SFSA RFP A 1 - Qs and As May 4th ready to be posted.doc

SFSA RFP: 623-EA-09-006

AMENDMENT 1 Responses to Questions Submitted by Prospective Bidders and LOE Matrix (total 18 pages) NOTE: The RFP-stated Closing Time & Date remain unchanged

1. The right hand portion of the “IQC Professional Categories” table given on pages 148 -150 of the RFP is cut off from the Year 5 Employee column onwards. Footnotes (“Legend”) items for Column 1, Column 14, and Column 15, as well as the Note, are also cut off. The image version of this table on page 112 is also unreadable. Can USAID provide a clean and complete version of this table?

USAID’s Response: The matrix presented in the RFP’s p. 112 and reproduced again on pp. 148-150 is at the end of this Q&A Section in its complete form.

2. In the summary budget format given on page 110, the “salary and wages” and “consultants” line items both have “inclusive of LOE Matrix, below” in parentheses afterwards. The use of the word “inclusive” would imply that other salaries and consultants are also to be included in this line item, in addition to the amounts calculated in the LOE matrix (e.g. local program staff). Can USAID provide clarification if this is the case (and, if so, how bidders should estimate these other salary costs) or whether the LOE matrix total dollar values for US salaries/consultants is assumed to include all labor requirements?

USAID’s Response: The inquiring party’s interpretation of the word “inclusive” is exactly correct. Further, concerning “how should bidders estimate these other salary costs”, the answer given to Comment 4, on page 143 of the RFP - “No other plug figures will be provided”.

3. While we understand the differentiation between salary/wages and consultants in terms of how most contractors apply fringe, overhead and other indirect cost rates (often different based on type), we are unclear as to how USAID wants bidders to allocate the given LOE between the two. By US law, any long‐term project employee is considered a company employee and would therefore be included under the “salaries and wages” category, while short‐term specialists from outside the company would fall under the “consultant” category. How bidders apportion these amounts will greatly affect USAID’s ability to compare budgets amongst all bidders since those that budget for a large amount into the consultant category will have a lower budget as indirect cost rates are lower on this group and allowances do not need to be budgeted either. For those bidders that the majority of the proposed LOE is long‐term in nature, they will have a much larger allowances (post differential, COLA, HQA, etc.) budget since no plug figure is provided for this cost area. So there is a level playing field amongst all bidders for the evaluation of cost proposals, can USAID provide bidders with the percentages of each labor category’s LOE that are expected to be long‐term (employee) and short‐term (consultant)?

USAID’s Response: The RFP does not state a percentage of Level of Effort (LOE) to be provided by the contractor-employee versus consultant or long term versus short term LOE. Bidders make their assumptions based on what they determine is their best technical approach. Further, bids must take into consideration and follow the applicable US laws.

4. In the note on the bottom of page 110, it states that “prime bidder’s totals must be inclusive of the proposed subs.” Because, contractors (primes and subcontractors) have various methods for allocating and applying indirect costs, should the bidder provide individual detailed budgets for all subcontractors so that they may apply indirect costs in the appropriate manner? And, should each line item in the summary budget be the sum of the prime and each of the subcontractors’ budgets for that line item?

USAID’s Response: Bidder’s 5-year summary budget must follow format as shown on the RFP p. 110. Submission of detailed budget (prime’s and sub, if proposed) is required. The IQC budget format presented in the RFP’s Attachment J.6, p. 110 is to assist in fair and efficient (across the board) evaluation and most informed selection process. Bidders (and the proposed subs, if any) must submit 5-year summary cost proposal (deriving from the bidder’s and their subs’ detailed annual budget/cost-proposal) in the format exhibited in the RFP’s Attachment J.6 (p. 110). However, the bidder’s (and the proposed subs’, if any) detailed annual cost-proposal will be developed using the bidder’s (and the proposed subs’, if any) budget structure based on their established practice. Bidder will then use cost information contained in their detailed annual cost-proposal to fill-in dollar amounts in the 5-year summary budget/cost-proposal (and, also, to fill-in LOE table’s daily rate ceilings which may be the position’s blended ceiling), consistent with the RFP format. Please note that completed by the bidder RFP’s LOE matrix (table) exhibited on p.112 (and reproduced at the end of this Q&A) will not have designation as the Prime- or Sub-contractor-provided LOE. When sub-contracting is proposed, and it does not involve provision of any of the 23 professional labor categories of LOE, then it should be shown in the 5-year budget summary on ODC line (and be identified/labeled: “Sub-contract”).

5. We note that USAID has noted that it will not provide any additional plug figures for the cost proposal. However, can USAID provide guidance on how it wishes bidders to approach budgeting for the “Equipment and Supplies”, “Allowances”, and “Other Direct Costs” line items by providing some additional information that would enable bidders to make reasonable estimates for these line items? For example, in the case of “allowances”, budgeting of these are determined by both location and type of employee (long‐term in‐country versus short‐term). As requested above, knowing the estimated amount of LOE for each labor category that is long‐term in‐country is necessary for this calculation. Additionally, should bidders use all an average of all allowance rates for all COMESA countries and Tanzania in determining an average allowance rate … or should bidders use one country or a specific basket of countries to determine individual allowance rates? Budgeting for “Equipment and Supplies” and “Other Direct Costs” also requires bidders to take into account the location of the projects, the number of projects being budgeted, the relative size of the projects, the number of field locations, and types of projects (e.g. those with many field extension staff requiring vehicles and extension equipment, to those more policy oriented with fewer staff and less project transportation/vehicle needs).

USAID’s Response: It is not required and the benefit of cost competition would be lessened if the RFP provided more “plug” figures or provided more directions how to build cost estimates. Bidder should exercise their own judgment and construct budget based on what they consider best technical approach, propose teaming arrangement and individuals balancing quality and cost concerns. All bidders face this same challenge.

6. Under Note 3, item (c) on page 111, “other salaries” are given as an example of an illustrative example of “other direct costs”. What other salaries should bidders be budgeting for and why would these not be included in the normal direct labor line item?

USAID’s Response: “Other salaries” mentioned in Note 3, item (c) on p. 111 of the RFP, might be salaries of the field-office Office Manager, Accountant, Secretary/Receptionist, Driver, Watchman. These salaries are, by their nature, support staff salaries and are more appropriately captured in the budget’s line-item labeled: “Other Direct Costs” versus salaries of the Project’s technical and professional staff captured in the budget line-item labeled: “Salaries and Wages”.

7. Under Note 3, item (b) on page 111, examples of costs to be budgeted for “participant training” are given. The summary budget on page 110 has no line item for participant training? Should bidders provide cost estimates for participant training and, if so, can USAID provide bidders with estimated numbers of participants, types of training required, expected locations of training, and average duration of training?

USAID’s Response: We do not anticipate that there will be any long-term “participant training” in the US under this IQC. The term “participant training” was not deleted from the standard template during the RFP document production process. However, short-term training may play an important role in projects supported by individual task orders, but it is impossible to accurately estimate what the specific level of effort that may be.

8. In the summary budget on page 110, does the second Travel‐related line item (with a plug figure of $13,000,000) include travel costs for long‐term personnel and dependents (from/to post, home leave, R&R)?

USAID’s Response: As the IQC RFP’s Section C contains description of anticipated requirements and the actual implementation will be under future specific/discrete task orders (not under the IQC award), the “plug” figure of $13,000,000 was provided. This plug figure covers travel of all Project eligible personnel including R&R’s cost of conveyance per bidder’s policy (must be within USG’s rates). This figure is for evaluation purposes only. At the end of the day, the total Travel costs may be below or above this “plug” figure ($13,000,000) by the completion of all task orders. However, the IQC’s maximum ceiling price ($500,000,000) is set. USAID/EA will monitor closely the aggregate value of all task order to ensure this maximum ceiling price is not exceeded.

9. In the summary budget on page 110, should the plug figures provided be equally allocated amongst the five years in the bidders’ detailed budgets?

USAID’s Response: Bidder must use their own independent business judgment how to allocate “plug” figures shown in the summary budget on p. 110 as 5-year totals. This determination is directly linked to the bidder-proposed technical approach.

10. Consortium members will all have different methods to apply indirect costs when calculating fully-burdened rates for “consultant” LOE and therefore will have widely varying fully‐burdened rates. Therefore, should one LOE Matrix table be provided for each consortium partner … or should one table be provided for the entire consortium which provides the highest fully burdened rate amongst all consortium members for each labor category/level?

USAID’s Response: The cost/business proposal must include the bidder-completed summary budget in the format as shown on p. 110 of the RFP. Further, the bidder’s cost/business proposal must also include completed Matrix shown on p. 112.

11. Note 1 on page 111, states that the “fixed fee proposed must match the fixed fee ceiling proposed in Section B.8.” As with indirect costs ceiling rates in section B.7, can bidders propose fixed fee ceiling rates for each of the five‐years and apply these rates to each of the respective year’s in its detailed budget?

USAID’s Response: For the purpose of this RFP, each bidder is to assume performing hypothetically work at the maximum total reimbursable price of $500,000,000.00. The actual performance will be under series of future task orders. The subsequent individual task order’s fixed-fee will be negotiated by the cognizant Task Order Contracting Officer (TOCO). While successful bidders’ negotiated fixed-fee may vary from task order to task order, no task order’s fee percentage can exceed the maximum fee percentage (or amount) proposed by bidder in Section B.8. From the contract administration and task order negotiations aspect, bidder proposing one ceiling (percentage) rate covering the entire IQC period of ordering is strongly preferred. Proposing different fee percentage ceilings for each year would be acceptable however, provided a bidder clearly notes it in the Section B.8 fill-in.

As to indirect cost rates, while bidders are free to build their cost offers using their independent business forecast assumptions affecting future indirect cost rate(s) performance, the RFP requires each bidder to propose a ceiling indirect costs rate(s) limiting the Government’s reimbursement responsibility. The requirements for cost offer preparation apply to the prime bidder and to subcontractor(s), if any are proposed.

Note 1, on p. 111 is a reminder that bidder’s fixed-fee and indirect costs totals proposed to be charged against the IQC’s presumptive hypothetical $500,000,000 maximum total ceiling price must be built on indirects costs rate(s) and fixed-fee percentage which do not exceed ceilings in Section B.7 and B.8. The same methodology of developing cost offers applies to subcontractors.

12. In subcontractors’ detailed budgets, should subcontractors also propose ceiling rates for indirect costs and fixed fees – and utilize those ceiling rates in preparation of their budgets?

USAID’s Response: Yes.

13. As per RFP instructions, bidders are to budget salaries at ceiling rates and not at estimated average rates. Should those other cost items that are a function of salaries (certain allowances, DBA insurance, various indirect costs, fixed fee) be calculated also using these ceiling rates or at expected average rates?

USAID’s Response: Firstly, the RFP (see 5-year summary budget format on p. 110) is clear that “Allowances” (also maybe identified as “Fringe Benefits”), are separate from “Salaries” budget line-item and, as standard, they are not part of the individual’s compensation for work-time (salary). The cost of DBA Insurance may be appropriate for inclusion in Other Direct Costs in the bidder’s detailed annual budget. As stated in the RFP, the Employee and Consultant Daily Rate is to be proposed as the Ceiling daily rate (bidders may propose blended daily rate ceilings for the position filled by prime or sub). The rate proposed in response to Requests for Task Order Proposals (RFTOP) must not exceed the position’s negotiated daily rate ceiling (stated in the IQC holder’s contract Section B.9) applicable to the IQC contract year. Further, daily rates in proposals responding to RFTOP will be reviewed/negotiated and, ultimately, TOCO will determine the proposed daily rate’s reasonableness also ensuring it is not above the daily rate ceiling.

14. We note that the authorized geographic code for this activity is 000. Limiting source/origin to the US and host country would make hiring regional experts difficult as waivers would be required. Objectives of this IQC and subsequent task orders include “support for trade liberalization” and “local and regional purchases of food aid” by “building up a regional knowledge base” to address production, market and trade constraints. A 000 geographic code will work against these objectives. Is it possible to change the designation to 935, which would be consistent with most bilateral USAID programs in Africa?

USAID’s Response: The RFP relevant Section H.8 which clearly states: “The IQC itself is subject to geographic code “000” for the purpose of designating what type of firm or organizations are eligible to bid. The authorized geographic code(s) for future specific orders will be specified in the individual Task Orders and may be other than 000. See Attachment J.1 for USAID geographic code definitions.”

15. The instructions in Section L.8 (b) part 2‐Proposed costs/prices on page 86 has the USAID CST rates being viewed at the link: http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/html/es.asp. It further states that the cost proposal which doesn’t comply with the above will be considered non‐responsive. The USAID CST maximum for “Agencies without a Certified SES Performance Appraisal System” for 2008 is $158,500 and for 2009 is $162,900. Could USAID please confirm if the 2008 or 2009 rates should be used?

USAID’s Response: Confirmed. The current applicable USAID CST ($162,900) is published at: http://www.opm.gov/oca/09tables/html/es.asp

16. On page 148 to 150 of the RFP, column 1 specifies the LOE of each labor category. For example the Chief of Party has total LOE of 8,320 days which is more than one full time person for five years. Please explain the numbers shown in this column.

USAID’s Response: The RFP LOE exhibited in the Attachment J.6 is for multiple Chief of Party positions. This is also true for the other professional labor categories listed as well.

17. As allowances vary by country and as some organizations do not include fringe benefits as part of their NICRA, please clarify where the positions listed on page 148-150 will be based so that the applicant can propose fringe cost and allowances appropriately. Or as an alternative, should the applicant propose average rates for all the countries?

USAID’s Response: The RFP states clearly that performance may be required in the East and Southern Africa region covering approximately twenty countries. By design, IQC mechanisms do not/cannot identify where specifically or how much work or ratio of work will need to be performed among the countries covered by the IQC. Each bidder needs to make assumptions reflective of their technical approach.

18. Page 111 Note 3(c) indicates that Other Direct Costs should include "other salaries". If we propose other salaries outside of the matrix shown in page 148 to 150, should their travel also be included in the two travel related line items in the summary budget or should these line items just include travel for staff noted in the matrix?

USAID’s Response: USAID does not believe these positions are likely to attract project travel cost.

Please also see response given to Question 6, above.

19. Page 110 Cost proposal’s summary budget format shows that $75 million plug figure will be allocated to LRP purchases. As cost of management will vary for each country, can USAID clarify how these plug figure will be allocated amongst the participating countries?

USAID’s Response: Bidders must use their own business assumptions regarding annual allocation of the LRPs over five-year period and benefiting countries (in the context of the RFP’s Section C).

20. Page 110 cost proposal’s summary shows “Local and Regional Purchases (LRP) Handling fee” as one of the budget line items. Please clarify what costs (transportation, warehousing, personnel etc) should be included in this line?

USAID’s Response: Local and Regional Purchases estimate (“plug” figure of $75 million) covers cost of high-volumes of food stuffs, warehousing, transportation and delivery of the commodity. All expenditures allocable to LPR activity count against the $75 million LPRs “plug” figure. The LPRs Handling Fee, if any, must be within that maximum plug figure of $75 million. A fee is for those management and administrative expenses directly and only associated with overseeing the purchase, transport, warehousing and delivery of purchased commodities and not covered by other indirect cost rates or fees.

Please see the bottom of Attachment J.6’s budget format: “Local and Regional Purchases (LRP) Handling Fee”. Again, the proposed LRP Handling Fee when combined with all expenditures allocable to LPR activity must not exceed the $75 million overall LPR ceiling LPR.

21. Please clarify the calculation of the line item “Fixed Fee (net of LRP's)" shown in the cost proposal summary budget on page 110.

USAID’s Response: LRPs are high-dollar value/non-labor intensive “financial transactions” (buying commodities and delivery arrangements to the designated impoverished areas). Due to the nature of the activity, the fixed-fee for handling LRPs is expected to be lower than the fixed fee for performing other types of requirements involving many project complexities, building alliances/establishing partnerships/generating interest and support for important initiatives on the national level.

22. The table shown on page 148-150 is not completely printed. Can USAID provide a complete and editable copy of this matrix?

USAID’s Response: The complete matrix is presented at the end of this Q&A Section.

23. On page 111 Note 1, it is indicated that “all indirect rates offerors propose must match those ceiling rates proposed in Section B.7” which is the “Advance Understanding on Ceiling on Indirect Costs rates and Final Performance for indirect costs”. Based on this instruction we are assuming that the ceiling on indirect cost rates should be utilized in budgeting for indirect costs instead of utilizing the offeror’s current rates shown in their latest NICRA. Is this correct?

USAID’s Response: Bidders prepare their cost proposals (in a competitive environment) based on their independent indirect costs rates forecast. When multi-year cost reimbursement contract is negotiated and awarded, the Government reimburses its contractor for all legitimate indirect costs (after rate is finalized). USAID doesn’t and will never have as comprehensive a knowledge of bidders future corporate expansion (or contraction) plans likely to impact indirect cost rates. Therefore, bidders build their cost offers using their best business forecast assumptions concerning future indirect cost rate(s) performance, the RFP requires each bidder to propose a ceiling indirect costs rate(s) limiting the Government’s reimbursement responsibility (an incentive to sound costs management). The requirements for cost offer preparation apply to the prime bidder and to subcontractor(s), if any are proposed. Bidders recoup indirect costs applying one indirect cost billing rate (i.e., overhead) or multiple indirect cost rates such as home-office overhead, field-overhead, and G&A depending on their corporate structure. Please note that the RFP’s Section B. 7 requirement to propose ceiling on indirect cost rates applies only to rate(s) found in the bidder’s Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate(s) Agreement (NICRA) by them with their sponsoring USG agency.

24. Table presented on page 148 does not show two columns for Year 5. May we request the table in question with all columns visible?

USAID’s Response: Please see answer given to Q.1

25. In accordance with the table presented on page 148 of the RFP, the Grants Manager position is to be budgeted as Mid-Level. Based on our experience, some projects may require a senior Grants Manager due to complexity, volume and high visibility of the GUC initiatives. Would USAID consider allowing a Senior Level Grants Manager under the Labor Categories with the split of illustrative 5,460 days allotted for the Grants Manager position between the Senior and Mid-Level labor categories?

USAID’s Response: Bidders should propose all Grants Manager’s LOE as Mid-level.

26. In accordance with section L.7, the Contractor/Major Subcontractor Past Performance Listing is to be included in both technical and cost offers. Section L.8 Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal does not list the Past Performance Listing as one of the required documents under the cost proposal. Please confirm that the PPL is required under both, technical and cost proposals.

USAID’s Response: Section L. 7 contains instructions for the preparation of the Technical Proposal and Section L.8 contains instructions for the preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal. Bidders are to follow them – not every element required to be in the Technical or Cost Proposal must be in both proposals). PPL is one example.

27. Section B.7 requires an advance understanding on ceiling on Overhead and G&A indirect cost rates. May we ask that USAID please clarify if the ceiling on Fringe Benefits indirect cost rates is also required?

USAID’s Response: Please see answer given to Q. 23, above.

28. Our understanding that the ceilings established for indirect cost rates will be applicable only to the Prime Contractor, and that subcontractors will be allowed to recover their respective indirect costs. Can USAID please confirm if this is correct?

USAID’s Response: The ceiling on indirect cost rates (RFP Section B.7) is applicable to the prime and/or all firms in a consortium arrangement. It also applies to subcontractor(s).

29. May we ask that you please confirm if the 113,100 LOE ceiling is included for the evaluation purposes only, and that the only ceiling established in the IQC will be the USD threshold of $500,000,000?

USAID’s Response: Confirmed. It is only for purposes of evaluation. However, the maximum ceiling price amount ($500,000,000) is set both for evaluation purposes and the resulting aggregate maximum contract value regardless of the LOE ceiling.

30. In accordance with our policy and practice, Consultants are not provided with fringe benefits, and therefore, the only indirect cost applicable to their LOE is the General and Administrative expense. Under this scenario, in light of the answer given to question No. 2, on page 143, should the G&A be included in the “burdened” rate proposed for Consultants, or may G&A be budgeted under the General and Administrative line item?

USAID’s Response: If your firm’s established written burden rate policy/practice is Salary rate plus G&A equals “burden rate,” then that is the treatment you must propose. You would make a note in your proposal that short-term consultant cost would be excluded from the amount stated in the “G&A” budget line item of the resulting IQC.

31. Attachment J.6. (a) on page 110 indicates that each bidder should assume USAID ordering from them performance equal to the IQC contract maximum of $500,000,000, while the Cost Summary Budget presented on the same page suggests that the $500,000,000 is the “not to exceed”. Please clarify if the overall budget should be equal $500,000,000, or may be lower than this amount.

USAID’s Response: All proposals should be based on a contract ceiling price of $500,000,000.00. Offerors may propose a lesser amount, however, given this is a multiple award IQC competition, USAID makes no presumption that such an pricing approach is more advantageous than proposals for seeking the $500,000,000.00 maximum.

32. May we ask that USAID please confirm if our understanding that no fee will be allowed on LRPs is correct?

USAID’s Response: See the response to Question 20 above.

33. Please confirm that for evaluation purposes, all Employees and Consultants should be assumed to be U.S. personnel.

USAID’s Response: Confirmed. Consistent with the answer given to Comment number 11 (RFP Appendix, p.145), in order to maintain a comparable competitive field, bidders must assume and proposed U.S. Nationals (USNs) for the IQC professional labor categories (shown in Attachment J.6, p.112).

This is NOT to discourage the IQC winner(s) from proposing CCN (and, when justified a TCN) for a professional labor category in response to a RFTOP. On the individual task order level, salary rates of CCNs and TCNs will need to be negotiated (by definition, must not exceed the IQC position’s rate, especially when CCN rate is negotiated). AIDAR 722.170 must be followed when proposing CCN or TCN (approval of salary rate or allowances or differentials).

34. Would qualification requirements stated in B.9.1 starting on page 15 be applicable to CCN and TCN personnel at the TO level?

USAID’s Response: Yes.

35. Considering only the overall average daily rate proposed for all LOE will be evaluated, could USAID please clarify the appropriateness of inclusion of the ODCs line items in the summary budget the bidders must follow?

USAID’s Response: The proposed ODCs are part of the bidder’s total estimated cost plus fixed-fee. Each budget element/cost line-item proposed will analyzed for cost-reasonableness. The RFP Section M provides information on offers’ evaluation/selection. At the task order level IQC holders will have to propose (price) against specific, smaller scale requirements.

36. If we have partners in our consortium that may only accept grants under the SFSA contract and are U.S. organizations, in accordance with ADS 302.3.4.8 Grants Under Contracts (GUCs), the total value of any individual grant to any U.S. organization must not exceed $100,000. If we would like to seek a waiver from this limitation, should such a waiver be sought at the IQC level, or should we seek a waiver when responding to each individual task order?

USAID’s Response: Such a proposed deviation, inclusive of the rationale, should be in your proposal to this IQC RFP. If found advantageous, USAID/EA would seek the appropriate internal USAID/Washington approval as to be able to allow all individual TOCOs to decide at their level whether or not to use authorized.

37. Page 84 Section L.7 says that charts such as a “Management Structure Organizational Chart” do not count towards the 10 page limit. Can USAID elaborate on other types of charts that would be included in this category? What other types of charts would be excluded?

USAID’s Response: Any chart expressly and directly purposed to evidently materially strengthen the technical proposal may be included. Bidders are advised to use careful discretion and NOT to submit superfluous materials/charts.

38. On page 85 of the RFP, it states “list in an annex to the technical proposal up to 5 of the most recent and relevant contracts”. May we ask if this means five references per subcontractor, or 5 references in total for the entire consortium (prime contractor plus subcontracting partners)?

USAID’s Response: Section 7(b)(3), Past Performance Information (p. 85) – bold added for emphasis:

(a) The offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself and each major subcontractor ... and further down in the same (3):

1. List in an annex to the technical proposal up to five (5) of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal (list 5 for Prime bidder and each of the major subs )

39. LOE chart on page 148 and 149 of the appendix does not include any categories for home office support staff. Will USAID permit such people to be included in the task order proposals? If not, how does USAID proposed these costs be included in the proposal budget?

USAID’s Response: Home/corporate office support staff may be proposed in response to the IQC RFP if bidder envisions the necessity to have certain corporate support staff (typically included in the overhead pool) to be involved directly in performing certain discrete work. This is bidder’s accounting issue. The bidder’s accounting system must not permit corporate employee’s compensation included 100% in the corporate overhead to be, in addition, direct charging during the employee’s “periodic secondment” to the specific contract/task order. The home office support staff should be included as Other Direct Cost budget line-item.

40. On page 9, Section B.9, it is stated that “Only professional labor categories listed below are authorized to be used in performance of any task order eligible under SFSA IQC.” We note that the professional labor categories listed on pages 10 through 14 do not account for local or expatriate administrative or project management positions. Is there a provision for these types of positions, outside of the listed labor categories?

USAID’s Response: Bidders must only propose LOE for the (23) professional labor categories (mid- and senior level) which future RFTOPs may require holder(s) of the IQC to provide. Answer to the reminder of the question is found in the response given to Q. 39, immediately above.

41. Please confirm whether a percentage increase on the employee base salary can be proposed for each year during the five year ordering period.

USAID’s Response: Consistent with the RFP Section H.4(d), Annual Salary increases, one annual salary increase of not more then 5% may be granted after employee’s completion of twelve-month period of satisfactory services under the contract/task order. However, the RFP Section H.3(b) sets limit on the employee’s base annual salary at the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold (USAID CST), current at the offeror’s bid submission. This USAID CST specific dollar limitation will remain fixed for the life of the IQC ordering period (five years). In order to mitigate the erosive effects of the USAID CST on salary negotiated for the position, Section B.9 permits TOCO (under specific conditions stated therein - see Section B.9, top of p.15) to negotiate up to a 10% salary increase when required performance occurs in the two-year period after the end of the ordering period (see Section F.2). The above applies to all direct-charged labor (positions listed in the Section B.9.1 or the RFTOP-required unique professional labor category to be provided by the prime or sub-contractor and any prime’s or sub’s home office support position deployed to the project and direct-charged).

42. Please confirm that international travel (e.g. mobilization and demobilization flights) is included in the Travel line item plug figure.

USAID’s Response: Confirmed.

43. Please confirm that Section B (i.e. B.7, B.8), Section G (i.e. G.4, G.7), and Section H (e.g. H.5, H.11) are to be completed and submitted in the proposal.

USAID’s Response: Yes, the listed in the question (any other which may appear in the RFP). Additionally, bidders are advised to follow Section L.1 instruction alerting offeror that some provisions (included by reference) may include blocks that must be completed and submitted with the cost proposal. The RFP pages containing blank spaces which bidder’s (bidder-proposed subs) are required to complete must be included in the bidder’s cost-proposal. Bidder should keep copy for their records.

44. Attachment J.6 Cost / Price Evaluation Matrix – pg 112. It is the Contractor’s understanding that the LOE table should be US personnel only in order to establish ceiling rates and dollars for the IQC. Will you please confirm that this is the case and for individual task orders, the contractor can propose US, TCN, or CCN personnel?

USAID’s Response: Please see answer given to Q. 33. Also please see answers to Q. 39 and 40.

45. Attachment J.6 Cost / Price Evaluation Matrix – pg 112. Should the Contractor split the total LOE between Employee and Consultant or should Contractor apply total LOE to Employee AND to Consultant?

USAID’s Response: Please see given to Q. 3.

46. Attachment J.6 Cost / Price Evaluation Matrix – pg 110. The note states that “Individual Totals must be supported by bidder’s detailed cost proposal. Prime bidder’s totals must be inclusive of the proposed subs.” Can contractors develop a “plug” number for other costs rather than typical details? For example, for equipment, rather than detail out the number of desks; chairs; laptops; computers; vehicles; etc. can the contractor provide a total cost number for equipment?

USAID’s Response: No, the FAR requires bidders’ cost proposals in response to a cost-reimbursement solicitation contain sufficient level of specificity about cost basis to allow the contracting officer to make determination of individual estimates reasonableness.

47. Attachment J.6 Cost / Price Evaluation Matrix – pg 110. Paragraph (c) states: “If a particular RFTOP might call for IQC holders to provide technical expertise which is outside this IQC list of professional labor categories (i.e., due to unique nature/sophistication of a sub-task), TOCO has the flexibility to negotiate provision of such under Other Direct Costs – not counting against IQC total Level of Effort (LOE) listed in this Attachment as required to be delivered for cost offer evaluation purposes. Prospective offerors are required to use the professional labor categories (below) and their corresponding LOE as stated below when developing their technical and cost offers.” Charging labor as an ODC is not compliant with the Contractor’s disclosure statement with US Government and accounting practices. Therefore, would USAID please consider that since the contract type for the IQC is Cost Plus Fixed Fee and Firm Fixed Price and LOE is not applicable, that new labor categories with the ceilings are added to the IQC when required?

USAID’s Response: The RFP’s Section B.9 exhibiting professional labor categories is NOT intended to be expanded during life of the IQC. Consistent with Attachment J.6 (c), p.110, on exceptional basis, RFTOP may required adding new unique professional labor category justified by the uniqueness of RFTOP requirements. The new labor category’s salary rate will be negotiated by the TOCO (not the CO for the IQC) and the expenditure will need to be included in the cost proposal developed consistent with the firm’s established practice.

48. Can the Contractor add labor categories in the budget for Home Office support such as Project Manager?

USAID’s Response: Please see answer given to Q. 39.

49. Can the Contractor add labor categories for local support staff, i.e. Office Manager; Accountant; Secretary; Driver; etc? If not, please advise how these labor categories should be addressed in the budgets for the IQC proposal and future task order proposals.

USAID’s Response: Please see answer given to Q. 6

50. The IQC Manager is not in Attachment J.6 Table, will you please provide instructions on how to add the IQC manager costs to the budget?

USAID’s Response: Answer given to Comment number 9 (see the RFP Annex, p.144) explains that the IQC Manager position is not expected to be a full-time position. Potentially up to three IQC holders may periodically perform on various task orders in one or more of the 20 African countries within the scope of the IQC. USAID believes that the IQC Manager role, at least initially, would not require full-time effort and it is typically imbedded in the home office “corporate staffing”. Typically, the expenditure associated with the IQC Manager’s effort dedicated a specific contract/task order is recovered through corporate overhead. Please also see answer given to Q. 39.

51. On pg 85 under Past Performance, a major subcontractor is listed as (one whose proposed total cost exceeds 10% of offeror’s total proposed cost). Can USAID clarify what the ‘total cost’ is referring to?

USAID’s Response: Per FAR 31.201-1 Composition of total cost.

31.201-1 Composition of total cost.

(a) The total cost, including standard costs properly adjusted for applicable variances, of a contract is the sum of the direct and indirect costs allocable to the contract, incurred or to be incurred, plus any allocable cost of money pursuant to 31.205-10, less any allocable credits. In ascertaining what constitutes a cost, any generally accepted method of determining or estimating costs that is equitable and is consistently applied may be used.

(b) While the total cost of a contract includes all costs properly allocable to the contract, the allowable costs to the Government are limited to those allocable costs which are allowable pursuant to Part 31 and applicable agency supplements.

52. Section M.2(c)(3)(vii) on page 91 of the RFP states “Prime offerors who are not small business concerns will be evaluated on their performance in using small business concerns as subcontractors, joint venturers, and in other teaming arrangements.” Are offerors required to submit a Small Business narrative, three Small Business references, and the most recent SF 294 forms as part of the Past Performance appendix of the Technical Proposal, or whether we are only required to discuss use of Small Business Concerns within the 10-page Technical Proposal?

USAID’s Response: The RFP Section L..7 (a) and (b) and additionally, Section L.7 (b)(3) contain the specific and clear instructions.

53. Section L.7 (b) states that the Past Performance Listing, as described in (3)2, should be included in both the cost and technical offers. The information in section (3)2 is typically presented in the Contractor Performance Report (CPR) – Short Forms. Should copies of the Contractor Performance Report – Short Forms be included in both the technical and cost proposals?

USAID’s Response: Yes

54. Please clarify the expected duration of Task Order performance. From your explanation “First, the period of performance for a task order may not go beyond two (2) years after the end of the ordering period. Second, a TOCO may not award a task order for a period of performance that goes more than five (5) years into the future at the time the order is either awarded or extended by.” We understand this to mean that a task order can be 2–5 years in length. Is this correct? Can a Task Order extend past five years if it receives a two year extension OR is five years the total length an activity can be performed?

USAID’s Response: The maximum period of performance under any task order 5 years. However, the last opportunity to place a task order requiring full five years of performance will be at the 24-month mark of the basic IQC.

55. Sudan is one of the COMESA countries, but due to recent political events, will Sudan be considered a ‘restricted country’ under this contract?

USAID’s Response: This would be addressed by USAID/Sudan. That mission has two Contracts Officers in country, one in Juba and another in Khartoum. They would place any task orders related to solely to performance in Sudan. However, there is no stated restriction in the basic SFSA IQC concerning the parameter performance in Sudan.

56. Will front matter such as a cover letter and an acronyms list count against the 10-page limit of the proposal?

USAID’s Response: No.

57. Section L.7 (b) on page 84 of the RFP states “Do not use a type smaller than 11-point font size.” Does this apply to tables and charts as well or is it permissible to use a smaller font for tables and charts?

USAID’s Response: The font size limitation does not apply table and charts.

58. Our business practice is to bill [less than 260] days as direct labor and [a certain number of] days through our NICRA fringe rate for annual leave. For the purposes of evaluation of our cost proposal for the SFSA IQC, our firm intends to discount its fringe rate. No reduction will be made to LOE. The discounted fringe rate will not be used for task orders in the event we are awarded the IQC. Please confirm this method of ensuring consistency of LOE with other bidders is acceptable to USAID.

USAID’s Response: The proposed method is acceptable so long as the explanation of treatment and assumption is clearly stated.

59. Will proposed subcontractors be held to the proposed burdened ceiling rates for consultants? If so, please confirm that we should be proposing blended rates that include all consortium members.

USAID’s Response: Yes. The IQC contract will be negotiated and will have one daily rate ceiling (for specific professional labor category and the corresponding seniority level) irrespective of whether employee/consultant is deployed by the Prime or sub-contractor or among partners in a consortium arrangement.

60. As no line item is indicated for subcontractors among the cost elements on RFP page 110, please confirm that the $500 million budget estimate should apply only the prime contractor's indirect rates to base labor. If not, can guidance be given on how we should delineate subcontractor labor costs and LOE?

USAID’s Response: The RFP Attachment J.6 (a), p.110 stating the IQC contract maximum ($500,000,000) covering all labor and non-labor costs-to-perform, clearly includes subcontractors. Also, please see Note at the bottom of the same p.110. No “plug” figures for subcontracting effort (within the IQC’s $500,000,000 ceiling price) will be provided.

61. Office costs and post differential and other allowance rates vary widely among COMESA countries and Tanzania. Can guidance be provided for the assumptions that should be used for ODCs, equipment, and allowances? For example, how many offices in what countries? Post differential for how many expats fielded to which countries? Alternatively, could plug figures be given for ODCs, equipment, and allowances?

USAID’s Response: Please see answer given to a very similar question Q.5, above.

62. Please confirm that G&A and fee should not be included in the fully burdened daily rate columns for consultants. Doing so would mean G&A and fee would be double billed given the CPFF format of the cost elements on page 110.

USAID’s Response: The FAR (and business ethics) prohibit including the same cost-item more than once (i.e., as a direct and then, also, as indirect expense or in more than one budget line item) in any proposal or in the actual billing of a customer/client. Please see responses given to Questions 4, above explaining annual cost proposal development, translating this to the RFP’s 5-year budget summary required format and translating this to the RFP’s position daily rate ceiling. Also see response to Question 30 on G&A expense treatment for consultants.

63. Page 149 of the RFP (Table 1 Attachment J.6), includes a Legend with instructions to fill out a table with rates, the legend states: COLUMN 1: 5-yr LOE Ceiling for the specific Position Title and Level (Sr/Mid/Jr). ... The Legend does not show the complete text. Can USAID provide us with the complete text of the Legend?

USAID’s Response: The entire Matrix is presented at the end of this Q&A section.

64. Attachment J.6., page 110, states that if an RFTOP calls for IQC holders to provide technical expertise outside of the 23 listed professional labor categories, the salary costs should be budgeted through ODCs. This is in direct conflict with our NICRA, which requires salary costs of technical experts to be placed in the labor line item, thereafter burdened at our NICRA rates or billed as a fixed daily rate, depending on the contract. We respectfully request that provision be made for technical expertise provided outside of the 23 labor categories to be properly treated as labor and not ODCs.

USAID’s Response: Please see answer given to Q.47, above.

65. We respectfully request that the IQC format be modified to follow USAID AAPD 02-12 using either the required CPFF or FDR IQC format only, and not a hybrid model containing both FDR and CPFF elements.

USAID’s Response: The RFP requirement that cost proposals show unburdened daily salary rates ceiling (for contractor/sub-contractor employees) and fully-burdened Consultant daily rates ceiling does not contradict CPFF overall format. Fixing all labor rates (as FDRs) when performance under future task orders is expected to cover large geographical region (comprising over 20 countries with uneven labor market conditions) is not practicable nor in the interest of the Government This SFSA IQC RFP went through a rigorous USAID/Washington review prior to posting.

66. As part of our NICRA, our firm bills home office administrative and management support directly to the contract, not indirectly through our overhead rate. For FDR tables, AAPD 02-12, page 8, states that "...secretarial/administrative support is a mandatory category in the fixed daily rate tables." As such, we request that a labor category for home office administrative and management support be added to the professional labor categories for this IQC.

USAID’s Response: Please see answer given to Q. 39 and Q. 62, above.

67. RFP p. 84: Please clarify whether the management structure organizational chart, as well as other charts, count against the 10-page technical limitation.

USAID’s Response: The RFP’s Section L.7 (a), middle of the page: “Not included in this page limitation are the following: … - Charts, such as Management Structure Organizational Chart(s) …”

68. In the draft RFP previously submitted bidding parties were requested to present “demonstrated qualification and experience of the other proposed professional personnel.” We realize this has changed, but in order to present a fuller picture of our consortium’s capabilities, may we submit a matrix of short and long term personnel that highlights our consortiums staffing strengths.

USAID’s Response: Please note that Section M.2 (b), Personnel Information requires “Demonstrated qualification and experience of the proposed IQC Manager” only.

69. Please confirm if a CCN is considered a person from any COMESA (plus Tanzania) country Page 33 – Clause F.4 – Reports and Deliverables – First paragraph refers to the clause “Periodic Progress Reports” as Section I.7, which seems to actually be Section I.6. Please confirm.

USAID’s Response: Confirmed. 48 CFR 702.170 - 5 - Cooperating country national (CCN).

Cooperating country national (CCN) means an individual who is a cooperating country citizen or a non-cooperating country citizen lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the cooperating country.

Second, the RFP’s Section F.4 (p. 33) reference to “Periodic Progress Reports” as Section I.7 is incorrect as noted in the above question. The correct section designation for “Periodic Progress Reports” is Section I.6.

70. Page 36 – Clause F.5(c) – Task Orders – The clause requires submission “within three (3) calendar days of executing a new Task Order” – considering the time zone distances; we respectfully request a revision of “three calendar days” to “three business days” as a reasonable period for submission.

USAID’s Response: The “within three (3) calendar days of executing a new Task Order” requires action by the USAID TOCO only.

71. Page 8 – Clause B.7 – Ceiling on Indirect Rates we request this requirement to be deleted as it undermines The USG takes great care in negotiating fair and reasonable rates each year, which they expect to be applied uniformly to all reimbursable work.

USAID’s Response: The regulations applicable to procurements (unlike policies applicable to federal grants with which the inquiring organization may be more familiar) provide USG agency discretion for negotiating ceiling(s) on indirect cost rates. USAID does not state what the ceiling rate(s) should be merely that there be one.

72. Page 8 – Clause B.7 – Ceiling on Indirect Rates - Please confirm that the ceiling on indirect cost rates should address overhead rates, G&A rates, and other pool rates that are controllable by the contractor and not include fringe benefits rate ceiling which is distinctly beyond the control of any individual company, and which are…