SWIFT_5_RFP_Responses_to_Questions_from_Contractors.pdf

Contractor Questions related to SWIFT 5 RFP - 7200AA18R00012

QUESTIONS SPECIFIED AS UNRESTRICTED SWIFT-PROGRAMS QUESTIONS

1. Page 9 of Attachment J.6 indicates that three key personnel are required for the illustrative OTI Patriam Concordia Program’s SWIFT-Programs Task Order. However, the “Case Study Organizational Structure and Personnel Capabilities” instructions in Section L.8.2.1 (page 175) indicate that Offerors should describe the capabilities and experience of the illustrative OTI Patriam Concordia Program’s proposed Chief of Party and Operations Manager only. Additionally, the instructions in Sections L.8.1 (page 172) and L.8.2.1 (page 176) indicate that Offerors should include only the following resumes in Annex D Case Study – Resumes: Chief of Party, Operations Manager, and the non-key Home Office Primary Point of Contact. Please confirm that Offerors are not required to include either a description or a resume for the Regional Program Manager – Vella (non- CCN). ANSWER: The illustrative SWIFT-Programs Task Order (Patriam Concordia Program) described in Attachment J.6 includes three (3) key personnel positions. However, per Section L, Offerors are not required to submit either a resume or a description for the Regional Program Manager – Vella (non-CCN).

Offerors are only required to submit illustrative resumes for two (2) of the key personnel: the Chief of Party and Operations Manager, in addition to the resume of the non-key Home Office Primary Point of Contact.

2. Page 185 of the RFP includes instruction to “Describe any quality awards or certifications that indicate exceptional capacity to provide the service or product described in the statement of work.” Will USAID/OTI permit offerors to include a description of quality awards or certifications as a one-page addendum to the Annex M - Past Performance Short-Forms? ANSWER: No. Please submit a description of any quality awards or certifications as part of the Past Performance Short Forms submitted.

3. Page 199 of the RFP instructs offerors without prior Federal contracting experience to submit a copy of personnel policies in Cost Proposal Part 4 – Policies and Procedures.

Please confirm that personnel policies are required only from companies with no Federal contracting experience. ANSWER: Per Section L.10, Part 4, only Offerors that do not have prior Federal contracting experience are to submit copies of personnel policies.

4. Please confirm that offerors are not required to submit a completed Contractor Biographical Data Sheet for the proposed IDIQ Manager. ANSWER: Offerors are not required to submit a Contractor Biographical Data Sheet for the proposed IDIQ Manager.

5. Please confirm that Offerors may use font smaller than Times New Roman font size 11 for the required graphics and tables in the following annexes: Case Study-Activity Cycle Flow Chart; Case Study-Grant Implementation Process Flow Chart; Case Study- Procurement Process Flow Chart; Case Study Organization Chart; Case Study-Start-Up Organization Chart; Case Study-Start-Up Work Plan; Case Study-Implementation Planning Exercise Table and Narrative; Past Performance Short-Forms; and Past Performance Matrix? ANSWER: Offerors may use Calibri font size 10 for charts/tables or other graphics in the main Technical Proposal or any Annexes, but should use Times New Roman font size 11 for any Annex that is primarily in narrative form. To clarify, these Annexes should be submitted in Times New Roman font size 11: Resumes; the Case Study Implementation Planning Exercise Narrative (not table); the Environmental Capacity Statement; the Past Performance Short Forms; the Use of Small Business Concerns Narrative; and the Activity Manual.

6. With reference to Cost Proposal Attachment J.17, will USAID/OTI permit offerors to modify the template and propose an annual escalation of ceiling indirect cost rates in order to provide USAID/OTI with the best possible value? ANSWER: Yes, if using annual ceiling rates, Offerors may modify the Attachment J.17 template to reflect a ceiling rate in each applicable contract year.

7. Section C.4.2 Support to Program-Funded USAID Personnel (p. 40) states that “If specified in the Task Order, the Contractor may be required to provide support for program-funded USAID personnel overseas in support of the program objectives, where Contractor provision of the support is consistent with the policies of the local USAID Mission (if present) and the U.S. Embassy Regional Security Office and when other USAID or USG support does not exist or is limited based on the circumstances in the country, inhibiting OTI’s ability to fulfill its programmatic mandate.” Can USAID please confirm that the Contractor will not be responsible for provision of support to USAID if its policies and internal controls are not consistent with the policies of the USAID Mission and the U.S. Embassy Regional Security Office? ANSWER: No. “Support to Program-Funded USAID Personnel” is a potential service required by SWIFT- Programs Task Orders for which potential Offerors should be able to demonstrate corporate capabilities. The sentence in quotations above, from page 40 of the RFP, means that this service may (or may not) be required in any given Task Order. If it is required in a Task Order, it is because the provision of this service is in line with any applicable USAID Mission’s and U.S. Embassy RSO’s policies, or in a country with no USAID or USG presence or support (or limited presence or support).

8. In relation to small construction activities being permitted in grants under contract, can USAID/OTI confirm that it has a deviation from ADS 303.3.30 “Limitation of Construction under Assistance”? If so, we request that this deviation be included under section H.9.B. ANSWER: As referenced on page 39 of the RFP in Section C.4.12, ADS 303maw, when using Grants under Contract, USAID/OTI already has a standing waiver from the policy stated in ADS 303.3.30 for construction under assistance.

9. Can USAID confirm that the grants formats provided in conjunction with the IDIQ Activity Manual are not subject to re-approval by OTI in the event of regulation changes over the course of the IDIQ? ANSWER: The Contracting Officer approves the IDIQ Activity Manual. Per Section C.4.1.2, page 36, of the RFP, “The Manual must be updated as necessary during the life of the IDIQ Contract”. Standard practice in past iterations of SWIFT has been that for minor changes and updates to the Activity Manuals, a new approval is not necessary; however, a copy of the updated Activity Manual is sent to the IDIQ CO and COR.

10. Can implementing partners assume that the TAP approval thresholds listed in section H.9.C. (the same as those currently approved under SWIFT IV) will be the same for SWIFT V? ANSWER: Similar class deviations and approval thresholds are being sought for the SWIFT 5 IDIQ. For the purpose of the SWIFT 5 IDIQ proposal submission, please assume that the deviations listed in Section H.9.C, page 111, and the approval thresholds listed in Section H.9.C, page 112, are in place.

11. In Attachment J.6, on page 8, the RFP describes “Initial Activity Idea” PAT001 to promote youth, peace, dialogue and unity at the 2018 Libertas Festival. Offerors are requested to use this initial activity for several required sections, including the grant implementation process flowchart. In addition, offerors are requested to propose a 2 different “Initial Entry Activity” in response to Scenario 1. Can USAID please confirm that offerors should not use their proposed “Initial Entry Activity” as the basis for the illustrative task order implementation. ANSWER: Per RFP Section L.8.2.1.A, page 175, Offerors should utilize the Initial Activity (PAT001) from Attachment J.6 to respond to various elements of “Case Study: Illustrative Task Order Program Implementation”, including the “Grant Implementation Process Flow Chart” and “Procurement Process Flow Chart”. In response to RFP Section L.8.2.1.B, page 178, “Scenario 1”, Offerors are asked to propose their own “entry activity”. Per RFP

Section M.3.1, the “Case Study: Illustrative Task Order Program Implementation” and the “Case Study: Implementation Scenarios” are separate subfactors of Factor

1. The proposed “entry activity” in “Scenario 1” of “Case Study: Implementation Scenarios” should not be used to respond to “Case Study: Illustrative Task Order Program Implementation”.

12. In Section F.8 (b), Key Personnel, on page 97, it states that the IDIQ Manager must have a “minimum of five (5) years of recent project management experience,” but in Attachment J.3 - Illustrative Personnel Qualifications, it states that the IDIQ Manager must have a “minimum of six (6) years of recent project management experience.” Can OTI please clarify if the IDIQ Manager must have five (5) or six (6) years of recent project management experience? ANSWER: The IDIQ Manager must have a “Minimum of five (5) years of recent project management experience” per RFP, Section F.8, page 97. The reference to six (6) years in Attachment J.3 is a typo.

13. On p.10 B.7.1 (d), the RFP references a “a single unburdened ceiling daily rate for each labor category/group.” It then states that “if junior-level personnel are required under task orders, they must be proposed at rates below the unburdened ceiling daily rate.”

However, on page 11, the table referenced includes cells to input ceiling daily rates for junior level positions. Please clarify if the offeror should propose ceiling daily rates for all labor categories and levels listed in the table on p.11. ANSWER: Please propose ceiling daily rates for each level of each labor category listed on the table in RFP Section B.7.1(d), page 11. For SWIFT-Programs, please submit this information on Attachment J.15. For SWIFT-Support, please submit this information on Attachment J.16. Please reference the amended RFP Section B.7.1(d).

14. In Attachment J.7 - Implementation Planning Exercise (SWIFT-Programs), please confirm that the offeror should include position titles only in the yellow shaded areas of column A, and not the names of individuals. ANSWER: Correct. In Column A, of Attachment J.7, in the “Positions and LOE” sub-sections of both the Program Line Items and Operations Line Items please only include position titles, and not names of individuals.

15. Attachment J.13 - Cost/Price Evaluation Matrix (SWIFT-Programs): Section 2 Fringe Benefits has a line for Fringe Benefits on 1C (CCN Illustrative LTTA Positions). If the offeror recovers fringe benefits directly, (i.e. not through an indirect rate percentage, but as an ODC), should the offer estimate fringe benefits for CCNs based on past experience or leave the line blank given that CCN fringe benefits are recovered based on actual costs and as an ODC. ANSWER: Please see the revised Attachment J.13 included with this Amendment, in which the row for “CCN Illustrative LTTA position” and the row for Fringe Benefits on 1C have been removed. Attachments J.14, J.17, and J.18 have also been revised.

16. In the cover letter, the RFP states that “USAID anticipates the award of approximately seven (7) Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity Contracts (IDIQs), which may include approximately one (1) to two (2) Small Business Reserve IDIQ Contracts, for the unrestricted “Implementation of Transition Programs (SWIFT-Programs)” component.”

Can OTI please confirm that since the “one (1) to two (2) Small Business Reserve IDIQ Contracts” are considered reserved for small business, with initial competition limited to small business for Task Orders that fall within certain parameters (e.g., “greater than $3,500 but less than or equal to $10,000,000,” as noted in Section F.6.1(b)), that small business bids for the SWIFT 5 IDIQ contract will be considered under separate competition, as is typical for most IDIQs? This will permit presentation of the strongest illustrative and pool resources possible, who may otherwise be locked into “exclusive” agreements with previous large business holders of the IDIQ.

ANSWER: First, we’ll make clear that the SWIFT-Support is exclusively being competed among Small Businesses. So the remainder of this answer only applies to the SWIFT-Programs component of the RFP. Proposals from all offerors (regardless of small business status) will be evaluated together. Decisions regarding the 5-6 IDIQ contracts that are not reserved for small business concerns will be made before decisions are made regarding the 1-2 IDIQ contracts that may be awarded under the small business reserve. Accordingly, Section M.8 of the RFP has been revised in the Amendment document attached.

17. In Attachment J.7, Implementation Planning Exercise (SWIFT-Programs), cell A12 refers to “Expatriate/TCN LTTA Staff’, while Attachment J.13, Cost-Price Evaluation Matrix (SWIFT-Programs), cell A9, refers to “USN LTTA (Field-Based) Staff.” Can OTI please confirm that proposed USN and TCN LTTA can be included in both sections?

ANSWER: In general, on any given Task Order, TCNs may be proposed for the same positions for which USNs can be proposed (hence cell A12 in Attachment J.7 referring to “Expatriate/TCN LTTA Staff”). However, for the purposes of Attachment J.13, Cost-Price Evaluation Matrix, cell A9 was purposely labeled “USN LTTA (Field-Based Staff)” so that all Offerors would use their appropriate fringe and indirect rates which apply to USN long-term staff based in the field as some Offerors might have varying rates, if those positions were staffed by TCNs.

18. As many small businesses have demonstrated the full ability to implement contracts in excess of $10 million and the size of many OTI Task Orders has historically been considerably higher than $10 million, would OTI consider raising the threshold listed on page 85 in Section F.6.1(b)(6) General/Fair Opportunity - b) 6 - Small Business Reserves and Small Business Set-Asides from $10 million to $15 million? ANSWER: No.

19. On page 184, Section L.8.2.3.A. Past Performance Short Forms, OTI requires bidders to “list in an annex to the technical proposal a minimum of five (5), but no more than a maximum of ten (10) of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal.” As relevant past performance may be conducted under grants and cooperative agreements, including management of sub-grants to local partners and work in transition environments, can OTI please confirm that grants and/or cooperative agreements may be submitted as Past Performance? ANSWER: Yes, grants and cooperative agreements may also be submitted as Past Performance, in addition to contracts.

20. Please confirm that as stated at the Pre-Solicitation Conference on July 25, 2017, that all Offerors, regardless of size, must have cash liquidity of $1.8 million as referenced in the RFP on page 52 in Section C.4.7 Financial Responsibilities under the sub-heading “Funds Liquidity.” ANSWER: This figure of $1.8 million is no longer included as a minimum requirement. As noted on pages 30 and 52 of the RFP however, $1.8 million has historically been the amount necessary to cover operations and activities in a variety of countries/regional environments, and SWIFT-Programs Contractors “will be responsible for making funds available in such environments and maintaining liquidity where banking systems may be non-existent” (per RFP Section C.4.7).

21. Can Past Performance Short Forms for the unrestricted SWIFT-Programs proposal include forms from major subcontractors? ANSWER: As stated in RFP Section L.8.2.3.A, the majority of Past Performance Short Forms should be submitted for projects for which the prime Offeror was the prime contractor. USAID will expect to evaluate past performance of major subcontractors, but this should complement rather than replace past performance of the prime Offeror.

a. If yes, are they included in the 5-10 short form limit? ANSWER: Yes, Past Performance Short Forms submitted for major subcontractors will be included in the minimum five (5) maximum (10) limit.

22. Can Past Performance Short Forms unrestricted SWIFT-Programs proposal include forms from a contractor not considered a major subcontractor? ANSWER: As stated in RFP Section L.8.2.3, page 184, “The Offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself, the contractor teaming arrangements, if any, and each major subcontractor”, which includes Past Performance Short Forms. The Offeror is not required to submit performance information for a subcontractor not considered a major subcontractor; however, if the Offeror chooses to do so, please note that as stated in RFP Section L.8.2.3.A, the majority of Past Performance Short Forms should be submitted for projects for which the prime Offeror was the prime contractor.

a. If yes, are they included in the 5-10 short form limit? ANSWER: Yes, Past Performance Short Forms submitted for subcontractors will be included in the minimum five (5) maximum (10) limit.

23. Where would USAID like to see the Contract Line Items (CLINs), as laid out in section B.6, presented in the proposal? ANSWER: USAID is unsure of the intent of this question. The SWIFT 5 Contract Line Items (CLINs) are only applied to contracts and budgets of any future awarded Task Orders.

24. Does USAID expect for Small Business Offerors to submit Attachment J.24 (Small Business Participation Plan) as part of their proposals? ANSWER: No.

25. The RFP includes instructions for both paper submission (L.2c) and electronic submission (L.6a). Can USAID confirm that only electronic submission is required?

ANSWER: Please only submit electronic copies of proposals, according to the Delivery Instructions provided in RFP Section L.6. RFP Section L.2(c) states that “Unless other methods (e.g., electronic commerce or facsimile) are permitted in the solicitation, proposals and modifications to proposals must be submitted in paper media in sealed envelopes or packages”. RFP Section L.6(a) specifies the delivery of proposals via electronic copies to be submitted in emails.

26. In Section L.10 of the RFP, under Part 2 - Proposed Costs/Prices, Labor Costs and Fee and Indirect Cost Matrix are both labeled as subsection B. Can USAID kindly confirm that Fee and Indirect Cost Matrix should be subsection C, and that every section after that should be adjusted accordingly? ANSWER: Yes, the subsections in RFP Section L.10, Part 2 should be listed as:

A. Cost/Price Evaluation Matrix B. Labor Costs C. Fee and Indirect Cost Matrix

D. Fee E. Indirect Costs

27. In Section L.10 of the RFP, Part 12 is titled H.5 Security Clearance. However, the offeror is instructed to fill out Section H.35. Can USAID kindly confirm that the offeror should use section H.35? ANSWER: Yes, please fill out Section H.35 provision.

28. When we attempted to open the link for Attachment J.22 – DD 254 Department of Defense Contract Security Classification Specifications (including Supplemental Security Guidance for Item 13), we saw a message stating, “Please wait…”. Would USAID kindly provide the contents of this document, or an alternative method to access the information contained therein? ANSWER: USAID has provided this document as an attachment to Amendment #01.

29. Does USAID prefer offerors to use a specific format or template to complete Attachment J.25 – Contractor and Major Subcontractor Policy for Workday, Workweek, and Paid Absences? If so, would USAID kindly provide this template? ANSWER: USAID has no specific format or template for this information. Offerors should submit their own format/document.

30. Attachment J.3 “Illustrative Personnel Qualifications SWIFT IDIQ and Task order”, Section II and Attachment J.6 “Illustrative Case Study for SWIFT V” references the chief of party, operations manager/deputy chief of party as well regional program manager. On

pg. 176 of the RFP, “Case Study Organizational Structure and Personnel Capabilities” requests Offerors to submit illustrative resumes for the Chief of Party (COP) and Operations Manager as well as the home-office point of contact. Could USAID confirm that for the purposes of the illustrative case study, Offerors are not required to submit a resume for the illustrative Regional Program Manager? ANSWER: The illustrative SWIFT-Programs Task Order (Patriam Concordia Program) described in Attachment J.6 includes three (3) key personnel positions. However, per Section L, Offerors are not required to submit either a resume or a description for the Regional Program Manager – Vella (non-CCN). Offerors are only required to submit illustrative resumes for two (2) of the key personnel: the Chief of Party and Operations Manager, in addition to the resume of the non-key Home Office Primary Point of Contact.

31. Attachment J.9 – Activity Manual Annotated Outline, under Section 3.1 Types of Grants and Grantees, pg. 12 states “Since GUCs are the predominant means on implementing activities, the contract (e.g. SWIFT V) requires that Contractors submit a grant manual with grant formats for each type of proposed grants (as a special supplement to this

Activity Manual).” Can USAID please confirm that Offerors should provide the information outlined in Section 3.1 within the main text of the Activity Manual, and that a supplemental and separate Grants Manual is not required in addition to the Activity Manual? ANSWER: A separate Grants Manual is not required. As stated in RFP Section L.8.2.2.A, page 181, “The Activity Manual includes components that would be part of a traditional Grants Manual (either grants under contract or sub-grants), but is tailored for a small grant/transition-type program as described in the Statement of Work (Section C) and Attachments.” Offerors should submit a draft Activity Manual that includes corporate policies and procedures related to the SOW (one part of which includes the management and implementation of GUCs), in addition to all USG and USAID requirements relevant to the SOW.

32. On pg. 199, Part 3 (a) of the RFP, USAID references that the Offeror and each proposed subcontractor must complete Section K. Could USAID please clarify if this only applies to major subcontractors or any subcontractor? ANSWER: As stated in RFP Section L.10, Part 3(2), the Offeror and each proposed subcontractor must complete Section K.

33. Would USAID please clarify if Offerors need to provide Information Concerning Work- Day, Work-Week, and Paid Absences, and Evidence of Responsibility for subcontractors other than major subcontractors? ANSWER: As stated in RFP Section L.10, Part 5(1), the Offeror and each proposed subcontractor must submit information concerning work-day, work-week, and paid absences.

34. Would USAID please clarify if a waiver has been granted for FAR clause 52.237-8 Restriction on Severance Payments to Foreign Nationals? ANSWER: Currently a waiver for SWIFT 5 has not been granted for FAR 52.237-8.

35. The Patriam Concordia Task Order Planning Implementation Exercise (Attachment J.7) references that additional rows may be added for staff and ODCs line items; can USAID please confirm Offerors can add line items under operations-related travel if needed?

ANSWER: Yes, as stated in page 177 of the RFP, “The Implementation Planning Exercise table format cannot be modified except to incorporate additional rows for additional line items, such as additional positions or ODCs”. The addition of line items under operations-related travel would fall under this exception and is allowed.

36. Attachment J.13 requests fringe costs for US/TCN LTTA, Home Office STTA, and CCN LTTA. If this is also inclusive of local direct fringe, could USAID please provide a plug figure or other guidance on how to present this cost for the purposes of the Matrix?

ANSWER: Please see the revised Attachment J.13 included with this Amendment, in which the row for “CCN Illustrative LTTA position” and the row for Fringe Benefits on 1C have been removed.

37. Can USAID please confirm Offerors can add columns in Attachment J.17 to the table format to include base, type and period for each rate? ANSWER: Offerors may add/amend the rows in Attachment J.17 in order to provide the Base, Type and Period for each rate, or provide notes below the table to explain Base, Type and Period for each rate.

38. The Cost/Price Evaluation Matrix (Attachment J.13) Instructions tab directs offerors to use ceiling rates for labor, indirects, and fee, however, the matrix itself directs offerors to use their NICRA rates for estimating indirect costs, can USAID please confirm whether current NICRA rates or proposed ceilings should be used? ANSWER: Offerors should propose ceiling rates. The directions provided on the matrix itself were to indicate that the matrix rows can be amended to reflect different cost structures in individual Offeror NICRAs (e.g. not all Offerors may separate out US labor from TCN labor / some Offerors might distinguish between US home-office based labor versus US field-based labor). The Direct Costs rows may be adjusted as such.

39. Attachment J.13 requests fringe costs for US/TCN LTTA, Home Office STTA, and CCN LTTA. Can USAID provide a plug figure and/or guidance on how to present this cost in the Attachment J.13, as some Offerors may not have an indirect rate for CCNs and charge CCN benefits as a direct cost? ANSWER: Please see the revised Attachment J.13 included with this Amendment, in which the row for “CCN Illustrative LTTA position” and the row for Fringe Benefits on 1C have been removed.

40. Section L.7, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, (page 172,) states, “offerors must utilize Times New Roman font size 11.” Would USAID consider allowing Offerors to use a font size smaller than 11, but still legible, for graphs, tables, textboxes and figures? ANSWER: Offerors may use Calibri font size 10 for charts/tables or other graphics in the main Technical Proposal or any Annexes, but should use Times New Roman font size 11 for any Annex that is primarily in narrative form.

To clarify, these Annexes should be submitted in Times New Roman font size 11:

Resumes; the Case Study Implementation Planning Exercise Narrative (not table);

the Environmental Capacity Statement; the Past Performance Short Forms; the Use of Small Business Concerns Narrative; and the Activity Manual.

41. Section L8.2.1, Approach to Transition Programming the RFP (page 176,) states:

“Offerors must submit two (2) illustrative resumes for two (2) of the Senior Management Team members required in the case study; Chief of Party and Operations Manager.

Offerors must also submit one (1) illustrative resume for a Home Office Primary POC…” However, in Attachment J.6 Illustrative Case Study for SWIFT 5 RFP, the key personnel required are Chief of Party, Operations Manager and a Regional Program Manager. In order to demonstrate responsiveness to the key personnel requirements included in the case study, can USAID please confirm that offerors should include a resume for a Regional Program Manager in Annex D? The illustrative SWIFT- Programs Task Order (Patriam Concordia Program) described in Attachment J.6 includes three (3) key personnel positions. However, per Section L, Offerors are not required to submit either a resume or a description for the Regional Program Manager – Vella (non-CCN). Offerors are only required to submit illustrative resumes for two (2) of the key personnel: the Chief of Party and Operations Manager, in addition to the resume of the non-key Home Office Primary Point of Contact.

42. Section L.8.2.1, Approach to Transition Programming, Case Study Organizational Structure and Personnel Capabilities, (page 176) requires Offerors to include an illustrative resume for a mid-level Operations Manager, which demonstrates “the qualifications for the positions presented in Attachment J.3”; “management experience, especially for similar small and rapid activities and in transition environments…”;

and “complementarity” with the Chief of Party. The specified qualification for mid-level Operations Manager, per Section B.8, is a minimum of 5 years’ relevant experience, while senior-level Operations Manager qualifications start at a minimum of 7 years relevant experience. This means that the pool of potential candidates for both of these positions is limited to individuals who only have between 5 to 6 years of relevant experience, which is an extremely narrow range. In addition, the experience and qualifications required to adequately discharge the Operations Manager responsibilities, per the case study in Attachment J.6, such as providing adequate oversight of procurement and activity implementation management for “approximately 150 activities over a two-year base period” in an employment environment where is it “challenging to recruit and retain qualified” staff, and where the COP is located separately in the head office, do not seem consistent with candidates that would only have a total of 5-6 years of relevant experience, and are also not consistent with the types of personnel typically requested under SWIFT task orders for these positions. We therefore respectfully request that USAID consider the following:

a) Change the Operations Manager and RPM requirement from mid-level to senior-level, to allow for a more reasonable and realistic pool of indicative personnel; or

b) Allow Offerors to bid illustrative personnel with additional relevant experience beyond 6 years.

ANSWER: Page 176 of RFP Section L.8.2.1.A, and page 9 of Attachment J.6, have been amended – USAID is no longer specifying the level of the candidates to be proposed. Offerors should propose illustrative candidates that they believe to be the most relevant and suitable to implement the SOW for the program.

43. Section L.8.2.2 of the RFP (pages 184-185) states: “List in an annex to the technical proposal a minimum of five, but no more than a maximum of ten of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal… Offerors must complete and submit the Past Performance Matrix. This matrix must summarize the past performance references submitted and must not include projects for which the short form was submitted.” Will USAID please allow Offerors to include past performance information for its partners in Annex M, Past Performance Short Forms and Annex N, Past Performance Matrix? ANSWER: As stated in RFP Section L.8.2.3, page 184, “The Offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself, the contractor teaming arrangements, if any, and each major subcontractor”, which includes Past Performance Short Forms (and therefore also the Past Performance Matrix). USAID will expect to evaluate past performance of major subcontractors, but this should complement rather than replace past performance of the prime Offeror, because as stated in RFP Section L.8.2.3.A, the majority of Past Performance Short Forms should be submitted for projects for which the prime Offeror was the prime contractor.

44. Section L.8.2.2 the RFP, (page18) states: “Offerors must also submit a two page environmental capabilities statement (ECS) that articulates the anticipated approach for fulfilling climate risk and environmental management requirements with regards to internal staffing, institutional arrangements and budgeting based on the system and requirements as described in the OTI Global-Initial Environmental Examination (G- IEE).” Will USAID kindly provide Offerors with a template for Annex I, the Environmental Capabilities Statement? ANSWER: There is no template. Please provide a maximum two (2) page statement which provides the Offeror’s summary approach to the requirements laid out in Section F.6.2.2.G and at the hyperlink provided in Section L.8.2.2.A.

45. Section L.8.2.1, Activity Cycle Flow Chart, (page 174) states: “Include decision points for determining the best TAP instrument (GUC, DDGS, STTA) and/or other procurement mechanisms for the proposed TAP activity and a depiction of the overall steps involved depending on which TAP instrument is selected for a given TAP activity.” Will USAID please confirm that the Activity Cycle should be based on only one TAP instrument, (e.g.

GUC)? ANSWER: No. Per the quoted statement above, at the point in the Activity Cycle Flow Chart that the TAP instrument is identified, the chart should then depict the overall steps for how each TAP instrument (GUC, DDGS, STTA) would be implemented through close-out of the activity.

46. Section B.8 of the RFP, MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS, page 14, lists the minimum educational criteria for each of the Labor Categories, in addition to required years of experience. In addition, there are substitution of years of experience in lieu of a Bachelor’s Degree for the Senior (12 years) and Mid-level (10 years) categories. Would USAID consider also allowing higher level education to count in lieu of years’ experience, as follows?

· PhD/JD in lieu of 3 years’ relevant work experience

· MA/MS/MBA in lieu of 2 years’ relevant work experience

ANSWER: USAID will maintain the existing minimum educational criteria as described in the RFP.

47. Section L.10, Part 2, Item D, (Indirect Costs), page 196, states the following: “The prime and major sub-contractors may propose lower overhead rates than their established Negotiated Indirect Rate Agreements and sign the letter found in ADS300, mandatory Reference for Best Practices Guide for Indirect Costing. Indirect rates proposed cannot be higher than the rates established in their Negotiated Indirect Rate Agreement (NICRA).”

If offerors are limited to proposing Ceiling Rates at their current NICRA, this provide a significant advantage to organizations that have high provisional NICRA rates, and would unfairly disadvantage organizations that have low NICRA rates. Rates included in current NICRAs are usually a reflection of only one year’s indirect cost activity, which can be affected by unusually high or low contract volume or short-term issues, and not intended to serve as 7-year fixed rates.

Given the current unsure political and funding environment, we respectfully request that USAID confirm that Offerors may propose ceiling indirect cost rates in accordance with their own assessment of their financial situation and market conditions. ANSWER: For the purposes of the SWIFT 5 RFP and the subsequent IDIQ-level contracts, Offerors may propose future ceilings higher than currently established provisional or final indirect rates. Please note the distinction between the “indirect cost ceilings” and “indirect rates.” It is true that indirect rates being billed against an award cannot be higher than current NICRA, but ceilings can be.

48. Attachment J. 13, Cost/Price Evaluation Matrix Instructions state: “Offerors must apply the appropriate indirect recovery rate(s) in accordance with the Offeror’s NICRA (or substitution, for small business Offerors) within the cost/price matrix.” However, Section L.10, Part 2, B., Fee and Indirect Cost Matrix (page 195) states: “…the prime Offeror's applicable ceiling indirect costs will be utilized for evaluation purposes in the Cost/Price Evaluation Matrix.”

Can USAID please confirm that the Price Evaluation Matrix should utilize their proposed indirect cost ceiling rates, per section B.10, and not the indirect cost rates per their NICRA? ANSWER: Yes, the Attachment J.13 instructions state that “The prime Offeror will also include its proposed ceiling indirect costs” and “only the prime Offeror’s proposed ceiling indirect cost rates allocated to these line items shall be utilized”. If annual ceiling rates are proposed, the Offeror should average the ceiling indirect rates for use in the Cost/Price Evaluation Matrix. However, Small Business Offerors should use their current NICRA (or equivalent) rates. A revised template for Attachment J.13 has been provided with clarified instructions.

49. Section L.3 52.216-1, TYPE OF CONTRACT, (page 167) states: “This is an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type contract. The Government will issue Task Orders that are Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) (term or completion).” Can USAID please confirm that Task Orders can also be Fixed Price, in accordance with Section B.2, CONTRACT TYPE AND SERVICES, which states: “The Government will issue Task Orders that are Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) (term or completion) or any Fixed Price type?” ANSWER: Yes, the SWIFT 5 IDIQ allows for Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (term or completion) or Fixed Price Task Orders.

50. Section B.10, INDIRECT COSTS AND ADVANCE UNDERSTANDING ON CEILINGS, pages 15-16, require offerors to propose ceiling indirect rates for Fringe Benefits, Overhead, and G&A costs, in accordance with their usual accounting procedures. Offerors are currently facing a highly unstable and unpredictable health insurance marketplace, wherein firms are incurring double-digit annual increases for the price of health insurance plans for their employees. In most cases, contractors are having to absorb these increases to provide their employees with basic insurance coverage; and do not have the option to curtail coverage or to offset increased costs to their employees without seriously affecting their ability to attract and retain top talent.

We therefore respectfully request that USAID eliminate the requirement for a ceiling on Fringe Benefits rate, given the lack of control that contractors have over increased health insurance and related costs. ANSWER: For the purposes of the SWIFT 5 IDIQ, USAID will remove the requirement for a proposed Fringe Benefits ceiling.

51. Section B.7.1 Unburdened Ceiling Daily Rates (CDR), page 10, states: “The single unburdened ceiling daily rate for each labor category/group below represents the mid-level and senior level rate in each category/grouping. One unburdened ceiling daily rate for each labor category/grouping is included in the contract to provide more flexibility under task orders. If junior-level personnel are required under task orders, they must be proposed at rates below the unburdened ceiling daily rate.”

However, the Cost-Price Evaluation Matrix calls for Junior-level pricing for all labor categories, as well as the table on page 11. Given the need for flexibility during implementation of SWIFT task orders, we respectfully request that USAID follow the intent indicated in Section B.7.1 and remove the requirement for pricing ceiling rates on junior-level categories. ANSWER: Attachment J.13 – Cost-Price Evaluation Matrix calls for junior-level ceiling daily rates for some, not all, of the labor categories (e.g.

COP and IDIQ Manager labor categories do not provide for junior-level ceiling daily rates). Should there ever be a case that junior-level personnel are required for either of these labor categories, they must be proposed at rates below the mid-level ceiling daily rate. An amended RFP Section B.7.1 has been included.

52. Section B.7.2 Definition of Labor Categories, (page 12) notes: “Provided below is a list of the types of labor categories that may be required under Task Orders. However, other labor categories that are not listed below may also be required under Task Orders.” Nevertheless, Section B includes multiple citations indicating that “The Unburdened Ceiling Daily Rates apply to all labor…” We note that there are scores of other types of positions that are required to implement SWIFT Task Orders, from drivers and logisticians to specialized technical assistance, which would not fit under the contract labor categories. In order to avoid confusion during implementation, we respectfully request that USAID include in Section B a more clear indication that additional labor may be added at the task order level, such as: “Additional labor beyond that which is included in the labor categories indicated in Section B.7.2 may be proposed under task orders, and will be subject to TOCO approval and to the limitations set forth in Sections H.3, H.4.” ANSWER: USAID feels that the statement in RFP Section B.7.2, page 12, is clear that “other labor categories that are not listed below may also be required under Task Orders.” The Unburdened Ceiling Daily Rates proposed per the table in RFP Section B.7.1 only apply to the specific labor categories listed in that same table. However, please reference the amended RFP B.7.1(b) section. In addition, please also reference “Note 3” on page 12 of the RFP Section B.7.1 which clarifies the process for determining salaries for locally-hired national personnel.

53. Section B.7.2 Definition of Labor Categories, and Section B.8, Minimum Requirements, stipulate 8 years work experience for the Senior COP and Senior DCOP; and 7 years work experience for the Operations Manager, Regional Program Manager, Transition Advisor and Task Order Manager positions. However, SWIFT RFTOPs typically require 4-5 years of work experience managing programs in conflict environments or implementing complex OTI-type programs, additional supervisory experience, in addition to having language skills for the country or region in question. Additionally, we have found that the success of SWIFT programs often hinges on the quality of Key Personnel, which is recognized by USAID by the importance of Key Personnel in the evaluation of SWIFT RFTOPs. We are concerned that this disconnect between typical SWIFT RFTOPs and the requirements for key personnel in the IDIQ solicitation will tend to lower offerors’ proposed CDRs. We believe that there is strong risk that proposed CDRs to meet the more general IDIQ requirements will not likely be adequate to compensate more experienced staff – thereby unnecessarily restricting USAID’s access the top-quality personnel which will negatively impact the future success of SWIFT programs. Conversely, the cost savings of such CDRs is minimal. These key positions typically represent less than 10% of the total cost of SWIFT task orders, with any incremental reduction realized due to ceilings being negligible.

We respectfully recommend a more balanced approach, which would be to remove the requirements for CDRs altogether, thereby allowing RFTOP personnel requirements to be flexibly crafted in response to the needs of each specific SWIFT program, and allowing offerors to propose labor rates in response to those specific requirements.

ANSWER: USAID will not remove the requirements for ceiling daily rates.

If the CDRs are retained as part of the IDIQ, we respectfully request the following:

a. Please confirm that all personnel required for Task Orders, that fall under the labor categories included within the IDIQ, will conform to the minimum requirements set forth in Section B.8, so that contractors are not required at the task order stage to provide staff with significantly greater experience, since prices for the labor categories have been determined based on the minimum requirements set forth in the governing IDIQ. ANSWER: The minimum qualifications provided in RFP Section B.8 were developed to provide USAID/OTI with the most flexibility with regard to accessing top-quality personnel. As noted in RFP Section M.3.1.1, USAID/OTI acknowledges that “Successful implementation of SWIFT 5 programming depends largely on the quality of Contractor personnel”, and we recognize that in exceptional circumstances, this may include a candidate with [exceptional critical analysis skills, in-depth knowledge of a country/region, demonstrated ability to function in complex environments, or innovative approaches to achieving results, but not necessarily with the most years of experience. However, RFP Section L.10, Part 2 “B. Labor Costs”, page 195, states that, “In developing the unburdened ceiling daily rates for each labor category and level, Offerors should consider rates that will adequately encompass candidates that surpass the minimum qualifications established in Section B.8, in addition to the types of countries in which OTI operates, many of which may be challenging to recruit personnel for. Historically, candidates fulfilling these positions have exceeded the minimum qualifications.” Offerors should consider this statement in developing realistic ceiling daily rates.

b. Please amend the note at the bottom of the table “Language fluency, relevant regional experience, and international development experience requirements will be specified in individual task orders, but in no event shall the combined requirement for minimum experience exceed the total number of years required in accordance with the above table.”

ANSWER: USAID/OTI clarifies that in any given Task Order, for any of the labor categories listed in the table in RFP Section B.8, the required minimum years of relevant work experience cannot exceed the years specified for each level in each labor category; however, Offerors may, of course, propose candidates with qualifications that exceed the minimum qualifications.

54. Section L.8.2.3. Would USAID confirm that offerors may include cooperative agreements for past performance (in both the past performance short forms and the past performance matrix)? ANSWER: Yes, grants and cooperative agreements may also be submitted as Past Performance, in addition to contracts.

55. Section L.8.2.1 (SWIFT-Programs) specifies that resumes for the Chief of Party, Operations Manager, and Home Office Primary Point of Contact must be included.

However, Attachment J.6 states that the Regional Program Manager is a Key Personnel position. Would USAID confirm that a resume for the Regional Program Manager should not be included? ANSWER: The illustrative SWIFT-Programs Task Order (Patriam Concordia Program) described in Attachment J.6 includes three (3) key personnel positions. However, per Section L, Offerors are not required to submit either a resume or a description for the Regional Program Manager – Vella (non-CCN).

Offerors are only required to submit illustrative resumes for two (2) of the key personnel: the Chief of Party and Operations Manager, in addition to the resume of the non-key Home Office Primary Point of Contact.

56. IDIQ Manager Requirements: The experience requirements are not consistent as stated in two separate sections of the RFP. Section F8(b) Key Personnel on page 97 states that the IDIQ Manager “must have the following minimum qualifications: “Minimum of five (5) years of recent project management experience…” Attachment J-3-Illustrative Personnel Qualifications SWIFT 5 IDIQ and Task Orders, I. IDIQ Manager states under “Qualifications” that the IDIQ Manager must have “minimum of six (6) years of recent project management experience…” Please confirm that five (5) years of recent project management experience as described in Section F is sufficient. ANSWER: The IDIQ Manager must have a “Minimum of five (5) years of recent project management experience” per RFP, Section F.8, page 97. The reference to six (6) years in Attachment J.3 is a typo.

57. Section B.7.1 (d) specifies that “the single unburdened ceiling daily rate for each labor category/group below represents the mid-level and senior level rate in each category/grouping. One unburdened ceiling daily rate for each labor category/grouping is included in the contract to provide more flexibility under task orders”. The table following this statement provides space for multiple ceiling rates under each labor category, based on the level of seniority (senior, mid or junior). Could USAID please confirm that offerors are only required to provide one ceiling daily rate for each labor category, to cover staff at all levels? ANSWER: Please provide a ceiling daily rate for each level of each labor category presented in the table in RFP Section B.7.1, using Attachment J.15.

58. Attachment J.13 Cost-Price Evaluation Matrix (SWIFT-Programs): Could USAID please confirm that offerors should use their proposed year 1 CDRs for each labor category under column C “Proposed CDR ($/day)”? ANSWER: As stated in the Instructions tab of Attachment J.13, “The Offeror will complete the Cost/Price Evaluation

Matrix by including the proposed unburdened ceiling daily rates (for Year 1) reflected in the Attachment J.15 for the specified labor categories and levels.”

Attachment J.13 Cost-Price Evaluation Matrix (SWIFT-Programs): Row 29 of the cost/price evaluation matrix requires offerors to apply a fringe benefit rate on CCN LTTA staff. Many offerors may have fringe benefits policies that differ based on the country where a CCN position is based and are not established in their NICRA agreements. For offerors who do not have a fixed fringe benefit rate for field staff, could USAID please provide a plug figure to be used in the evaluation matrix? ANSWER:

Please see the revised Attachment J.13 included with this Amendment, in which the row for “CCN Illustrative LTTA position” and the row for Fringe Benefits on 1C have been removed.

Attachment J.13 Cost-Price Evaluation Matrix (SWIFT-Programs) Section 11: Offerors are instructed to apply “Indirect Rates (per NICRA)”. Could USAID please confirm that offerors should use their proposed ceiling indirect rates as indicated in the instructions for the cost/price evaluation matrix, rather than their current NICRA rates? ANSWER: Yes, the Attachment J.13 instructions state that “The prime Offeror will also include its proposed ceiling indirect costs” and “only the prime Offeror’s proposed ceiling indirect cost rates allocated to these line items shall be utilized”. If annual ceiling rates are proposed, the Offeror should average the ceiling indirect rates for use in the Cost/Price Evaluation Matrix. However, Small Business Offerors should use their current NICRA (or equivalent) rates. A revised template for Attachment J.13 has been provided with clarified instructions.

59. Attachment J.17 Fee & Indirect Cost Matrix (SWIFT-Programs): Could USAID please confirm that offerors who have additional indirect cost rate categories (i.e.