SOLICITATION NOTICE
R -- Evaluation od USAID Pakistan FATA Capacity Building Project (CBP)
- Notice Date
- 5/25/2010
- Notice Type
- Combined Synopsis/Solicitation
- NAICS
- 541990
— All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
- Contracting Office
- Agency for International Development, Overseas Missions, Pakistan USAID-Islamabad, Department of State, Unit 62206, APO, 09812-2206
- ZIP Code
- 09812-2206
- Solicitation Number
- 391-10-039
- Archive Date
- 7/8/2010
- Point of Contact
- Afshan Anil Faisal, Phone: 92512081282, Tariq Javed, Phone: 92512081281
- E-Mail Address
-
aafaisal@usaid.gov, Tjaved@usaid.gov
(aafaisal@usaid.gov, Tjaved@usaid.gov)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- Solicitation Number: 391-10-039 Issuance Date: May 25, 2010 Deadline for Questions: June 03, 2010 17:00 Eastern Standard Time Solicitation Closing Date: June 23, 2010 Solicitation Closing Time: 17:00 Eastern Standard Time Subject: Request for Quotation Number 391-10-039 Evaluation of USAID Pakistan FATA Capacity Building Project Dear Sir/Madam: The United States Government, represented by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) intends to award, subject to availability of funds, a firm-fixed-price contract with an approximate total estimated cost between 45,000 to 60,000, for provision of services to conduct an evaluation of the USAID/Pakistan FATA Capacity Building Project as more specifically described in Section B (Statement of Work). The authority for this RFQ is found in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, FAR Part 13 (Simplified Acquisition Procedures) and FAR Part 15 (Contracting by Negotiation). For the purpose of this program, this RFQ is being issued and consists of the cover letter and the following: Section A - Scope of Work Section B - Quotation Submission Instructions Section C - Evaluation Criteria; and Revealing the cost range for the award does not mean that Offerors should necessarily strive to meet the maximum amount. The Offeror must propose costs that it believes are realistic and reasonable for the work. Quotations are due no later than June 23, 2010 (17:00 Eastern Standard Time) and shall be submitted electronically by e-mail with attachments up to 2MB limit per email to Afshan A. Faisal, Acquisition Assistant ( AAFaisal@usaid.gov ). Quotes received after this deadline will not be considered. In addition, the actual quotes may also be submitted to an international courier service no later than the above deadline to the addressee listed below. For purposes of recording the official receipt of quotations, the date/time stamp of the Office of Acquisition and Assistance, USAID/Pakistan will govern. Quotations should be submitted in sealed envelopes with the name and address of the contractor and the number of the RFQ on the envelope; telegraphic or fax applications are not authorized for this RFQ and will not be accepted. Afshan A. Faisal Acquisition Assistant Office of Acquisition and Assistance USAID/Pakistan C/O American Embassy Diplomatic Enclave, Ramna 5 Islamabad, Pakistan Phone: (92) 051-208-1282 VOIP: 202-216-6386 Ext: 1282 (Satellite relay from US to Pakistan) Email: AAFaisal@usaid.gov Any questions about this RFQ must be submitted through email to Afshan A. Faisal, Acquisition Assistant ( AAFaisal@usaid.gov ) and must reference the RFQ number. For all enquiries, provide a contact person's name, title, phone number and email address. Issuance of this RFQ does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the U.S. Government, nor does it commit the Government to pay for any costs incurred relative to the preparation and submissions of quotations. This letter in no way obligates USAID to award the proposed contract, nor does it commit USAID to pay any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of the requested information. In addition, USAID cannot award the contract contemplated by this RFQ until funds have been appropriated, allocated and committed through internal USAID procedures. While it is anticipated that these procedures will be successfully completed, potential contractors are hereby notified of these requirements and conditions for the award. Contractors therefore submit quotations at their own risk. Sincerely, Marilynn E. Bianco Contracting Officer USAID/Pakistan SECTION A SCope of work 1. Background The Capacity Building for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas Development Program (or "Capacity Building Project," CPB) was designed as a three-year initiative to strengthen the capacity of key government- and non-governmental organizations to deliver services in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Agencies (FATA). The project is currently being implemented by Development Alternatives, Inc., under a contract with the USAID Pakistan Mission. The CPB contract was awarded in January 2008 with an original ceiling of $43.4 million. This figure was later increased by $2.2 million, in order to cover additional security costs. The CPB program was designed to (1) improve the capacity of FATA government institutions to govern and manage increased donor resources and (2) to strengthen the capacity of FATA nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to promote good governance. Building the capacity of state institutions is seen as a key element of the overall USG goal of stabilizing the FATA and strengthening the writ of the Government of Pakistan in conflict-afflicted and at-risk territories. The CPB was designed to support two government bodies in particular: the FATA Secretariat (responsible for overall governance of the tribal areas and for providing services such as health care, education and public works), and the FATA Development Authority (responsible for the region's economic development). On the NGO side, the program selected 42 FATA NGOs to support with a combination of equipment, training, and internships. Key objectives of the CBP include the following: Operationalizing the "FATA Sustainable Development Plan" Improving civil-military coordination Strengthening the capacity of FATA NGOs/CSOs, and Improving FATA Secretariat communications and public relations capacity In June 2009, due to a high-level shift in USG strategy in Pakistan, USAID decided to transition the bulk of its assistance program to Pakistani implementers. As a result, the Mission refrained from fully funding DAI's incremental funding requests in 2009, and requested the preparation of a 90-day demobilization plan. USAID subsequently amended its decision, retaining the original end-date of December 31, 2010, but reducing the total estimated cost from $45.536M to $31.737M. 2. Purpose of Evaluation As the CBP begins its third year, USAID wishes to independently evaluate the project's successes and shortcomings, and to furthermore gauge the impact of the CBP's interventions. More so than most projects, the CBP was buffeted by an array of macro-level political and geo-political winds, including the deteriorating security situation in the FATA region, the shift in intensity and direction of US government strategy towards Pakistan, and the evolution of the Pakistani government's attitude towards governance in the tribal agencies. Despite these factors, more than two years of project implementation should provide sufficient data to examine the efficacy and efficiency of interventions, to reflect upon and test the development hypotheses underlying the project design, and to examine key determinants of the project's success (or lack thereof) across its various components. Therefore, the purpose of this evaluation is to provide the following information: Given the history of the project, what constitutes a proper measurement of "success" for the CBP? And has this benchmark been met? In order to answer this question, the evaluation team will, at a minimum, need to execute the following tasks: •1. Assess the progress of the project to date, and examine the project results in relation to the goals, objectives, activities and indicators proposed in the original statement of work and any subsequent modifications. •2. Analyze and evaluate the long-term, sustainable impact of the project's interventions. •3. Analyze the current indicators used to determine results of the program and assess their usefulness as a reflection of both immediate program results and broader strategic impacts. •4. Capture the specific nature of working in the FATA region, and the CBP's success or failure in adapting both programmatic approaches and specific interventions, accordingly. •5. Revisit the causal linkages posited at the time of project design between outputs, outcomes, and higher-level results, and reassess them, in light of project implementation and results to date. •6. Provide recommendations for programming and implementation as well as lessons learned to support the continued advancement of capacity building in Pakistan's tribal agencies. 3. Detailed Scope of Work •A. Preliminary Research: The contractor will review pertinent documents as outlined in the attachment in order to familiarize himself with CBP activities, planned outputs (and resultant progress indicators), and expected outcomes. Based on the preliminary research, the evaluators will work with USAID and DAI to finalize fieldwork plans and make any changes or recommendations to the methodology of the evaluation. •B. Broad Questions for Evaluation: USAID (Evaluation Handbook, pg. 23) requires that all evaluations examine several broad concerns that are applicable to any type of development assistance. The evaluation team is expected to go beyond the simple examination of inputs and outputs to explore these broader issues. These concerns are: •· Relevance : Has life for residents of FATA changed at all as a result of USAID's investment in the CBP? Are the development constraints the project was initially designed to address still germane to project strategies? What has been the nature of GOP participation? Are there indicators of short/long-term commitment, both in terms of political and budgetary "buy-in"? Are the principle institutional, policy and technical constraints being addressed by the project components? •· Effectiveness : Is the project achieving satisfactory progress toward the stated goal, purpose and outputs? Are the goal, purpose and outputs as defined in the project proposal still valid? •· Efficiency : Are the effects of the project being produced at an acceptable cost compared with alternative approaches to accomplishing the same objective? Have there been GoP cost share or in-kind contributions? •· Impact : The evaluation findings should reflect examples of both direct and indirect impact in terms of improvements in the skills, attitudes and civic engagement of project beneficiaries, both governmental and nongovernmental, on individual and institutional levels. The evaluation should draw on quantitative information, as available and anecdotal indications of impact. Impact can also be found in activities which are being replicated by other NGOs, government or other donors. 4. Additional illustrative questions include: •· Innovation: Is the project's strategic approach and specific blend of interventions (trainings, equipment purchases, exchanges, etc.) innovative? Does it reflect best industry practices, while acknowledging the specificities of working in the FATA? •· Sustainability: What measures has DAI taken to ensure sustainability of the activities (e.g. leveraging in-kind contributions, aligning costs with likely means, seeking support from GoP, etc.)? What is DAI's strategy to achieve institutionalization of intended outcomes, in terms of expected gains in organizational capacity? What has been achieved to date? What, if any, evidence is there that the impact "footprint" of funded activities has or will significantly expand, either geographically (to cover areas not directly part of CBP), or institutionally (to be fully absorbed by partner organizations, beyond the personnel immediately benefiting from CBP assistance)? In other words, are there changes in partner organizations' values, attitudes and behavior, and, if so, are they likely to prove resilient? •· Replicability: Has the project generated materials, methods and approaches that are easily absorbed by Pakistani officials, NGOs, and state institutions? Additionally, are there elements of the program that recommend them for (or not for) export to other country contexts? •· Performance monitoring: To what extent are DAI's own data gathering methodologies providing sufficient quality and quantity of data to monitor implementation progress, gauge project impact, and adjust course accordingly? How can these methods be improved, in particular taking into consideration the operational difficulties of working in the tribal regions of Pakistan? •· Management: Has DAI effectively and efficiently managed this project to date? Are there any recommendations to improve the management structure? What is the assessment of DAI's implementing personnel on the CBP? •· Cooperation: To what extent has the project coordinated and communicated effectively with other entities involved with governance issues in the FATA (including the GoP, US embassy, USAID Mission, other bilateral donors, NGOs, and other stakeholders)? Have interactions with and outreach to local communities, including religious and tribal leaders, been sufficient? To what extent has the project been able to leverage other USG-funded programs in the FATA to enlarge the "footprint" of CBP impact? Or, conversely, to what extent have the CBP's achievements generated a "multiplier effect" to help other development projects expand their impact? 5. Methodology The contractor will field an evaluation team to consist of two senior-level evaluations experts with at least 12 years international experience of relevant evaluating work. One evaluator will be designated as the Senior Evaluator/Team Leader with overall responsibility for the evaluations. At least one should be a Pakistani national and have deep experience from the FATA/Khyber Pukhtoon Khwa region. USAID/Pakistan may also add a USAID representative to the evaluation team. It is the team's responsibility to develop the evaluation methodology, which should be independent, objective, and transparent, as well as participatory where appropriate. Reviews of relevant documentation, including: the CBP contract, sub-awards, and modification; annual and quarterly work plans; project progress reports; all project data; monitoring and verification (M&V) reports produced by the project, and other relevant materials should be reviewed prior to traveling to Pakistan. Logistics will primarily be the responsibility of the contractor (airline reservation, hotel, visa's etc). However, DAI will facilitate the evaluation by assisting with organizing meetings, making relevant staff available for the evaluation team, providing documents required for the evaluation and providing office space in DAI office building and transportation to meetings. The Evaluation team will be provided guidance by USAID Mission Pakistan before starting the actual activities however; the team will arrange for its own logistics during its stay in Pakistan. 6. Deliverables and Time Frame This Evaluation is estimated to require a total of approximately 4 - 5 weeks of effort (approximately 2-3 weeks of fieldwork plus approximately 1-2 weeks of pre-field work briefings and post-field work write-up). The following deliverables are required as part of the contract for the evaluation Interviews with DAI both in headquarters and the field, and relevant USAID staff. Interview questions to ensure uniformity of information amongst the evaluation team members. Data collection (via interviews, focus groups, or other methods) with a sample of stakeholders at all levels of the project. This will include members of the FATA Secretariat, Pakistani NGOs, and other partner organizations Travel to Islamabad, Peshawar, and other districts as necessary. Two weeks prior to the commencement of travel, the information gathering techniques will be presented for approval to USAID. 7. Report Format and Contents •a. Acronyms •b. Table of contents •c. Report summary •d. Findings, conclusions and recommendations. These should answer the key questions posed in the scope of work. Recommendations should be based on the findings and conclusions and should be practical, action oriented and prioritized. •e. Appendices: scope of work, persons interviewed/contacted and their relationship to project, graphs, tables, bibliography, etc. END OF SECTION A SECTION B QUOTATION SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS Quotations shall be submitted in two separate packages - technical and cost/business proposal and shall be prepared according to the format set forth below. Interested parties are expected to comply with all requirements of the RFQ in submission of a quotation. The contractor shall sign the quote and print or type the contractor's name on the cover page of the technical and cost/business proposals. Erasures or other changes must be initialed by the person signing the offer. TECHNICAL QUOTATION: Transmittal Letter (maximum 2 pages): The letter must include the title of RFQ and the authorized representative to negotiate on behalf of the offeror, with address, phone number, fax number and email. Technical (maximum 10 pages): The offeror shall fully address the statement of work, deliverables and evaluation factors that draws on the professional experience of the team members. Personnel: Abbreviated curriculum vitae and OF 1420-17 form for each team member showing how they meet the qualifications required. [Resumes must be limited to 3 pages each]. Three recent (within the past 2 years) references for each team member, including current telephone numbers and email addresses for the contacts. Past Performance: Three references for the offeror who can be contacted regarding the performance under similar type projects within the past two years. For each reference provide the name, title, email address and phone number. (Page limit does not include resumes/biographical data sheets and past performance information) Writing Ability: A copy of the public section of an evaluation recently conducted by the team leader [up to 25 pages]. The offeror must provide the DUNS and TIN (Tax Identification Number). COST QUOTATION: The Cost or Business offer, is to be submitted separately from the technical quotation. The following sections describe the documentation that offeror's must submit to USAID. While there is no page limit for this portion, offeror's are encouraged to be as coincise as possible, but still provide the necessary detail to address the following: Include a detailed budget with an accompanying narrative which provides rationale and the basis including sufficient information to determine the reasonableness of proposed salaries, equipment, other direct costs, etc. Provide the budget in Microsoft Excel ad narrative in Microsoft Word. •a) Breakdown of costs associated with the quote to include headquarters and field office. •b) Name and Title; Daily Rate; Number of workdays; and Total Cost for each individual who will perform directly. •c) Breakdown of Other Direct Costs. •d) List of equipment, vehicles and supplies being proposed. Explanation to potential offeror - If the offeror desires an explanation or interpretation of this RFQ, the interested party must submit the question(s) by the deadline. REFERENCES: Please provide at least three references of previous evaluation work and contract number (If appropriate) references should include names of company, project description, time frame, POC name, phone number and email. END OF SECTION B SECTION C EVALUATION CRITERIA (a) Best Value Selection Quotations will be evaluated using the tradeoff process and award will be made to the Offeror whose quotation represents the Best Value for the US Government. If the Contracting Officer determines that competing technical quotations are essentially equal, cost/price factors may become the determining factor in source selection. Conversely, if the Contracting Officer determines that competing cost/price quotations are essentially equal, technical factors may become the determining factor in source selection. Further, the Contracting Officer may award to a higher priced Offeror if a determination is made that the higher technical evaluation of that Offeror merits the additional cost/price. (b) Technical Evaluation 1. Personnel [45 points] The evaluation team must have academic and practical knowledge for evaluating the CBP Project in FATA/NWFP. Expertise needed includes knowledge and implementation of monitoring and evaluation tools and methods, including qualitative analysis. Familiarity with the FATA/KPK tribal region would be an advantage. 2. Technical proposal [30 points] Demonstrates understanding of the key issues and describes sound approaches for accomplishing the evaluation tasks based on team member qualifications. 3. Past Performance [15 points] Demonstrated capability to plan and implement evaluations in similar settings. Demonstrated institutional ability and past performance in maintaining financial and accounting records. At least three references will be provided for relevant work preferred in an international environment. 4. Writing Ability of Team Leader [10 points ] The person proposed for the team leader position will provide to USAID a technical evaluation report that s/he has previously written, on a similar topic if possible. The sample report will be evaluated on the basis of content, rhetorical style and mechanics. Evaluation of content will include ability to write clearly on a technical topic and capacity to explain the basis for conclusions and recommendations made. Rhetorical style evaluation will include straightforward organization of material and conciseness of language. Evaluation of mechanics will include appropriate grammar and usage of language including technical terminology. (c) Cost Quotation [0 point] Cost Quotation will not be scored, but it will be a selection factor and considered in making a best value determination. (a) Cost Quotations will be analyzed as part of the overall evaluation. Budgets will be evaluated for cost realism, completeness, reasonableness, and competitiveness. (b) Cost realism is an assessment of accuracy with which proposed costs represent the most probable cost of performance, within each Offeror's technical and management approach. A cost realism evaluation shall be performed as part of the evaluation process: (a) to verify the Offeror's understanding of the requirements; (b) to assess the degree to which the Cost Quotation accurately reflect the approaches and/or risk assessments made in the technical and management approach as well as the risk that the Offeror will provide the supplies or services for the costs proposed; and (c) to assess the degree to which the costs included in the Cost Quotation accurately represent the work effort included in the respective Technical Quotation. (c) The results of the cost realism analysis will be used as part of the Agency's best value/tradeoff analysis. Although technical evaluation criteria are significantly more important than cost, the closer the technical evaluation scores of the various quotations are to one another, the more important cost considerations will become. Therefore, the evaluation of costs proposed may become a determinant factor in making award.
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/AID/OM/PAK/391-10-039/listing.html)
- Place of Performance
- Address: Islamabad/Pakistan, Islamabad, Pakistan
- Record
- SN02160237-W 20100527/100525235715-5e775937de6f384c07ca780535bd93bf (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |