Describe the extent of your compliance with your SB subcontracting plan(s) or other similar Small Business incentive programs set out in your contract(s).

(2) To supplement the narrative summary in (1), provide with your summary a copy of the most recent SF 294 “Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts" for each contract against which you were required to report for the past three years.

(3) Provide us with the names and addresses of three SB concerns for us to contact for their assessment of your performance in using SB concerns. Provide a brief summary of the type of work each SB concern provided to your organization, and the name of a contact person, his/her phone number, and e-mail address for each.

(4) USAID reserves the right to obtain past performance information from other sources, including any SB concern you have not named [per (a) 2.] or government agency.

Section M.3.1 SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS (SDB) PARTICIPATION PROGRAM TARGETS should read as follows:

[Note: This evaluation factor applies to all offerors (large and small), except for Small Businesses that have indicated that its offer is being submitted only for consideration award (Per Section M.3.2)]

USAID will evaluate proposals in accordance with the following criteria for SDB participation. Within this criterion, the sub-criteria are considered of equal importance.

(1) The extent to which SDB concerns are specifically identified;

(2) The extent of commitment to use SDB concerns (firm commitments will be weighted more heavily);

(3) The complexity and variety of the work SDB concerns are to perform;

(4) Past performance of offerors in complying with subcontracting plan goals for SDB concerns and monetary targets for SDB participation as shown in submitted SF 294s; and

(5) The extent of participation of SDB concerns in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

[Note 2: The total technical scoring available to large business offerors is 100 points (Per Section M 3.1)

[Note 3: The total technical scoring available to Small Business offerors is 97 points (Per Section M 3.1 Past Performance)]. Past Performance in Using Small Business Concerns, is not applicable to Small Businesses.

Q.4 Is there any possibility of attending that proposal conference via telephone or skype?

A.4 The Pre-proposal Conference will not be available through teleconference, however a written transcription of the Pre-proposal Conference was made available with Amendment 2 posted on www.fbo.gov.

Q.5 USAID’s Evaluation Policy (p. 6) requires that: “Evaluations of USAID projects will be undertaken so that they are not subject to the perception or reality of biased measurement or reporting due to conflict of interest or other factors.” In addition, FAR subpart 9.5, and USAID policy (ADS 709.5; CIB 99-17) clearly state that organizations conducting evaluations will be precluded from implementation work due to organizational conflict of interest issues.

We acknowledge and appreciate that Component 4 of the IQC is set aside for small businesses, thus avoiding this conflict of interest concern from Components 1-3 which include implementation. Can USAID confirm that for this reason, bidders who intend to be involved in Components 1-3 should be precluded from prime contracts or subcontracts under Component 4 to prevent the appearance or reality of conflict of interest?

A.5 It is not USAID’s intent to automatically preclude bidders who intend to be involved in Components 1 through 3 from prime or subcontracts under Component 4. USAID believes there is no automatic conflict of interest at the IQC level. In cases where a firm conducts field program activities, USAID policy dictates that such a firm will not be eligible to compete for evaluation of such a program. Firms must make decision about the potential limitations as holders of other components given that involvement in program implementation will preclude eligibility for any potential Task Orders for evaluation.

Q. 6 Page 107, Section L.8 Delivery Instructions. Would you please confirm that the RFP No. that should be placed on the sealed envelopes is SOL-OAA-12-00-000043?

A.6 The RFP must be placed in sealed envelopes clearly marked on the outside with the following information: SOL-OAA-12-00-000043; Title: Programming Effectively Against Conflict and Extremism-PEACE.

Q.7 Page 109, Section L.10 Hand Carried Deliveries by Firm/Organization to Federal Center Plaza 301 C Street, SW, states: “USAID advises the offeror/applicant that should security requirements at the Federal Center Plaza result in the proposal not reaching the designated office or being accepted by the Contracting/ Officer or is/her representative by the closing time for proposal submission in L.7, the proposal may be determined to be late" and USAID has the discretion in accordance with applicable rules not to consider the offeror for award. Building security has the discretion to decide whether or not to allow the hand carrier into the building. Once in the Federal Center Plaza 301 4th Street lobby, the firm/organization must contact the Contract Specialist as listed.”

In order to assist Offerors to ensure timely receipt of proposals, could you please confirm the telephone number, and if at all possible, an alternate number, that should be used to contact the Contract Specialist once inside the building?

A.7 Please refer to Amendment 2, Answer 16.

Q.8 Related to the question above, given that the proposals are due July 3rd, the day before the 4th of July holiday, can USAID confirm that someone will be available on July 3rd to receive Offerors’ proposals?

A.8 Someone will be available to receive the proposals.

Q.9 In light of Amendment 1, would USAID consider opening up section M.3.1 Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) participation program targets on pages 128 to be overall Small Business (SB) participation program targets in order to allow organizations to better represent their total Small Business utilization?

A.9 Please refer to A.3.

TECHNICAL QUESTIONS

Q.10 In Section C.2. the RFP notes that one IQC expired on March 26, 2011 and the other four expire on March 26, 2013. Could USAID please clarify if the 2013 date is referring to the task ordering period, or the latest end date for a task order issued under the ICRP IQC mechanism? If the former, is it anticipated that the ordering period for the ICRP IQC will overlap with the PEACE IQC?

A.10 The ordering period for any Task Orders under ICRP ended on March 26, 2012. There is no overlap in the ordering period with the PEACE IQC.

Q.11 On page 24 of the RFP, the description of work experience required for the Learning and Training Coordinator, which emphasizes adult learning and training, differs in emphasis from the position description which emphasizes best practices, case studies, and learning opportunities. Will USAID support offerors considering relevant work experience related to learning and knowledge generation for this position?

A.11 USAID does not concur that there is a difference in emphasis. The work experience required is in “implementing training, adult learning, or other knowledge management and dissemination programs.” No emphasis among the three was stated. These activities are all consistent with those described in the position description.

Q.12 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?

A.12 Please refer to Amendment 2, Answer 17.

Q.13 On page 127 of the RFP, item c under the Institutional Capability, Management Approach, and Staffing evaluation criteria assigns 10 points to “ability of offerors to provide qualified and necessary resources (human, organizational, and technological) to evaluate field programs in insecure or conflict environments.” Was it USAID’s intention to limit these 10 evaluation points for the offerors responding to KGDM, Training, and Field Program Implementation, to the evaluation of relevant field programs, rather than program design and implementation capabilities?

A.13 The item in question is on page 127 of the RFP, subpart b) and not subpart c) as the question above states. The criteria should read “ability of offerors to provide qualified and necessary resources (human, organizational, and technological) to monitor and evaluate field programs in insecure or conflict environments.” Reference should be made to Section L12, page 113 subpart b) under Institutional Capacity.

Q.14 At the bidders conference, we understood USAID to say that the implementer to carry out the knowledge management system may be evaluated and selected based on the information in their IQC bids. Please clarify whether this is the intent, or whether USAID intends to issue a separate competitive RFTOP after the IQCs are awarded to develop the knowledge management system.

A.14 Please refer to Amendment 2, Answer 18.

Q.15 Please provide current lists of Critical Priority Countries and Non-Critical Priority Countries.

A.15 The current Critical Priority Countries are Sudan, South Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. They are subject to change. Non-critical priority countries would be comprised of all countries in which USAID works that are not CPCs.

Q.16 Would USAID like to specify a page limit for -- or limit the number of projects that can be included in -- the Corporate Technical Experience matrix?

A.16 USAID will not set a page limit, but offers should take care to consider carefully the parameters listed when including projects. Projects without the required focus will not be considered and descriptions must be no more than 200 words. Awards must be active within seven years of the date of this solicitation. The quality and relevance of project and project description will have more value to USAID than the quantity of projects listed.

Q.17 How many people will be designated as the primary point of contact?

A.17 Per Section C.5, “The Contractor shall designate either the Technical Director or the IQC Manager as the primary point of contact on the IQC for the USAID Contracting Officer, IQC Contracting Officer’sRepresentative (COR), and task order CORs.”

Q.18 In section G.5 p. 144 it states: “The contractor shall provide one primary point of contact to support this IQC.” However, p. 120 states: "The offeror shall include as part of its proposal a signed acknowledgement letter from each person proposed as primary points of contact confirming their present intention to serve in the stated position and their availability to serve in the stated position. These resumes/references must be attached as an annex.”

1) If the primary point of contact is a VP level or higher, do we still need to include their current resumes in the annex as well?

2) In regards to section C.6 for those submitting proposals for the Analytical Services set-aside, do all labor categories apply for staffing? (E.g. Attorney, Information Management Specialist, Training and Human Resources Development Specialist, Grants Manager)

[NB: USAID is interpreting this question to reference Section G5, p44 and not p144.]

A.18

1) Yes, Resumes for all key personnel candidates are required.

A.18

2) Please refer to Amendment 2, Answer 41.

Q.19 Can you clarify what is meant by “sub-grantees” on p. 118: (b) Present the offeror‘s institutional experience in maintaining financial, property, and accounting systems in compliance with generally accepted cost accounting principles and guidelines and proven ability to collaborate with other partner organizations/sub-grantees to ensure they meet these same requirements.

A.19 Sub-grantees means the legal entity to which a sub award is made and which is accountable to the recipient for the use of the funds provided.

Q.20 The Institutional Capacity instruction in Section L on p. 119 notes that “Each task order awarded under a USAID-awarded IQC shall be considered as a separate contract.” Can unique activities performed as separate deliverables on an IQC Task Order be listed separately? For 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.

A.20 Please refer to Amendment 2, Answer 9.

Q.21 Section L.13 on p. 116 notes that “Appendix attachments responding to requests for illustrative work plans as required below” are not included in the page limitation. Sections L.13 (a) and (b) on ps. 117 and 118 respectively call for budgets to accompany the illustrative case study workplans. Can the budgets be included as an annex along with the workplans?

A.21 Yes, the budgets required on pages 117 and 118 can be included as an annex and will not be counted against the page limits.

Q.22 Section L pages 117 – 118 for Analytical Services requires budgets for the case studies. Please provide a template.

A.22 It is not necessary for USAID to provide a template. Offerors should be able to provide an illustrative budget to demonstrate their understanding of the budget line items involved with assessment and evaluation. (USAID does not care about the dollar value at this point. Please see also Answer 35.)

Q.23 Are the illustrative team compositions referred to on pages 117 and 118 for section L.13 case studies to include names of personnel or just illustrative positions and skill sets?

A.23 Illustrative team compositions for the narrative required under Section L13, Assessment pages 117 and 118 require illustrative positions and skill sets, but do not require names of personnel. Names of personnel must be submitted in response to Section L13, Staffing.

Q.24 How is “major subcontracting partner” defined?

A.24 Please refer to Amendment 2, Answer 1.

Q.25 L.12 includes instructions on pages excluded from the 25-page limit; one reference is to “proposed candidates per section L.13.b.2”, which is “an illustrative team composition, including positions and skills sets needed for each position” used for a case study that only small business set asides will include. May we assume the reference should be to the Staffing paragraphs on page 115?

A.25 Yes, the instruction under L12, page 110 which reads "proposed candidates per section L13.b.2" should read "proposed candidates per L12, Staffing subparts a) and b) ( see page 114)."

Q.26 Page 115 of the RFP references 20% as the definition of a “major” subcontractor. During the 31 May Bidders Conference, it was mentioned that a “major” subcontractor is defined as 25%. Please confirm that the RFP reference prevails and that 20% of the work constitutes a “major” subcontractor.

A.26 Please refer to Amendment 2, Answer 1.

Q.27 On page 22 of the RFP, Section C.5, IQC Management Team, USAID requests that the Contractor designate either the Technical Director or the IQC Manager as the primary point of contact on the IQC for USAID. On page 114, under Staffing, in relation to signed acknowledgment letters, USAID refers to having multiple primary points of contact. Please confirm that USAID is requesting signed acknowledgement letters from all three positions designated as key personnel rather than from the position designated as the primary point of contact per page 22.

A.27 USAID confirms letters of commitment are requested from all three positions designated as key personnel.

Q.28 Does a JD count as an MA? An MBA?

A.28 USAID is interpreting this question in reference to the minimum qualifications for the Key Personnel positions. Both JDs and MBAs would satisfy the Master’s or PhD qualification requirements.

Q.29 In the “Staffing” section of the “Technical Approach for Small Disadvantaged Business Offerors” on page 120, what does “acknowledgement letter” mean? Does it differ from a letter of commitment?

A.29 The acknowledgment letter is the same as a letter of commitment, stating the proposed candidates availability and intent to serve in the designated position.

Q.30 For position descriptions, what does “senior” and “mid-level” mean in this IQC - are these standard across IQCs? Can you please provide the requisite number of years experience and corresponding degrees for each of these categories?

A.30 Seniority requirements can vary across IQCs. For the purposes of the PEACE IQC,

· Senior Level requires an Advanced degree and at least 12 years of experience;

· Mid-Level requires an Advanced degree and six years of experience or a Bachelor’s degree and at least 10 years of experience.

· Junior level requires a Bachelor’s degree and 2 years of experience or a total of at least six years of related experience.

Q.31 In the “Staffing” section of the “Technical Approach for Small Disadvantaged Business Offerors” on page 120 for references, do we need to supply any additional information, such as relationship to proposed candidate, or will names and contact information suffice?

A.31 Please supply relationship to candidate as well as names, titles and contact information.

Q.32 What percentage do you anticipate under this IQC going to grants under contract?

A.32 USAID cannot determine that at this time; the use of Grants under Contract will be determined as Task Orders are designed and awarded.

Q.33 Under the Small Business Set Aside, do we have to provide CVs for all the labor categories listed or only the ones we propose using for assessments and evaluations? Similarly, can we propose CVs for additional labor categories that aren’t listed?

A.33 Please refer to Amendment 2, Answer 41.

Q.34 Does “ten years of conflict experience” require ten years physically present in a conflict zone or ten years of substantive conflict experience, some of which was physically present in a conflict zone?

A.34 USAID is interpreting this question to refer to the work experience requirements for the IQC Technical Director which state “Must have at least 10 years of progressively more responsible international or international-related experience working in conflict-affected environments.” USAID does not require all 10 years to have been spent physically present in conflict environments.

Q.35 In the instructions for the preparation of the Technical Proposal found in “Section L.13 Offerors Responding to Analytical Services: Instructions for Small Business,” there are two references to including budgets for the sample case studies:

On page 117: “Offerors must provide their overall technical approach, including a work plan and budget to conduct a conflict assessment in the fictional country using the case study below.”

On page 118: “Offerors must provide their overall technical approach, including a work plan and budget to conduct this program evaluation in the fictional Country A, using this case study.”

Given that the “Technical Proposals must not make reference to pricing data in order that the technical evaluation may be made strictly on the basis of technical merit,” in accordance with the instructions included in Section L.8 on page 107, we have the following set of questions:

A)In order to be responsive to USAID’s desire for offerors to demonstrate their understanding of the requirements, while also respecting the prohibition from including pricing information the Technical Proposal, would USAID consider allowing offers to provide LOE charts in lieu of budgets for the sample Case Studies?

B) Would USAID consider providing an estimated total value for the Case Studies in order to orient offerors regarding the magnitude of the proposed approaches?

C) Section M.3.2 Technical Evaluation Criteria for Offerors Responding to Analytical Services on page 129, under the heading “Technical Approach”, subsections (b) and (c), both refer to the Case Study budgets being used as part of the technical evaluation. Can you please clarify how budgets can be evaluated as part of the technical criteria given the prohibition on including pricing information in the Technical Proposal?

A.35 A) Yes. Please see A.22.

A.35 B) No, it is not necessary for USAID to provide this information. USAID is not seeking an estimate for actual work, but an illustrative budget with labor categories with associated level of effort (LOE), and all other expenditures associated with that type of work (with quantities as appropriate) so that offerors can demonstrate their understanding of the requirements. The offerors should be determining the magnitude based on the details outlined in the Case Study.

A.35 C) Subsections (b) and (c) under Technical Evaluation make no reference to evaluating budget/price information specifically. Rather the illustrative budgets are required to gauge whether offerors fully understand planning for and executing such Assessment and Evaluation work.

Q.36 For the Assessment Case Study, two fictional countries – A and B are identified. In order to calculate travel, insurance, hazard/hardship pay, local procurement costs, etc, a representative country is necessary. In other words, while the technical response can be based on fictional countries, a budget estimate of any value requires additional information. Will the Government provide a representative country for A and B? If not, how should the Offeror base its estimates?

A.36 Please see A.35.

Q.37 Will all non-IQC management work be performed at Government locations or will some work be performed at international locations?

A.37 USAID understands this to refer to the issuance of Task Orders under the IQC. Task Orders may be issued both from Washington and wherever else USAID has a Mission.

Q.38 In section L.13 on page 116 of the RFP it asks for a “Management Structural Organizational Chart(s)” as part of the application. Is this an organizational chart of the offeror’s organization or is it an illustration to represent the management approach included in the proposal?

A.38 Section L.13 does not require a Management Structure Organizational Chart—it states that if an offeror includes such a chart it will not count against the page limit. Offerors should provide organization charts if they believe it is necessary to demonstrate aspects of their firm’s capacity and/or Management Approach.

Q.39 Pg 7: Can USAID/CMM indicate where offerors can find information on work completed under ICRP?

A.39 Please see Amendment 2, Answer 6. USAID has also included numerous footnote references to analytical products that are typical of the type of work produced by CMM, the sponsoring office.

Q.40 Pg 10: Can USAID/CMM indicate where offerors can find lessons learned and best practices from ICRP?

A.40 ICRP did not include a major focus on learning and knowledge dissemination. As such, there is no central repository of lessons learned and best practices. Offerors should also note that PEACE is a new program with different components than ICRP.

Q.41 Pg 13: Can USAID/CMM indicate what knowledge management systems CMM is currently using and which will be complemented or expanded?

A.41 CMM does not currently have a knowledge management system. Per Amendment 2, Answer 18, if and when a RFTOP was issued to order a formal Knowledge Management system for CMM, the technical specifications would be detailed in that RFTOP.

Q.42 Pg 18: Have any partners conferences where lessons learned and best practices [are discussed] been funded through ICRP and are conference proceedings available to offerors?

A.42 No. Please refer to A.40 Q.43 Pg 111: In the Research Agenda that the responder will present as part of a proposal for PEACE, what is the relationship between Conflict Assessment Framework processes and the type of agenda expected in this exercise?

A.43 There is no specific relationship between the Conflict Assessment Framework and the requirement for the research agenda. The CAF processes apply specifically to the Small Business Set Aside for Analytical Services and the conduct of Conflict Assessments. There is a relationship only in that a Conflict Assessment examines many of the triggers and issues of conflict which may, as an example, include conflict over water resources in a given context, while environment and conflict is one of the areas for which an illustrative research agenda can be prepared.

Q.44 Pg 119: The RFP requests resumes for Technical Director and IQC Manager. The position of Learning and Training Coordinator is listed under the IQC Management Team section. Should the resume of the Learning and Training Coordinator be included in the proposal along with the Technical Director and IQC Manager?

A.44 The instructions on page 119 apply only to small business offerors for whom Learning and Training Coordinator is not a required Key Personnel position. Other offerors should refer to page 114.

Q.45 Section C.4.1.1 on page 12 in footnote 10 references DCHA/CMM’s 2011 technical leadership agenda. Would USAID make the 2011 and 2012 technical leadership agendas available to all offerors?

A.45 The 2011 and 2012 Technical Leadership Agendas focus on the following eight areas: (1) Conflict Early Warning and Emerging Trends; (2) Conflict Assessment; (3) Conflict Programming Effectiveness; (4) Religion, Identity, and Conflict; (5) Development Responses to Violent Extremism and Insurgency; (6) Environment, Natural Resources, and Conflict; (7) Gender and Conflict; (8) Development Support for Peace Processes.

Q.46 Section C.7 on page 26 regarding grants under contract stipulates that “The contractor will administer these funds of up to $100,000 per grant.” Would USAID please confirm that the IQC contract award language will conform to the grant thresholds outlined in ADS 303?

A.46 The language of ADS 302.3.4.8 on Grants Under Contract (GUC) applies which establishes a maximum threshold of $100,000 for GUC.

Q.47 On Page 14 of 155, C.4.2 Training, fourth paragraph states that “DCHA/CMM is currently developing an advanced suite of courses under a separate task order but anticipates the need for further refinement of these courses and new course development under PEACE.” Question: Could USAID please provide the topics of the advance courses that are currently under development?

A.47 Please refer to Amendment 2, Answer 24. CMM is currently piloting a course in Advanced Conflict Assessment.

Q.48 Page 17 of 155 of the RFP states: “USAID through DCHA/CMM will seek support for ongoing improvement of its conflict assessment and program evaluation methodologies by incorporating experience from the field and emerging research.” USAID provided DCHA/CMM’s conflict assessment methodology on Page 19 of 155 of the RFP. Question: Could USAID also provide DCHA/CMM’s program evaluation methodology?

A.48 CMM does not employ a standard program evaluation methodology but intended to refer to the universe of methods and protocols well-suited to evaluating conflict and peace building programs. Rigorous conflict program evaluation should employ methods best suited to address specific evaluation questions.

Q.49 Page 107 of 155, L.8 (c), lists the RFP number as SOL-OAA12-OAA-00-000043, which is different from the number listed elsewhere in the RFP. Question: Please confirm that the RFP number is SOL-OAA-12-00-000043, as listed in the cover letter and SF-33 form, and not SOL-OAA12-OAA-00-000043, as listed on page 107 of the RFP.

A.49 The RFP Number is SOL-OAA-12-00-000043

Q.50 Page 111 of 155, L.12 (b), requests a submission of a research agenda and a first-year workplan. Question: Please confirm that this first-year workplan may be submitted as an appendix attachment to the technical proposal and, therefore, not counted towards the page limit?

A.50 Yes, as stated in section L12, “Appendix attachments responding to requests for illustrative first year workplans” do not count towards the page limit.

Q.51 Page 111 of 155, L.12 (b), second paragraph states “with an illustrative figure of $200,000 which will be used for evaluation purposes only.” Question: While it will be easier for USAID to discern a $1,000,000 research agenda from a $200,000 research agenda, it may become increasingly more subjective for a proposed research agenda that is $300,000, $400,000, or even $500,000. How would USAID suggest ensuring a level playing field amongst bidders in their response to this evaluation criterion?

A.51 Please to refer Amendment 2, Answer 13.

Q.52 Page 114 of 155, L.12 Staffing (a) states: “Submit a complete and current resume for the proposed Technical Director, IQC Manager, and Learning and Training Coordinator.” Page 114 of 155, L.12 Staffing (b) states: “A current resume of no more than two (2) pages and signed acknowledgement letter shall be submitted as an attachment to the technical proposal for each candidate proposed in each Labor Category.” Question: Please confirm that there is no assigned page limitation to the resumes of proposed Key Personnel.

A.52 USAID confirms there is no assigned page limitation for the resumes of proposed Key Personnel. As L.12 states, there is, however, a two-page maximum for resumes submitted for each candidate proposed in each Labor Category.

Q.53 Page 115 of 155 of the RFP, second paragraph states: “Offerors must provide past performance references for itself and each major subcontractor so that a minimum of one (1) and a maximum of three (3) past performance forms are submitted for each of the three key thrusts under this solicitation”. Question: This statement can be interpreted as being either a maximum of 9 total, or a maximum of 9 per consortium member for the prime and each major subcontractor. Is there a maximum total number of past performance forms that offerors can submit?

A.53 The statement refers to a maximum of three for each component, so no more than nine past performances references can be submitted.

Q.54 Can offerors submit relevant past performance forms for subcontractors that are not major subcontractors?

A.54 If an offeror so chooses as long as they do not exceed the maximum number of past performances allowed.

Q.55 Page 116 of 155, L.12 Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization (2) states: “To supplement the narrative summary in (1), provide with your summary a copy of the most recent SF 294 “Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts””. Please confirm that the SF 294 can be submitted as one of the appendix attachments to the technical proposal and that is not counted towards the page limit.

A.55 The SF 294 will not count towards the page limit.

Q.56 Page 127 of 155, M.3.1 Institutional Capability Management Approach and Staffing (b) requests the “Ability of offerors to provide qualified and necessary resources (human, organizational and technological) to evaluate field programs in insecure or conflict environments.” Question: Our understanding is that field program evaluation relates directly to Component 4. Analytical Services only. Please clarify how this section, Institutional Capability Management Approach and Staffing (b), relates to the unrestricted competition.

A.56 Please see A.13.

Q.57 Please clarify the level of each personnel to be proposed (i.e. junior, mid, or senior). Again, this is relevant because proposing two junior level candidates may lead to an overall lower budget.

A.57 It is up to each individual offeror to propose a mix of labor categories at the appropriate level for their approach and responsiveness to the RFP.

Q.58 On page 112 of the RFP, Section L.12, Offerors Responding to Knowledge Generation, Dissemination, and Management; Training; and Field Program Implementation, Subsection Technical Approach, under the heading Knowledge Generation, Dissemination and Management (KGDM), it states that “The agenda and first year workplan shall address the following criteria:” for which we have questions related to item 3.“An overall understanding of this as one of several key technical issues on which work will be performed over the life of the IQC.”

a) Could you please provide further guidance as to what "this" is referring to in the above citation? Would it be the one technical issue that the Offeror chooses to address in its research agenda (e.g. National Security and Conflict)?

b) If so, could you please clarify what "several" refers to? Are Offerors expected to address sub-issues under the chosen research agenda issue (e.g. sub-issues of National Security and Conflict, if chosen), or are Offerors expected to also address other issues listed on page 111 (e.g. Emerging Trends, Economics & Conflict, Conflict and Resilience, etc.)?

A.58

a) Under Section L.12 subpart b), the RFP states that “offerors must choose one of the technical issues presented in C.4.1.1 and present a proposed research agenda and first-year workplan, including a breakdown of key sub-issues within the research agenda, report preparation and publication, and outreach events (speaker series, workshops, conferences). “This” refers to the technical issue selected and addressed in the research agenda.

A.58

b) “Several” refers to the other issues presented in C.4.1.1 and repeated for convenience in Section L.12. Offerors are only expected to select one issue from the list. As the instructions state, offerors must select one of these issues and present an agenda, including “key sub-issues.” Selecting sub-issues alone would be considered non-responsive.

Q.59 During the Bidder’s Conference USAID responded to questions regarding the required “Learning Program Workplan Format” (referenced in the RFP on page 112 in Section L.12, and on page 126 in Section M.3.1, subsection Technical Approach, item (f))

We understand from USAID’s responses that Offerors will be free to propose any type of workplan format of their choosing. We are concerned that this will lead to greatly divergent submissions, making a fair comparison among Offerors difficult, and leaving us unsure how to be fully responsive to this requirement. We therefore have the following related questions:

a) Could you please provide additional information regarding how the Learning Workplan Format will be evaluated and what criteria will be used in its evaluation? We understand that in accordance with Section M.3.1 on page 126, it will be evaluated based on the extent to which the plan is “innovative, realistic and feasible,” but absent a sense of resources that might be allocated for a learning program, it is challenging to gauge realism and feasibility (except by making some assumptions about the environment the program is taking place in).

b) Related to the question immediately above, could USAID please provide an illustrative budget amount for the Learning Program in order to orient Offerors in terms of the magnitude of a proposed approach that would inform the workplan, and parity among Offerors?

c) Could you please provide further guidance as to scope of the required Learning Workplan? We are concerned that there can be widely differing notions of what a "workplan" actually is, with radically different expectations of length, depth, and format. We have seen 15-page workplans with extensive narrative and we have seen one-page charts that are simply timelines. Would USAID expect an abbreviated timeline or an exhaustive workplan with an in-depth narrative, or something in between?

A.59

a) M.3.1. states that the workplan format presents an innovative, yet feasible approach to knowledge management [emphasis added here]. USAID is shifting to evidence-based programming and renewed emphasis on learning; this criterion in M.3.1 is designed to evaluate offerors' understanding of the learning paradigm, and how they would generate, manage and disseminate knowledge in order to maximize learning within a field program. (As always, USAID will evaluate all proposals, including workplans, against the evaluation criteria stated in section M.3, not against each other.)

A.59

b) Please see the response above. The plans are to be evaluated on their approach to knowledge management. If an offeror chooses, it can include an explanation of key assumptions (including a dollar amount representative of an illustrative budget) made in their workplan format A.59

c) If an offeror believes that an abbreviated timeline would fully convey an approach to learning, than they may submit that. It is incumbent on offerors to provide a response that demonstrates their understanding that learning programs will be distinct, interactive and far more evidence driven than “standard” conflict programs. They may demonstrate that in any way they see fit with the appropriate level of detail they believe is needed.

Q.60 On page 23, Section C.5 IQC Management Team, the requirements for the IQC Manager include a Master’s degree or higher plus 5 years of work experience. Would USAID allow for additional experience beyond the 5 years minimum requirement to count in lieu of a Master’s degree?

A.60 Please refer to Amendment 2, Answer 12.

Q.61 Could USAID please confirm that the past performance information in using Small

Disadvantaged Businesses found on page 111 under section L.12 Offerors Responding To Knowledge Generation, Dissemination, And Management; Training; And Field Program Implementation refers to the Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization found on page 115-116?

A.61 Please see answer A.3

Q.62 Page 112, Section L.12 Knowledge Generation, Dissemination and Management, regarding the agenda and first year workplan, states under #3:“An overall understanding of this as one of several key technical issues on which work will be performed over the life of the IQC.” Could you please clarify what is expected under this item?

A.62 Please see A.58.

Q.63 Page 112, Section L.12 Field Program Implementation states: “Each offeror must also, as an appendix, present an illustrative one year workplan format that demonstrates how planning under a Field Learning program (see Section C.4.3.1) would be exercised and linked with opportunities for knowledge management and integration of best practices.” Could you please clarify if Offerors should provide a workplan format or a populated illustrative workplan?

A.63 Offerors need only present the format and do not need to design a full program with a slate of all conflict program activities. However, the workplan should make the “learning” moments and activities clear. Please refer also to A.59.

Q.64 Page 114 of 155, Section L.12 Staffing states:“(b) Provide resumes no more than two (2) per Proposed labor category that describe access to technical expertise to perform the work set forth in the Section C under Labor Categories in the Statement of Work and offerors proposed labor Category. Resumes shall be compiled in an annex to the technical proposal in the same order as the Labor Categories listed in Section C.6 of this RFP.”

Page 24-25 of 155, Section C.6 Labor Categories lists the following 10 labor categories: Conflict Specialist; Attorney; Subject Matter Specialist; Information Management Specialist; Technical Writer/Editor; Training and Human Resources Development Specialist; Program Development Specialist; Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist; Grants Manager; and Administrative Support.

However, Attachment J7 of the RFP, the Cost Evaluation Matrix, has an additional labor category: Technical Management Specialist.

Would USAID please confirm that Offerors should only include CVs for the labor categories listed under section C.6 Labor Categories on pages 24 and 25? If so, should Technical Management Specialist be removed from the budget in Attachment J7?

A.64 USAID confirms offerors for Components 1 through 3 should only include CVs for the labor categories listed under Section C.6. Labor Categories. Technical Management Specialist was included in error and has been removed from Attachment J.7. through Amendment 2.

Q.65 In light of Amendment 1, would USAID consider opening up section L.12 Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization on pages 115-116 to be overall Small Business Utilization in order to allow organizations to better represent their total Small Business utilization?

A.65 Please refer A.3.

Q.66 In the instructions for the preparation of the Technical Proposal found in Section L.13 Offerors Responding to Analytical Services: Instructions for Small Business, there are two references to including budgets for the sample case studies:

On page 117:: “Offerors must provide their overall technical approach, including a workplan and budget to conduct a conflict assessment in the fictional country using the case study below.”

On page 118: “Offerors must provide their overall technical approach, including a workplan and budget to conduct this program evaluation in the fictional Country A, using this case study.”Given that the “Technical Proposals must not make reference to pricing data in order that the technical evaluation may be made strictly on the basis of technical merit,” in accordance with the instructions included in Section L.8 on page 107, we have the following set of questions:

a) In order to be responsive to USAID’s desire for Offerors to demonstrate their understanding of the requirements, while also respecting the prohibition from including pricing information the Technical Proposal, would USAID consider allowing offers to provide LOE charts in lieu of budgets for the sample Case Studies?

b) Would USAID consider providing an estimated total value for the Case Studies in order to orient offerors regarding the magnitude of the proposed approaches?

c) Section M.3.2 Technical Evaluation Criteria for Offerors…