Sol_105_amend_2.pdf

B. As a result of this Amendment, the specific changes to the solicitation are as follows:

1. On the Cover Letter (Closing Date:), SF-33 Block 9, and in Section L.6(b), DELETE “ August 22, 2013” and REPLACE with “August 29th , 2013”.

2. Page 29, Section 4.1.2 Secondary audience DELETE “The secondary audience for materials and documents produced by the HABITAT project includes USAID stakeholders and non-governmental organizations, Contractors, and researchers working on reading and issues of gender equality in education.” and REPLACE with “The secondary audience for materials and documents produced by the HABITAT project includes USAID stakeholders, governmental and non-governmental organizations, Contractors, and researchers working on reading and issues of urbanization, urban service delivery, urban environmental issues, municipal finance, urban disaster preparedness, decentralization, democratic good governance and local government reform.”

3. Page 112, Section L.5, DELETE “(a) Multiple Awards. USAID anticipates awarding approximately six (6) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts (approximately two (4) unrestricted IDIQs and approximately two (2) IDIQs reserved for small businesses) with a five-year period of performance as a result of this solicitation. The Agency reserves the right to award more or less awards than the anticipated number of contracts stated above.” And REPLACE with “(a) Multiple Awards. USAID anticipates awarding approximately six (6) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts (approximately four (4) unrestricted IDIQs and approximately two (2) IDIQs reserved for small businesses) with a five-year period of performance as a result of this solicitation. The Agency reserves the right to award more or less awards than the anticipated number of contracts stated above.”

4. Page 115 Section L.6(f)NOTE ADD patlee@usaid.gov and ksampson@usaid.gov to the “24 hour advance notice via email”

5. Page 122, Section L.9(b)(a) DELETE “The proposed ceiling daily rates will be used in the Price Evaluation Matrix and will be incorporated into the contract as the maximum unburdened ceiling daily rate per Section B.11.

Offerors must provide a budget narrative supporting the CDRs proposed. This budget narrative must include two parts for each position proposed in section B.11. Offerors must provide:” and REPLACE with “The proposed ceiling daily rates will be used in the Price Evaluation Matrix and will be incorporated into the contract as the maximum unburdened ceiling daily rate per Section B.12. Offerors must provide a budget narrative supporting the CDRs proposed. This budget narrative must include two parts for each position proposed in section B.12. Offerors must provide:”

6. Page 154, Attachment J.6 DELETE in its entirety and REPLACE with:

“Case Study for “Improving Local Government Services” Program (ILGS)

B. BACKGROUND

The United States Agency for International Development Garlandia Mission (USAID/I) is seeking proposals from the HABITAT IDIQ holders to implement a program entitled “Improving Local Government Services” (ILGS) which has the objective of measurably improving select services delivered by local governments in Garlandia, The service delivery areas to be targeted are health, education and solid waste removal

USAID anticipates awarding a single task order for up to three-years and up to an estimated $30 million in support of activities which contribute to USAID/Garlandia’s Intermediate Result (IR) 2: “More Representative, Effective and Responsive Governance”.

B.1 USAID GARLANDIA DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE STRATEGY

In order to address the remaining impediments to democratic consolidation and good governance in Garlandia, USAID/DG’s Strategy for 2009-2014 has as its Strategic Objective (SO): “Making Democratic Governance Deliver”. The use of the phrase “Making Democratic Governance Deliver,” is intended to convey the importance of “delivering” in at least two senses: First, Garlandia’s democracy must do better at delivering on its promise of producing a more secure, just and prosperous society. Second and relevant to ILGS, democratic governance must do better at delivering the basic services needed to improve people’s lives. To contribute in a meaningful way to this Strategic Objective, DG will support activities intended to have the following two outcomes (Intermediary Results OR “IRs”):

1. Rule of law and accountability strengthened - There are two distinct but related components under this IR: a) sustaining and deepening justice sector reform, and b) strengthening accountability mechanisms at the national level and in selected regions.

2. Governance made more representative, effective and responsive Under this IR USAID will support efforts at both the national and regional levels to make governance more representative, effective and responsive to citizen’s needs. There will be two components: a) strengthening representative groups and institutions and b) support for efforts at the national and regional levels to enable regional governments to better respond to citizens’ needs.

B.2 CHALLENGES OF LOCAL GOVERNANCE AND DECENTRALIZATION IN GARLANDIA

Over the last ten years, Garlandian have institutionalized democratic politics, made multiple improvements to their constitution, reduced the political role of the military and initiated sweeping albeit not yet fully functional decentralization. The 2008 “Garlandia Democracy and Governance Assessment” points out that the institutional structure of democracy in Garlandia is now largely in place. Indeed, as of early 2009, Garlandia appears to be one of the more successful and stable new democracies in Oceana.

However, while Garlandia’s transition to democratic politics has thus far been satisfactory, there are still a number of potential pitfalls and issues that are significant impediments to the consolidation of democracy. The primary obstacle identified in the USAID’s 2008 “Garlandia Democracy and Governance Assessment” is “the lack of effective democratic local governance that provides meaningful public services”. In Garlandia, decentralization is synonymous with democratization. Decentralization is Garlandia’s centerpiece in its transition to democracy from the highly centralized and authoritarian state of the pre-democratic era.

However, as many local governments continue to fail in providing adequate services, the call for some recentralization can be heard among officials within the GoG. Nostalgia for the “New Order” introduced by the dictator Eunice which ushered in a period of strong economic growth, relative peace and stability exists among some holdover institutions created during that era. If decentralization does not deliver better governance in the form of better services, the benefits of democracy may be questioned and calls for greater control from the center and a more authoritarian form of governance may grow louder.

The failure of decentralization would be a significant setback for Garlandia’s transition to a democratic state. The cases of Quatschland and the Philippines demonstrate how vulnerable democratic processes can be to erosion and backsliding. It is too soon to declare “victory” in Garlandia and more needs to be done to increase the likelihood of democratic consolidation. Making decentralization succeed through improving local service delivery is arguably the most important factor to assure that Garlandia continues on its democratic trajectory.

With most key government functions decentralized to the sub-national level, local governments, more than ever before, are critical to achieving Garlandia’s Millennium Development Goals for development and poverty reduction. Government responsibility for public health services, education, economic development and more than 20 other government functions have been decentralized to district and city (and some cases provincial) governments. Despite surveys that show relatively good public satisfaction with local government services, decreasing key poverty and increasing welfare indicators, Garlandia continues to lag behind the rest of the region in several areas. With a Human Development Index (HDI) is 0.728, Garlandia ranks of 107th out of 177 countries with data (UNDP’s 2007/2008 Human Development Report). Many variables which make up the HDI are dependent on the services that local governments provide. In education, only 24 percent of Garlandian students received a score of “intermediate” in an international comparable scale of math ability compared to 66% in Malaysia. In 2008, Garlandia had an infant mortality rate of 26.6, compared to 8.9 in Malaysia and 10.6 in Quatschland. Poor health outcomes may be partially explained by high levels of absenteeism of public health employees. On any given day, over forty percent of healthcare workers are absent from their posts. In short, the quality and quantity of public health and education services provided by local governments are not adequate.

A key policy vehicle for the deepening of democracy, decentralization is increasingly expected to deliver on development and public services. Eight years after its first Regional Autonomy Law, Garlandia continues with far reaching governance reform through decentralization that is re-shaping how government in 33 provinces and 482 cities and regencies responds to citizens. While central and provincial governments continue to have a supportive and facilitating role to play, particularly when it comes to national objectives and equalization, meeting the needs and priorities of citizens increasingly rests in the hands of district and city governments.

Creating a decentralized governance system in which local governments are fully accountable, empowered and have the capacity to meet the needs of their citizens is a long-term reform effort, and will take decades to fully implement. In a developing country as large and complex as Garlandia, implementing decentralization faces fundamental challenges. Among these challenges are inconsistent national policies, uncertainty about inter-governmental roles and responsibilities, bureaucratic reluctance to change and weak organizational capacity. Under its 2009-2014 strategy, USAID is not in a position to address all of the fundamental challenges inherent in the decentralization process. Despite flaws in the legal framework, local governments already have enough authority to make improvements in the quality and quantity of services provided to their constituents. While greater autonomy is envisioned, local governments still need to prove, through consistent performance in service delivery, that they are capable of greater autonomy. With few Garlandian models of “best”, or even good, local governance, policy makers, bureaucrats and average citizens do not have a clear or workable vision of local governance to which they can aspire.

For the most part, local governments are not held to account for their activities or performance. They are largely reliant on central government transfers (rather than locally generated revenue) to fund most public services which weaken their autonomy. Accountability in sub national governance is a complex process, buttressed from above by formal reporting, approval, and auditing systems imposed by central government and from below by demands from NGOs, media, and ordinary citizens for greater responsiveness. On paper, Garlandia’s decentralization architecture has taken many of these accountability mechanisms into consideration. But in practice, these existing accountability mechanisms are not adequately put to use. One of the major conclusions of a recent USAID decentralization assessment was that “accountability is an area of major deficit where it is possible to work with partners and build on mechanisms already in place”.

Garlandia’s fiscal decentralization is incomplete. Although expenditure responsibility has largely been decentralized, most revenue authority still lies with central government. This leaves local governments dependent on central government transfers for funding public services (on average, more than 85% of local government revenue comes from central government transfers). The way in which the central government transfer system works encourages inefficient local bureaucracies and limits local government ability to flexibly respond to citizen demands.

The most important challenge over the next five years will be to improve the performance of local governments in key service delivery areas and to build momentum for replication through Garlandian institutions. There are some local governments that have already developed innovative ways of improving services. These better models of local governance to which Garlandians could aspire to need to be systematically identified, documented and replicated throughout the country, ideally by Garlandian institutions. As local government performance improves, the prospects for greater autonomy and additional responsibilities will grow.

B.3 Development Hypothesis USAID’s Development Hypothesis for the design of ILGS is predicated on the assumption that local governments are underperforming in the provision of public services relevant to their current capacity and authority. Improving local services therefore depends on strengthening incentives for better performance and strengthening disincentives for underperformance. Changing local government incentives will come through increasing accountability and oversight of local governments by civil society and local legislatures.

Incentives can also be strengthened through new management approaches that encourage good performance (and discourage poor performance) as well as incentive grants or awards from higher levels of government or other non-governmental entities. Improved national policies can also change local government incentives; however it is anticipated that ILGS will not expend much effort on decentralization policy reform.

With better incentives, local governments will be more likely to use improved technical information and approaches to improving service delivery and more likely to seek and pay for the expert technical assistance from Garlandian organizations (or even higher levels of government). ILGS will work with Garlandian institutions so that they are able to supply expert services to help local governments improve service delivery. This allows for replication and the sustainability of local government reform beyond the end of ILGS.

B.4 Outcomes to be Achieved:

1. Local governments in at least 80% of targeted cities and regencies will have adopted new management practices, innovations, best practices and the like geared directly or indirectly at improving the quantity, quality and/or cost of health, education and solid waste removal services

2. Local councils in at least 80% of targeted cities and regencies will be practicing better oversight of local executives in areas directly or indirectly related to improving the quantity, quality and/or cost of health, education and solid waste removal services;

3. Local governments in at least 80% of targeted cities and regencies will be providing measurably improved public services in terms of the quantity, quality and/or cost of health, education and solid waste removal services.

4. An increased number of Garlandian institutions will have the capacity to and will be providing technical assistance to local governments in areas directly or indirectly related to improving the quantity, quality and/or cost of health, education and solid waste removal services without donor funding.

5. Replication of improved practices will begin to occur in non-project jurisdictions (without USAID or other donor funding).

C. Statement of Work

ILGS’s primary objective is More Accountable Local Governments Able to Provide Measurably Improved Services. ILGS’s objective will primarily be reached by Improving Incentives for Local Governments to Perform.

ILGS will have two parallel, yet overlapping tracks. On one track, the program will work in approximately 20 partner jurisdictions in three provinces to create more accountable service delivery by:

1. Improving the oversight and accountability of local governments by Garlandian instantiations and civil society, and;

2. Promoting the adoption of more accountable and performance-oriented local government management practices.

A majority of the technical assistance in project sites will be delivered by Garlandian NGOs, universities, government and non-government institutes and similar Garlandian organizations. The service delivery areas emphasized in this program will include education, health and solid waste removal.

The second track will emphasize replication and strengthening Garlandian institutions (such as universities, consulting firms and individuals, government institutes and NGOs) by improving their technical knowledge and ability to provide and market their consultancy services to local governments. Many of these institutions will be used to deliver the technical assistance program in partner jurisdictions. Replication of good practices will occur through the activities carried out by these Garlandian organizations without USAID funding.

C.1 Core Activities ILGS will work in the areas listed below to effect more accountable governments that produce better public services in the area of health, education and improved solid waste removal. Specific ILGS activity areas include:

1. Activities to increase the oversight and accountability of local governments by Garlandian civil society, the media, local legislative councils and provincial governments in targeted service delivery areas (health, education and solid waste removal);

2. Activities to promote more accountable and performance-oriented local government management practices which will lead to improvements in the targeted services; and

3. Replication - Increase the capacity of Garlandian institutions to provide technical assistance to local governments in support of the targeted services.

Activities in Targeted Areas vs. Replication Most of the activities described above will be implemented in a two-track manner, albeit with some overlap. In the targeted area (the 20 cities and regencies), the implementer will intensively work through Garlandian institutions and carry out a high level of activities geared at improving service delivery in the service areas of health, education and solid waste removal. The 20 local governments will also be the testing grounds for new and experimental innovations, practices and management techniques to determine and document which are effective at improving targeted services.

On the other track, the replication portion of ILGS will focus on developing a market for local governance consultant services outside of the target area and replicating the assistance provided in the 20 local governments.

The replication component will capacitate and promote Garlandian institutions to market their services and products in support of improving health and education services and improving solid waste removal to local governments.

Already proven, existing Garlandian innovations as well as new practices and techniques tested, proven and documented as effective in the 20 cities and regencies will be used.

C.2 Program Activity areas and Illustrative Activities The activity areas below are intended to help ILGS achieve its overarching objective of More Accountable Local Governments Able to Provide Measurably Improved Services in the areas of education, health and solid waste removal.

The sample activities listed below are purely illustrative and are not intended to guide the offerors’ response.

Similarly, the number of illustrative activities shown is also not in any way indicative of the number of interventions USAID expects offerors to propose. USAID will prefer a highly focused activity with a smaller number of effective interventions. USAID encourages applicants to be creative in their proposed design of this new activity focusing on clear identifiable outcomes and achievements.

C.2.1 Increasing the oversight and accountability of local governments Increasing the oversight and the accountability of local governments will create stronger incentives for local officials to perform better and conversely, stronger disincentives for them to underperform. Enhanced incentives to perform better will increase the demand by local officials for consulting services and technical assistance that will help them improve the targeted services, and which will be made available by ILGS. Illustrative activities to increase the oversight and accountability of local governments could include, but are not limited to the following:

• Improve Local Legislative Oversight

• Improve Provincial Oversight of Cities and Regencies

• Measure and Benchmark Service Delivery Outputs

• Publicize Service Delivery Outputs

• Support interaction between service recipients and service providers

C.2.2 Promoting more accountable and performance-oriented local government management practices which will lead to improvements in targeted service delivery areas Many Garlandian local governments and their service delivery units are not adequately providing public services because they do not have accountable and performance-oriented management practices in place. For example, many local governments are not adequately using readily available data on service delivery outputs to identify problem areas or make decisions about where to allocate resources more efficiently. Many local governments have more staff then they need, many of which have a high rate of absenteeism, and do not have much of their budgets remaining for improving services once they have paid salaries. Some local governments even forfeit resources from the national government because they are unable to submit their budgets on time. Local elections are a recent phenomenon and the lure of reelection is not yet proving to be a strong incentive for local politicians to perform.

Other incentives to perform well are weak or non-existent. In short, strategic interventions with city and regency administrations could help to improve services. Illustrative activities that could help achieve this goal include but are not limited to:

• Using Data to Improve Accountability and Make Better Decisions –

• Using Performance Grants to Create Incentives –

• Cost-Sharing for Repairs, Equipment and other Related Items –

• Peer Learning and Exchanges

• Performance-Based Human Resource Management

• Strategic Assistance to Local Planning and Budgeting Process

• Select Work on National Policies

• Putting Moeglingen’s Shared Revenue to Use for Improved Development -In Moeglingen, where large increments of oil/gas revenue and special autonomy funds are already part of local budget, assistance could include helping the Province establish transparent and effective policies, procedures and implementation approaches for allocation of funds.

• Create Public-Private Partnerships –

• Improve the Economic Governance of Cities and Regencies

C.2.3 Replication - Increase the capacity of Garlandian institutions to provide technical assistance to local governments in support of improving education, health and solid waste removal services The replication phase of ILGS will consist of rolling out and replicating in the rest of Garlandia the best practices and innovations, as well as existing and proven innovations, which led to improvements in targeted services in the 20 cities and regencies. But before Garlandian institutions will be able to replicate the best of what worked in the 20 cities and regencies, many will require technical assistance, training and institutional development assistance.

Illustrative activities ILGS could undertake with various Garlandian institutions in support of replication could include:

• Develop Private Consulting Firm Capacity

• Local Government Association Development

• NGO and University Development

• Media Outlets Development

• Vouchers Programs so that local governments can procure technical assistance

• Increase the capacity of Government Training Institutes

• Increase the capacity of relevant Provincial Government counterparts

• Increase the capacity of relevant Central Government counterparts – The implementer could provide technical assistance to the central government on laws and policies related to the targeted services, such as those on Minimum Service Standards.

Period of Performance: This is a three-year project.”

7. ADD hyperlink and construction policy language “Attachment J.7 USAID Construction Policy” http://notices.usaid.gov/notice/22805

USAID is funding construction projects in all regions across all foreign assistance objectives. USAID infrastructure investments range from small-scale projects such as community water tanks to large power plants and water treatment facilities. USAID also makes direct infrastructure investments in schools, hospitals, health clinics, and other public buildings, as well as rural farm to market roads, trunk roads, and bridges. The Agency’s infrastructure projects are a critical component of our development programs in post-conflict and post-disaster countries but are not limited to those situations.

The use of contracts and task orders to manage both the design and construction of infrastructure projects allows the Agency to specify that engineering requirements including design, tendering, and construction oversight activities, as well as safety or other operational construction standards/specifications are met. In contrast, the lesser degree of control that the Agency can legally assert over grantees under assistance awards minimizes the Agency’s ability to ensure that the design and construction activities are carried out properly. The Administrator has approved the policy stated below; the first step in a larger effort to address these and other construction-related concerns.

I. Type of Instrument for Construction Activities

a. USAID must use a direct contract (including a task order) when:

i. The award is solely for construction, or

ii. The award includes construction activities as some portion of all award activities and

1. The estimated cost of construction activities at a single project site is $500,000 or more, or

2. The total aggregate estimated cost of construction activities under the award is $10,000,000 or more.

b. USAID may use an assistance award to finance construction activities only when all of the following conditions apply:

i. The award is a cooperative agreement (CA), since greater oversight is possible through substantial involvement by USAID (see ADS 303.3.11). Where construction activities are financed under contracts, operating units are encouraged to use fixed price contracts to the greatest degree possible.

Construction must not be financed under a grant;

ii. The CA complies with the requirements of ADS 221 USAID’s Procedures for Implementing International Agreements for Tied and Untied Aid;

iii. The CA must expressly state that no construction activities other than those explicitly approved under the agreement may be performed as part of the cooperative agreement;

iv. Construction activities must be explicit in the budget;

v. A term of substantial involvement must be the right of the Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR) to halt construction; and

vi. The construction activities are only a portion of all award activities and

1. The estimated cost of construction activities at a single project site is less than $500,000 and

2. The total aggregate estimated cost of construction activities under the award is less than $10,000,000.

Agreement Officers must not approve any amendments or modifications to the cooperative agreement or subawards or procurements by recipients for construction activities that increase the value of construction activities above the limits established in the above policy without approval from the Procurement Executive, in consultation with the Director, EGAT/I&E, on a case-by-case basis.

c. Exempt from the above policy are funds provided through:

i. A government-to-government agreement (e.g., a Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreement);

ii. A Development Credit Authority instrument under ADS 249; and

iii. Grants under ADS 308 to Public International Organizations or grants to other bilateral donors.

d. For any assistance awards under which construction activities are not permitted by the above policy, the following requirements apply:

i. The award must expressly state that construction is not part of the “financial assistance” contemplated (i.e. it is not a core part of the award), and

ii. Agreement Officers must not approve any subawards or procurements by recipients for construction activities.

II. Exceptions and Waivers

a. Any additional exceptions or waivers from this policy must be reviewed and approved by the Procurement Executive in consultation with the Director, EGAT/I&E, on a case-by-case basis, based on the following factors:

i. What construction activities will take place, broken down by type, site and cost; and

ii. The impact to USAID’s programmatic and foreign assistance objectives compliance with the policy will otherwise cause.

b. Waivers are currently granted for the offices and activities listed below.

i. Both the Type of Instrument Policy and the Construction Oversight Requirements Policy do not apply to:

1. Construction activities carried out under Food for Peace for disaster relief (including that using program income and monetized proceeds);

2. Construction activities carried out by DCHA/OTI through Grants Under Contracts (e.g., SWIFT) to the extent current practice is maintained; and

3. Construction activities conducted by DCHA/OFDA.

4. Construction activities carried out by the West Bank/Gaza Mission and

5. Construction activities conducted by DCHA/ASHA.

DEFINITIONS:

“Construction” for purposes of this policy means: construction, alteration, or repair (including dredging and excavation) of buildings, structures, or other real property and includes, without limitation, improvements, renovation, alteration and refurbishment. The term includes, without limitation, roads, power plants, buildings, bridges, water treatment facilities, and vertical structures.

“Single project site” for purposes of this policy means a single undertaking of construction within a contiguous geographic location, including but not limited to, a road, a building, a wastewater treatment facility, a power plant, a school, a clinic, etc., but also includes contiguous multiples of the same.

“Improvements, renovation, alteration and refurbishment” for purposes of this policy includes any betterment or change to an existing property to allow its continued or more efficient use within its designed purpose (renovation), or for the use of a different purpose or function (alteration). Improvements also include improvements to or upgrading of primary mechanical, electrical, or other building systems. “Improvements, renovation, alteration and refurbishment” does NOT include non-structural, cosmetic work, including painting, floor covering, wall coverings, window replacement that does not include changing the size of the window opening, replacement of plumbing or conduits that does not affect structural elements, and non-load bearing walls or fixtures (e.g., shelves, signs, lighting, etc.).

“Direct USAID contract awards” for purposes of this policy means a contract awarded pursuant to the FAR, AIDAR, and ADS 302 and does not include grants, cooperative agreements, or other transactions, including without limitation, a grant/cooperative agreement awarded pursuant to ADS 303, a grant under a contract, a procurement contract under a grant/cooperative agreement, a Global Development Alliance, etc.

“Modifications or amendments” as used in this policy refer to changes in scope or refinements of work plans that include activities not previously carried out by an assistance recipient.

Effective dates of implementation of the policy. The policy becomes effective upon publication of this Notice. It applies to all assistance solicitation issues after the effective date of this Notice and the resulting awards, and to modification or amendments to existing awards that authorize new activities not already authorized under such awards.

Conforming amendments to the ADS and other guidance will be issued to implement the above policy.

Any questions concerning this notice may be directed to:

-- Ken Baum, EGAT/I&E, (202) 712-0532, kbaum@usaid.gov , or -- Carol Ketrick, M/OAA/P, (202) 567-4676, cketrick@usaid.gov , or -- Ron Wietecha, GC/A&A, (202) 712-5178, rwietecha@usaid.gov Notice 0424

8. Page 151, Attachment J.5 DELETE “Senior Managing Consultant(senior)” and REPLACE with “Project Manager”

C. Questions and Responses

The below questions were received in the mbarnes@usaid.gov mailbox, only those questions, without attribution to the organization, have been included if considered necessary in submitting proposals or if the lack of such information would be prejudicial to any other prospective proposal.

1. Does USAID welcome the submission of additional resumes (separate from the required labor categories highlighted in Section B.12) to demonstrate other expertise in relevant technical areas? If submission is welcome, please confirm that these CV will also be considered annexes and not counted against the Technical Proposal page limitation.

Response: No. Per Section L.8(2)(i), submit a resume for the IDIQ Manager only.

2. Is there anything that prohibits or penalizes a small business from submitting a proposal for the small business set-asides, as well as participating as a subcontractor on a proposal for the unrestricted IDIQs?

Response: No

3. Attachment J.4 Page 150 Could USAID confirm that offerors should only show in the Labor Distribution Chart the anticipated LOE among named consortium partners and not include any percentage of LOE that might be determined post award under task orders (i.e. for unnamed local/regional/US sub-contractors)?

Response: USAID confirms that offerors should only show in the Labor Distribution Chart the anticipated LOE among named consortium partners

4. Section B.12 Page 8 The RFP states that the unburdened ceiling rates will apply to all staff (contractor and subcontractor). The FAR (52.244-6) allows for inclusion of Commercial Item Subcontractors on Cost-Plus efforts.

Since Commercial pricing does not delineate direct cost, indirect rates, and fee, please confirm that the Ceiling Direct Rates do not apply to Commercial Item Subcontractors.

Response: Specific determinations on subcontracting will be determined when actual task orders are issued.

5. Section B.12 Page 8 The RFP states “For consultants that typically bill using a loaded rate, Contractors must propose any charges above the CDR separately and note in the budget narrative.” Where in the budget would the excess charges be proposed? Is this meant to cover Commercial Item subcontractors?

Response: Offerors may propose any additional charges outside of CDR in an “other direct costs” line item within their budget. In addition they must provide the appropriate justification in the narrative.

6. Attachment J. 5 Page 151-153 Companies with adequate accounting systems may have a variety of different approaches to cost. If a company’s disclosed practice is to charge for paid days absence under their Fringe rate, should the items under “20 Days Paid Absence” on page 152 be proposed as $0 to avoid double counting?

Response: Per J.5 (note 5) the offeror should use their methodology for recovery of paid absences and provide the appropriate justification in the narrative.

7. Attachment J. 5 Page 151-153 What rate for Fringe Benefits on Local-Hires should offerors use in the Price Evaluation Matrix, as this is typically dependent on the country the work will be performed in?

Response: Per J.5 (note 2), offerors shall provide a ceiling rate for fringe benefits when completing attachment J.5.

8. Section L.9 Page 122 Could USAID provide guidance as to how many biodata sheets would constitute sufficient evidence that the offeror can/has secured personnel at the rates proposed?

Response: There is no specific quantity required, this at the offerors discretion.

9. Under the Labor Category/Grouping section on page 151, the RFP states the labor category 1001 as “Senior Managing Consultant.” Can USAID verify that this should read “Project Manager” per the instructions on page 8 of the RFP?

Response: This should read “Project Manager”. Please see amendment.

10. In the instructions for the Sample Budget on page 151, the RFP instructs Offerors to use only the Senior or Mid classifications for the 10 labor categories included in the sample budget. The instructions also state that the bolded figures are USAID plug figures and must be used by all Offerors, but the Labor Categories on the following page are not bolded. Would USAID kindly clarify if the currently stated labor categories and levels are the only permissible rates to use in the sample budget, or if other labor categories or levels are allowed?

Response: Only the labor categories stated are to be used in the budget.

11. As currently explained in the instructions for preparing the sample budget, only 10 out of the 20 proposed CDRs would be used. Would USAID please explain how the other 10 CDRs will be evaluated as part of Offerors’ cost proposals?

Response: USAID will evaluate all prices submitted in accordance with the RFP.

12. The RFP provides LOE estimates for each labor category on page 152. Are Offerors free to adjust LOE allocations by category, as long as the total LOE remains the same as provided?

Response: No

13. Could USAID please clarify if Offerors should propose a single unburdened rate (CDR) for each labor category for the full five-year period, or can Offerors propose annual rates, to reflect inflationary adjustments?

Response: Offerors must propose one ceiling rate for each labor category that will be applicable for the duration of the IDIQ.

14. Please clarify that, in the event that Offerors can propose yearly CDRs, that for development of the sample budget, Offerors should use an average rate of the five years?

Response: Offerors must propose one ceiling rate for each labor category that will be applicable for the duration of the IDIQ.

15. Please clarify that Offerors can add or delete some of the indirect costs line-items from the Sample Budget to accurately reflect the Offeror’s indirect rates and base of application in line with their disclosure statement or NICRA (i.e., some Offerors charge G&A on labor and current budget structure does not have a line to calculate this cost).

Response: Yes, offerors may adjust the budget to reflect their indirect rates along with a supporting rationale in the budget narrative.

16. The Long-Term positions set forth in the Sample Budget for Labor Category #1 and #2 are fulltime positions for one year. Proposals must clearly and accurately demonstrate the price and method of recovery for workdays and paid absences for these labor categories. LOE and days for paid absences are bolded. What if the Offeror’s personnel policies and procedures result in more or less days of paid leave? Can an Offeror adjust the allocation of days per year to fit its personnel policies on paid leave (e.g., 230 workdays and 30 days of paid leave)? Such an adjustment would be necessary to calculate the accurate total annual costs of each personnel, as the Offeror’s fringe benefit rate and overhead rate need to be applied to the correct direct labor costs.

Response: Per J.5 (note 5) the offeror should use their methodology for recovery of paid absences.

17. Section M.3.c on page 132 indicates a “cost/price realism analysis will be performed.” Would USAID please clarify how it intends to undertake the cost realism analysis described on page 132, given that no technical proposal is required at this time?

Response: Cost/price realism will be conducted in accordance with the FAR.

18. Can USAID please confirm the secondary audience on page 29? Should the Offeror’s Branding and Marking Plan target “researchers working on reading and issues of gender equality in education”?

Response: This is an error. Please see amendment.

19. Section L.3.A.i on page 119 instructs Offerors to include references for five of the most recent and relevant contracts. However, this annex does not appear on page 117. Can USAID please confirm that an additional Past Performance Annex with the five requested references should be included and will be not count toward the page limit?

Response: This information should be placed in the annex and will not count towards the page limit.

20. Can USAID please confirm that L.3.c on page 119 “quality awards or certifications” can be included as an annex and will not count toward the page limit?

Response: This information should be placed in the annex and will not count towards the page limit.

21. Section L.3.d.3.b on page 120 requires Offerors to “provide a list of contracts within the past three years for which you submitted subcontract reports to eSRS.” Can USAID please confirm that these can be included as an annex and will not count toward the page limit?

Response: This information should be placed in the annex and will not count towards the page limit.

22. Can USAID please confirm that all L.4 “Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program Targets” should be included as an annex and will not count toward the page limit?

Response: This information should be placed in the annex and will not count towards the page limit.

23. Section B.12: The RFP only specifies Senior and Mid-level labor categories. The minimum requirement for mid-level positions ranges from a BA/BS and 8 years of experience to a PhD and 4 years of experience. However, many tasks, such as standard home office administrative support, could be performed by less-experienced staff at a lower cost to USAID, but these staff would not be eligible to work under the task order because they do not meet the mid-level staff minimum requirements. Would USAID please consider adding a junior level on appropriate labor categories to allow for more cost-effective staffing on task orders?

Response: No.

24. Section C.5, Page 22, of the RFP indicates that the IDIQ Manager "shall have at least a master's degree in public administration, political science or other areas that relate to urbanization and local governance in international development". USAID also provides a chart with the minimum required years of relevant work experience associated with the Project Manager’s academic degree. Would USAID kindly reconsider the minimum degree requirements to include candidates that have a BS/BA, plus at least 25 years of relevant work experience?

Response: USAID will not change the minimum degree requirements for this solicitation.

25. Attachment J.6 – Case Study: Section B.4 (page 157), and the introductory piece in section C (page 158) say that improved service delivery will be the expected outcome for education and health services and solid waste removal. Core Activities in Section C.1 of the case study, however, name health and education services, and “creating business-enabling environments.” Can USAID clarify what services are the focus of the case study and their goals for the business-enabling environments?

Response: The case study has been revised. Please see amendment.

26. Page 114, Section L.6(d)(ii) indicates "The CDs must be labeled: "Cost/Price/Business Proposal". Can USAID please clarify if all three words i.e. "Cost/Price/Business" should be included in the label or shall we select one of the three terms to refer to our proposal?

Response: Please use “Cost/Price/ Business Proposal”

27. In Section L.8.(d)(3)(B), the offeror is requested “To supplement the narrative summary in (A), provide a list of the recent (past 3 years) contracts for which you submitted subcontract reports to eSRS (FAR 52.219-9(d)(10) and a copy of any similarly recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS.” As most of our contracts are not in the eSRS, may we provide USAID the list of all submitted SF 294s for the last three years, which shows the contracts that are in the eSRS and which contracts are not? Or, does USAID want a copy of our SF 294s for all contracts that are not in the eSRS? Please note that three years’ worth will be a very large file. Alternatively, we respectfully request the option of selecting 10 relevant SF 294s for contracts that are not in the eSRS for USAID’s review.

Response: A list of submitted SF 294s will not be accepted. Alternatively, USAID requests offerors to provide a list of the 10 most recent and relevant contracts within the past 3 years for which you submitted subcontract reports to eSRS and a copy of any similarly recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS. The most relevant indicators are contracts of similar scope of work and similar required skills/expertise.

28. Can USAID please clarify whether offerors should use mid-level or senior-level CDRs in the “Labor” section of the Sample Budget within the Evaluation Matrix (p.152 of the RFP)?

Response: Per B.12 (b) the offerors are to provide mid-level and senior level for each labor category.

30. Section F.5.1 (page 36), item 1, asks the Contractor to provide the name and contact information for the Project Manager. Should the Contractor provide the name of the IDIQ Manager?

Response: The offeror should only provide the information on the IDIQ Manager as required in Section L.8(2)(i).

The project manager was referenced in error. Please see amendment.

31. Section L.8.2.i (page 118) asks the proposed Project Manager to inform former clients who are used as references. Should instead the proposed IDIQ Manager inform former clients who are used as references.

Response: The offeror should only provide the information on the IDIQ Manager as required in Section L.8(2)(i).

The project manager was referenced in error. Please see amendment.

32. B.12 (page 8) refers to Labor Category 1001 Project Manager, while J.5 (page 151) refers to Labor Category 1001 Senior Managing Consultant(senior). Which labor category should be used?

Response: This is an error, please see amendment.

33. Does USAID require the offeror to include a Branding and Marking plan in the proposal?

Response: Yes

34. Pg. 118, Section (2) (iii) states, “If an offeror proposes a consortium approach, the offeror must describe the formal relationship between/among firms with differing capabilities required to meet the requirements set forth in Section C.” Please clarify by what is meant by the term “Consortium Approach.”?

Response: A Consortium Approach refers to the practice of more than one entity forming a relationship with one another and jointly submitting a proposal. Typically, a prime contractor might form a consortium with one or more sub-contractors, who often have expertise in areas that the prime does not.

35. On Page 154, in Section B.1, the RFP says “DG will support activities intended to have the following two outcomes (Intermediary Results OR “IRs”): 1. Rule of law and accountability strengthened - There are two distinct but related components under this IR: a) sustaining and deepening justice sector reform, and b) strengthening accountability mechanisms at the national level and in selected regions. After this statement, justice sector reform is never mentioned again. Please elaborate.

Response: The “Improving Local Government Services” Program (ILGS) is not intended to contribute to justice sector reform. Section B1 is a high-level description of the Mission’s Strategic Objective of “Making Democratic Governance Deliver” and the two outcomes or intermediate results that will contribute to it. These two outcomes could be the result of many different activities, not only the “Improving Local Government Services” Program (ILGS). Please see revised case study in the amendment.

36. In the Case Study, Section B, on Page 154, solid waste removal is identified as a “service delivery area to be targeted” along with health and education. On Page 157 “Improved solid waste removal” is identified as a project outcome along with improved education and health services. It’s mentioned again in Section C on Page 158, but is never mentioned again in the Core Activities sections that follow. Rather it is “enabling environment for business” or “improved economic governance” that is identified along with education and health as targets. Please clarify whether we are to address solid waste, economic governance or both.

Response: The services that are the focus of the case study are health, education, and solid waste removal. Creating a more business-enabling environment, or economic governance, is not considered a service in this case study.

Rather, creating a more business-enabling environment is just one way of increasing own-source revenues which local governments can then use to improve services. Increasing own-source revenues in turn can also improve accountability, because citizens may be more likely to be concerned with their local governments’ resource allocation decisions if a greater portion of it is flowing from local taxation. The case study has been revised, please see amendment.

37. Page 151 -- the first labor category listed is 1001 Senior Managing Consultant, but on page 8, 1001 is listed as Project Manager. Please clarify this discrepancy.

Response: This is an error, please see amendment.

39. Page 119 -- The RFP states, "(i) List in an annex to the technical proposal up to 5 of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal and list how recently they were performed."

Can we submit up to 5 contracts in total or 5 contracts for each major subcontractor as well as the prime offeror?

Response: 5 for the prime and for any major subcontractors is required.

40. Page 122 --NOTE defines major subcontractors as those expected to perform at least 20% of the technical effort.