Amendment_6_LeaD_IDIQ_RFP_SOL-OAA-16-000014.pdf

DCHA Learning and Development IDIQ

SOL-OAA-16-000014

Amendment 6

April 18, 2016

Note: Due to the multiple extensions, this will be the last amendment for questions submitted. USAID respectfully request offerors respond to the RFP with the information that has been provided.

1. Section B.8, page 8. Please clarify the relationship between the labor categories described here and those in the sample budget in attachment J.4, page 131. Are the categories supposed to match, or should the positions in B.8 be mapped to the categories on page

131? If they should be mapped, please provide guidance for which positions are expected to be long term, short term, field based, U.S. based, USN, and CCN. Please provide a description of the consultant labor category and indicate if there should be senior, mid, or junior level CDRs for consultants.

The categories are for the only positions that your organization should be proposing. There is no need to map to page 131 it is a sample only. You as the offeror are making a decision if you feel the position is either senior, mid or junior. We don’t dictate which category you propose and if it is long term or short term, offeror choice.

2. Section B.8 (a), p. 8. We request that Offerors be prohibited from having consultants sign exclusive letters of commitment because of the limited pool of individuals who have previous experience providing assistance described in the RFP directly to DCHA.

Other than the IDIQ manager no exclusive letter is required.

3. Section B.9, p. 10. The table for ceiling indirect rates does not include a ceiling for Offerors’ fringe rates. Is this excluded from the indirect rate ceiling that is to be submitted?

No fringe rates are not excluded from the indirect rate ceiling.

4. Section C.4, p.19: Does USAID have any indication of the course redesigns that are anticipated in the first 12 to 15 months of the IDIQ? This will help offerors identify the right staff ahead of time.

For the future awardees, discussions and guidance will be provided in the more descript task orders.

5. Section C.4, p.19: What is the difference between “mentoring and coaching for performance improvement” described here and Task 3? We recognize the overlapping nature of these items, a clarification of the distinctions would helpful.

USAID views mentoring as occurring when a more experienced professional assists a less experienced person by providing guidance, advice and a voice of experience. Coaching involves expanding a person’s capacity to take effective action. The bottom line is USAID would like the future awardee to work closely to improve performance.

6. Section C.4, pages 21 and 23. Please indicate whether the 2 illustrative procedural overviews of OD interventions and Task 3 illustrative activity (noted in the third bullet) should be included in the annex or would not be counted towards the 40-page limit of the technical narrative. [Just Task 3 illustrative activity; OD interventions’ illustrative procedural overviews was answered.]

While the 40 page limit is the requirement, the offeror can choose to annex further information to highlight there activities, USAID is agreeable.

7. Section C.4, p21: Please confirm the two “illustrative procedural overviews of OD interventions” are meant to demonstrate technical understanding and effective design rather than examples from the Offeror’s past experience and that they are separate from the three illustrative tasks to be included in the technical understanding.

Yes, the OD interventions are meant to demonstrate technical understanding and effective design.

8. Section C.4, pages 22-23: Please confirm Offerors should produce a plan that is mentioned in the last sentence of the last paragraph on page 22 and that bulleted points that follow are things that should be addressed in proposal submissions.

USAID confirms that the offeror can produce a plan that utilizes the bulleted points in the proposal submission.

9. Section C.4, page 24: The Knowledge Management section says the “contractor will conduct a survey.” To avoid duplicative efforts, we recommend that this be done under a task order and shared with all IDIQ awardees.

The survey is only to be conducted by a future awardee.

10. Section F.5, page 31, first paragraph. Please clarify the requirement that Performance

Monitoring Reports “must include information on performance data gathered through monitoring systems being utilized by host country partner organizations engaged in HICD activities.”

The Performance Monitoring Report guidance will be illustrated to a greater degree for the eventual awardee. At this point this is just describing the reports at a macro level.

11. Section F.6 (b), page 37. Fair Opportunity Exceptions: As the IDIQ is a total small business set-aside, would USAID consider removing sub-sections (5) and (6), as limiting competition among small business IDIQ holders will further neither small business utilization goals nor facilitate competition?

Because this is a small business only IDIQ already there is no need to remove this.

12. Section F.6(c), page 38. Classified Task Orders: Will USAID take into consideration whether a contractor currently holds a facility security clearance when making its IDIQ award determinations? Will USAID sponsor the clearance process of a contract awardee if an awardee does not have a facility clearance upon award? [not completely answered in Q. 96, page 18 of Amendment #4]

No special consideration will be given to a contractor that currently holds a facility security clearance. Yes USAID will sponsor the clearance for the future awardee.

13. Section F.7(c), page 45. Conversion to a Fixed Price and/or Performance Based Task Order:

The Offeror notes that this subsection, when combined with Section F.6(b)(3), may create a disincentive to competition under the contract. Would the Government consider removing this section in order to foster competition, especially given that all IDIQ holders will be small business concerns?

No, USAID will not consider removing this section.

14. Section H.7, page 56. Security Clearance: Would the Government kindly indicate how frequently task orders for the provision to DCHA of services similar to those required by this

IDIQ have required a contractor to possess a security clearance? Would the Government please indicate this relative frequency according to each of the four tasks under the IDIQ?

There is no available data to show how frequently task orders for the provision to DCHA of services requires, a contractor to possess a security clearance. The future awardee can speak to the Security office to gather that information.

15. Section J, page 86: If an offeror does not perform any lobbying activities, must it submit a completed SF-LLL?

No, if there are no Lobbying activities to report.

16. Section L.8, page 110. Please clarify which items in the bulleted list should be in the technical annexes and which items should be in the technical narrative (but not be counted against the 40-page limit).

All of the bulleted items on Page 110 will not count toward the 40 page limit.

17. Section L.8, page 112. We request that the work plans and timelines mentioned in Technical understanding, not be required. If they must be included, please permit them to be included in annexes or presented in abbreviated form. [annex question answered, not request to have them not be a part of submission/evaluation.]

USAID will evaluate each offeror based on the information provided.

18. Section M, p120. Tech Understanding (c) – USAID states “Technical appropriateness and qualifications of proposed personnel, including long and short-term positions/roles, to the proposed technical approach.” Since amendment 2 clarified that the sample tasks are supposed to be past activities the contractor has undertaken, should “proposed personnel” read instead “fielded personnel”? Yes

19. Amendment 1, first page. Management Plan: The amendment states that, "Also, proximity to DCHA staff for support purposes is encouraged and considered important to implementation of activities." Would USAID please define how it will assess the offeror's proximity?

Amendment 2 supersedes amendment 1; however distance from the Ronald Regan

Building (RRB) will be noted.

20. Amendment 1, second page, Technical Understanding: Would USAID please clarify sub-point

#1?

Amendment 2 supersedes amendment 1.

21. Amendment 1, third page, "Clarification of Section C Task 3 Page 24": The text following this heading does not appear to address this heading. Will the Government please provide its intended clarification of Section C? [Q.12 on page 3 of Amendment 4 addresses in part this by referring to Amendment 2 that indicates Offerors’ sample/illustrative tasks should be from past experience but does not appear to refer to or address material on page 24 or

Task 3.]

The intent for Task 3 is to have the offerors put together a performance management plan for supervisors and staff that illustrates how the “offerors” will help enhance skills and knowledge needed to effectively manage these activities.

22. Amendment 2. Thank you for the clarification that the sample tasks should from the

Offeror’s past experience. However, we suggest that the second sentence be revised slightly: USAID is not providing you with “sample tasks,” you are illustrating past sample activities your organization has performed that highlight the following:”

No revision necessary, offerors are aware of intent.