Q&As_PSA_SOL-72011219R00001.pdf

Questions and Answers to the RFP Number : SOL-72011219R00001

Private Sector Activity

March 7, 2019

Instructions for Preparation Technical and Cost proposals

Question 1. L.6 (page 82) requests that the technical proposal be “submitted in Microsoft Word and Adobe PDF,” but L.5 (page 81) states that “all attachments must be in MSWord, Adobe

PDF, or MSExcel readable format.” Can USAID confirm that submission of the technical proposal in Adobe PDF format will be sufficient?

Answer: Yes, technical proposals may be submitted as a PDF file. For cost/business proposals, the budget tables must be submitted in PDF and Microsoft Excel format with cell formulas unlocked to facilitate Government analysis.

Question 2: Section L.7, page 85, states that the cost proposal must be written on A-4 paper.

Given that certain certifications, such as NICRA, are already formatted in a PDF on standard letter paper (8.5” x 11”), would USAID please confirm that is also acceptable to submit elements of the cost proposal on standard letter paper?

Answer: Original documents, such as a USG generated NICRA letters, may be submitted in their original format.

Question 3. For the cost proposal, the line item descriptions in the tables in Section B.5 (page

8) and Section L.7 (page 87), are not aligned. For example, Section L.7 has a line for consultants, while Section B.5 does not. Section B.5 has a line for training, while Section L.7 does not. Can offerors make adjustments to these two tables to ensure each are aligned?

Answer: The tables are illustrative and will be finalized on contract award. Offerors may make adjustments. However, offerors are cautioned that a key purpose of the cost/business is to allow

USAID cost analysis. Accordingly, clear exposition and explanation of costs is an important aspect of any offer.

Question 4: Page 83, Section L.6 Instructions for Preparation of Technical Proposal, Sub-

Section 1. Technical Approach states, “The offeror’s technical approach narrative section shall include a results table by program year indicating the results of the contract at a minimum of the required number provided in Table 1 in Section C or at additional amounts provided by the offeror which will become part of the resulting contract as deliverables.” Page 82, of the same section lists the Results Table as one of the required annexes, namely Annex C, and that it does not count against the page limit.

a. Would USAID please confirm that the Offerors are expected to submit the Results Table as Annex C and that it is not part of the 20-page limit for the Technical Approach?

Answer: Yes, the results table must be submitted as a separate annex to the technical proposal and will not count against page limit of the technical proposal.

Question 5: Page 84, Section L.6 Instructions for Preparation of Technical Proposal, Sub-

Section 3. Quality of Contractor Past Performance states, “In this section 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 (defined as a subcontractor whose proposed cost exceeds 15% of the offeror’s total proposed cost) in accordance with the following: 1. List in an annex to the technical proposal five of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal. The most relevant indicators of performance are contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity to the scope or work and how recently they were performed.”

a. Would USAID please confirm that the reference to contracts includes all types of awards, including cooperative agreements?

b. Would USAID please confirm whether the offerors are expected to submit five past performance reports for themselves and five for their major subcontractors, or five reports in total for both?

Answer a: The Contracting Officer will be guided by FAR 15.3 requirements which require previous contract information and will consult FAPIIS for past performance information. If business past performance is not available, past performance of predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors will be considered as described in FAR 15.305. If a potential offeror has a specific describing their performance issue, they are encouraged to contact the

Contracting Officer with sufficient detail to assist them in meeting the proposal requirements.

Answer b: The offeror must provide five references for itself and five for each major proposed subcontractor.

Question 6: Page 89, Section L.7 Instructions for Preparation and Submission of the

Cost/Business Proposal, Sub-point (i) Part 9 states that Branding and Marking Plan should be submitted as part of the Cost Proposal, whereas page 82, Annex (j) lists Branding and Marking

Plan as part of the Technical Proposal.

a. Would USAID please confirm that offerors should submit the Branding and Marking Plan as part of the Cost Proposal?

Answer: Offeror(s) shall submit a Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) and a Marking Plan as a separate annex to the Technical Proposal , which complies with Section D. The BIP and

Marking Plan do not count against page limits.

Question 7: Section L.5, page 81, notes that “the proposal shall be prepared in two separate parts: the Technical Proposal shall address technical aspects, only, while the Business (Cost)

Proposal shall present the price and address related issues such as past performance and responsibility.” However, Section L.6, page 82, lists “Project List and Past Performance

References” as an Annex G to the technical proposal.

Will USAID please confirm that the Past Performance Information should be included as an annex to the technical proposal rather than with the Cost Proposal?

Answer: Past Performance information shall be submitted as a separate annex to the Technical

Application as quality of past performance is an aspect of the technical evaluation.

Question 8: Section L.6, page 82, states that part 6 of the technical proposal is “Past

Performance (Does not count against page limit).” Will USAID please confirm that a past performance narrative is a required section of the technical proposal and does not count against the 25-page technical proposal, in addition to Annex G, Project List and Past Performance

References?

Answer: A past performance narrative is not required. As stated in the RFP, past performance will be evaluated per FAR 15.305(a)(2).

Staffing

Question 9. Section C.6, Key Personnel (page 20), suggests that the chief of party should be the “MSME Business Environment Advisor” and the deputy chief of party should be the

“Business Development Manager.” Given that the RFP envisions 70 percent of the work will focus on Component 1, and 30 percent on Components 2 & 3, would USAID be willing to consider having these key personnel roles reversed, or allow offerors to suggest key personnel teams that reflect a balance of these skillsets?

Answer : Offerors are required to meet the RFP requirements. A reversal of COP and DCOP will be considered an alternate proposal and as stated in RFP Section M.1(b) will not be accepted.

Question 10. L.7(A), page 86, says that biographical (biodatas) data sheets are required for all long-term, short-term, and cooperating-country personnel proposed. Would USAID consider limiting the requirement for biographical data sheets to proposed long-term staff only?

Answer: Biodatas are required for all personnel costed in offerors’ proposals.

Question 11: Page 61, 52.237-8 Restriction on Severance Payments to Foreign Nationals.

a. Would USAID consider incorporating FAR 52.237-9, Waiver of Limitation on Severance

Payments to Foreign Nationals, in case severance is mandated per local labor law?

Answer: FAR 52.237-9 will not be added to the RFP or resulting contract.

Question 12: Section L.7. (a), page 85, states that the completed Standard Form 33 must include an original signature. Since proposals will be submitted electronically, could USAID please confirm that a scanned or electronic signature would be sufficient?

Answer: An scanned or electronic signature on the SF 33 form will be sufficient.

Question 13: Will USAID consider allowing inclusion of a detailed Staffing Plan in an annex to the technical proposal? This would allow space to highlight the offeror’s qualified short-term technical assistance.

Answer: Offerors are limited by the page limits given in the RFP. A detailed staffing plan included as a proposal annex would not be evaluated.

Question 14: Section L.6, page 84, requires that offerors submit references for key personnel with their resumes. Will USAID please confirm that references do not count against the three-page limit for resumes?

Answer: References are meant to be contact information for professional references and as such are brief. Accordingly, they are to be included in the three page limit

Question 15: Page 95, Section M. 2 Technical Evaluation Criteria, Sub-Section B, Soundness of Staffing Approach:

Would USAID please confirm that this factor will be evaluated inclusive of relevant required annexes pertaining staffing, and management?

Answer: Offerors are enjoined to follow RFP instructions. For example, Annex e., resumes, will be included in the evaluation of the the soundness of staffing approach using an inclusive approach.

Payment

Question 16: Under B.6, Payment of Fixed Fee (page 9), the RFP states that fixed fee will be paid as “specified in the Schedule.” Please clarify whether offerors must present a fixed fee payment schedule for inclusion in the cost proposal.

Answer: A fixed fee payment schedule is not required in offers.

Initial Environmental Examination

Question 17. Under H.15 (4), page 48, there is a reference to the Initial Environmental

Examination (IEE) included as an annex. However, the annex is not listed as an attachment in

Section J. Could USAID clarify this reference and whether an IEE is available for this activity?

Answer: The Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) deferral has been approved by the

Mission Director and Bureau Environmental Officer (BEO). The IEE will be developed and approved after the selection of the winning proposal. No funds will be obligated until the IEE is developed and approved.

Grants under Contract

Question 18. The Grants Under Contract (GUC) authorizing language of ADS 302.3.4.13 allows contractors to award solely in-kind grants to government entities. Given this, can USAID modify the language in section H.33 (page 57) that states, “The Contractor will not provide grants to Government entities in-line with ADS guidance,” to allow for solely in-kind grants to government entities?

Answer: The language in H.33, Grants under Contracts, will not be modified as grants to government entities is not anticipated as part of contract activities.

Question 19. Section H.33(1), page 57, states, “No grants will be issued to U.S. organizations.”

Can USAID please modify the language to allow for grants to U.S. organizations per the GUC authorizing language of ADS 302.3.4.13, which states, “The total value of an individual grant to a U.S. NGO must not exceed $100,000.”?

Answer: The language in H.33, Grants under Contracts, will not be modified as grants to U.S.

organizations is not anticipated as part of contract activities.

Question 20: Page 18, Section C. 5. Implementation Requirements, Sub-section Grants states, “Two kinds of grants to the local entities are anticipated under this activity –matching grants to private sector and community grants. The grants will be made for achieving results under

Objective 1…. Furthermore, the Contractor will provide small grants to BDS’, associations, farmers, agribusinesses, agricultural communities, and other beneficiaries in support of developing the agricultural sector and value chains in which the activity works, as well as in support of USAID’s Global Development Alliance initiatives (GDA).”

a. Would USAID please confirm that the grants are expected to contribute only to the Objective

1?

b. Would USAID please provide a definition of the community grant and clarify the anticipated potential recipient groups for community grants versus private grants?

c. Given that the GOAJ sometimes imposes restrictions on support to associations, youth, and community organizations, if this type of intervention is the intent of community grants, could they be considered optional depending on host government receptivity?

Answer a: Yes, the grants are expected to contribute only to the Objective 1.

Answer b: Private grants will be given to private entrepreneurs and businesses. Community grants are intended to benefit communities of people, rather than individuals, and can be given to cooperatives, associations, and other groups of people that will receive the grant for the benefit of a community.

Answer c: Yes, community grants can be considered optional.

Question 21: Page 57, Section H.33 Grants Under Contracts states that "The contractor will not provide grants to Government entities in line with ADS guidance”. However, on page 58 (12) the

RFP states that “The total value of all grants that provide funds (as opposed to in-kind assistance) to a particular partner government entity (for example, ministry, municipality, district, etc.) must not exceed $2 million for the duration of the Contract.”

a. Would USAID please confirm that offerors are expected not to issue grants to any government entity or kindly revise page 57?

Answer: No grants will be made to government entities.The final contract will not include the page 58 (12) statement. It will be deleted before award.

Question 22. Section C.5 (page 20) states that “the contractor and its interventions must be flexible and responsive to market conditions.” However, we are concerned that a cost share requirement may limit that much-needed flexibility. To allow the contractor to be responsive, we request that USAID remove the cost-share requirement on page 14 (“Dollar value of cost-share leveraged from grant recipient organizations”) and instead require grantee contributions. ADS

303.3.10.1 states, “When used, its [cost share’s] application should be flexible, case-specific, and used to support or contribute to the achievement of results. USAID should use cost sharing after considering whether it is appropriate for the recipient organization in the particular circumstances, in particular, the programmatic and technical context. There is no set formula for cost sharing. … A specific program may be risky and discourages potential recipients from providing meaningful contributions.” Additionally, per ADS 303.3.5.3, “a fixed amount award cannot be used in a program that requires mandatory cost sharing.” The use of mandatory cost sharing in the grants fund may unfairly limit competition, as well as limit the type of mechanism that the successful implementing partner may utilize. Would USAID modify the language to refer to “dollar value of funds contributed by grant recipient organizations,” which will still encourage grantees to bring funds to the partnership, but will not require the administrative burden of submitting receipts and backup documentation required by mandatory cost share, which would discourage some organizations from applying?

Answer: “Cost share leveraging” for the purposes of the PSA contract will be defined as leverage per ADS 303.3.27 guidelines, which states, “Leveraging represents all of the non-

USAID resources (excluding cost sharing) that are expected to be applied to a program.

Leveraging is limited to Public-Private Partnership awards. Leveraging includes resources that third-parties bring to the program without necessarily providing them to the recipient of the

USAID assistance award. These parties may include the host government, private foundations, businesses, or individuals. The recipient is not responsible for meeting the leveraging amounts/resources and leveraging is not subject to audit. USAID may use program income to finance the non-Federal cost share of an award.”

Offerors are informed that the GUC mechanism must require costs share leveraging for all grants to businesses and make it OPTIONAL for community grants. Ability to cost share leverage will be one of the eligibility criteria for businesses, as these will be development grants, not humanitarian grants. A key USAID criteria for business assistance will not be just finding the right SMEs to invest USAID's financial and technical resources in, but also to ensure a) quality and b) sustainability of the particular intervention. The practical implication will be the knowledge that when an entrepreneur invests 1/2 or 2/3 of their own funds in an intervention supported with

USAID grant, the entrepreneur really means to use that new modern infrastructure or technology. The implication for community grants will be different, but even in that case, local contributions will/can be an important element to consider in the selection process.

The Contractor will maintain records of cost share leveraging and as part of its grant program and must establish a reasonable basis for verification of the leveraging albeit not at a cost share level.

Country Development Cooperation Strategy

Question 23. Can USAID provide a more updated Country Development Cooperation Strategy

(CDCS)? The most recent publicly available Azerbaijan CDCS covers 2011-2016.

Answer: The current CDCS has been extended through December 2020 and is publicly available via USAID website.

Analysis

Question 24. Section C.1, “Background” (page 11), states that USAID/Azerbaijan conducted an agricultural sector analysis in 2018 to identify agricultural sub-sectors. Can USAID make that analysis available?

Answer: USAID found the results of this assessment inconclusive and, therefore, would not be an optimal resource to guide an offeror’s technical approach. The assessment will not be provided. The successful offeror is expected to conduct Value Chain Prioritization and Gaps

Assessment as part of early contract stocktaking.

Question 25 : Page 11, Section C.1, Background states, “An agricultural sector analysis carried out by USAID/Azerbaijan in 2018 identified agricultural sub-sectors, including the production and processing of fruits, vegetables, berries, and other high-value horticulture products, as having strong employment generation possibilities….” However, page 29, Result

Number 8 in the table lists Value Chain Prioritization and Gaps Assessment and other Special

Assessments and Reports as one of the deliverables to be completed within 135 days of award.

On page 34, Section F.7 Reports, h) Special Assessments and Reports states, “Within 135 days of award, the contractor must conduct a Value Chain Prioritization and Gaps Assessment….”

a. Would USAID please confirm that offerors are expected to conduct the referenced Value

Chain Prioritization and Gaps Assessment, or the offerors are expected to use “An agricultural sector analysis carried out by USAID/Azerbaijan in 2018”

Answer: Yes, the successful offeror is expected to conduct Value Chain Prioritization and Gaps

Assessment. The 2018 agricultural sector analysis will not be used.

Results

Question 26. Could USAID please provide additional clarification regarding Result no. 2

(“Increased agricultural exports to developed markets in Eastern Europe, Gulf states, and

Asia”), as listed in C.4, Table 1 (page 17), as follows:

• What is USAID’s definition of a developed market? According to some classifications such as

MSCI’s, none of the countries in the Gulf and Eastern Europe are considered developed markets.

• How does USAID define markets in Eastern Europe? Does it include only Eastern European

EU member states such as Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria, or only Eastern European non-EU member states such as Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia — and how does it relate to the point above on the definition of developed markets?

• Would USAID accept a broader definition of the Gulf market to include Israel, which is a developed market in the Middle East (but not in the Gulf)?

• Would USAID consider all of the EU (Western and Eastern European member states) as a target market? Or was the EU purposely excluded due to Bumpers Analysis (for all or specific products) or another reason?

Answer: Result 2 is amended to read as “Increased agricultural exports to markets in Europe, Middle East, and Asia”.

Question 27. C.4, Table 1 (page 17), would USAID consider omitting the word “farm” from the contract total under the Result no. 2, which currently reads as “30% increase in targeted farm products exported to developed markets,” so that non-farm/processed products are included as well?

Answer: The Result 2 is amended to read as “30% increase in targeted products exported”.

Question 28: Page 14, Section C.3.1 Objective 1: More Diversified Non-Oil Economy states, “The Activity is intended to assist small and medium-sized farmers to become commercially viable farmers competing in local or export markets. It will also work with processors, traders, cold storage operators to improve their adherence to international standards.” However, page

15, C.3.2 Objective 2: Improved Business Environment for Micro, Small and Medium-sized

Business refer also to micro business.

a. Would USAID please confirm that offerors may include micro entrepreneurs within

Objective 1 activities and results?

Answer: Yes, the offerors may include micro entrepreneurs within Objective 1 activities and results.

Question 29. Currently one indicator appears twice: as a contract deliverable on page 17

(Result no. 6, “Number of farmers using new agronomy and business practices”) and as a potential additional indicator on page 14 (“Number of farmers using new Private Sector Activity-introduced agronomy practices”). Is this the same indicator? Or should Result no. 6 instead be

“Number of primary producers trained in agronomic and business practices”?

Answer: This is the same indicator.

Question 30: Page 17, Table 1: Contract Deliverables, Result Number 1 states that $7 million is the required dollar value of cost-share leveraged from grant recipient organizations. To our understanding, this is 3.5:1 match for all beneficiaries and all grant types.

a.It is our understanding that this 3.5:1 effective match ratio is not aligned with historic match and leverage ratios in Azerbaijan or the region. Would USAID please consider adjusting the match requirement to $4 million instead of $7 million?

Answer: The required effective match ratio under the PSA is aligned with USAID’s current leverage ratio.

Deliveries of Performance:

Question 31: Page 28, Section F – Deliveries or Performance, Sub-Section F.7 Reports includes a due date of 30 days after award for the start-up and Preliminary work plan. However, page 29, Sub-Section a). Start-up and Preliminary Work Plan states, “The start-up plan will be submitted to the COR for written approval within 10 days of award.”

a. Would USAID please confirm that the start-up and preliminary work plan is due 30 days after award?

Answer: The start-up and preliminary plan is due 30 days after award. F.7, Reports, Subsection

a) will be modified in the final contract to state 30 days after award.

Question 32: Page 28, Section F – Deliveries or Performance, Sub-Section F.7 Reports include a due date of 90 days after award for the first Annual Work Plan and Performance Monitoring

Plan. However, page 29, Sub-Section b). Annual Work Plans states that “the first-year work plan is due no later than 60 days following contract award.”

b. Would USAID please confirm that the first-year work plan is due 90 days after award?

Answer: The first year work plan is due 90 days following award. Subsection F.7, b) Annual

Work Plans, will be amended to state that the first year work plan is due 90 days following contract award.

Question 33: Page 29, Section F – Deliveries or Performance, Sub-Section F.7 Reports, c).

Monitoring and Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Plan and Data states, “The Contractor will develop and submit, with the initial annual Work Plan an overall Monitoring, Evaluation and

Learning (MEL) plan to the COR for review and approval.” However, page 28 Section F –

Deliveries or Performance, Sub-Section F.7 Reports table does not include MEL Plan as part of the initial work plan, and it is due 120 days after award.

a. Would USAID please confirm that the MEL Plan is due to USAID in 120 days after award and include this as a deliverable in the Reports table?

Answer: The first year MEL plan and data is due 120 day after award. F.7, Reports, Chart 1, number 3 states 120 days.

Question 34: In regard to Section C.3, starting on page 14, will USAID please confirm that the

70%, 15%, and 15% weighting indicated for Objectives 1, 2, and 3, respectively, refers to the approximate Level of Effort that offerors should allocate toward each objective?

Answer: The 70%, 15%, and 15% weighting indicated for Objectives 1, 2, and 3, respectively refers to exactly how much USAID intends to allocate for each objective under the PSA activity and offerors should plan accordingly.

Certifications

Question 35: Attachment 2, page 100, asks offerors to complete the Disclosure of Lobbying

Activities form (page 100). However, it is not listed in Section L in either the technical or cost proposal list of documents. Would USAID please clarify if all offerors and major subcontractors should complete this form? If offerors are required to submit this form, will USAID please clarify where it should be presented in the cost proposal?

Answer: Offerors must provide the Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Form within the cost proposal as an annex. The form must also be provided for major subcontractors.The form may be accessed here: https://www.gsa.gov/forms-library/disclosure-lobbying-activities.

Question 36: Section K, starting on page 68, is included in the solicitation. Would USAID please clarify if (major) subcontractors who may not complete annual representations and certifications via SAM should complete this section? If so, will USAID clarify where should it be presented in the cost proposal?

Answer: Yes, major subcontractors, as defined in the solicitation, must have complete representations and certifications when they offeror on this solicitation.

Question 37: Section L.6.3, Quality of Contractor Past Performance 2.(d), page 85, references

Performance Using Small Business (SB) Concerns. Would USAID please provide detail as what kind of information on small business utilization should be included?

Answer: USAID will use FAPIIS to evaluate small business utilization as part of quality of past performance.

Question 38: Please advise if USAID is planning to conduct an informational session on this

RFP ?

Answer: USAID will not hold a pre-proposal conference for this solicitation.

Question 39: Can the proposed activities be less than for 5- year period or it must be a 5-year activity ?

Answer:The estimated period of performance for this activity is five years from the award date.

Alternate proposals are not allowed under the terms of this solicitation.

Question 40: Can several organization jointly submit one proposal :

Answer: Please see RFP Section L - Instructions for preparation and submission of the cost/business proposal

(d) Part 4 - Joint Venture Information - If two or more parties have formed a partnership or joint venture (see FAR Subpart 9.6), for the purposes of submitting a proposal under this Solicitation https://www.gsa.gov/forms-library/disclosure-lobbying-activities and, if selected, would perform the contract as a single entity, they must submit, as an attachment to the Cost/Business Proposal, the Corporate Charter, By- Laws, or Joint Venture or

Partnership Agreement. In addition, the teaming arrangements must be identified, company relationships must be fully disclosed and respective responsibilities and method of work must be expressly stipulated. The joint venture or partnership agreement must include a full discussion of the relationship between the organizations, including identification of the organization, which will have responsibility for negotiation of Task Orders under the resultant contract, which organization will have accounting responsibility, how work will be allocated, and profit or fee, if any, shared. In addition, the principles to the joint venture or partnership agreement must agree to be jointly and severally liable for the acts or omissions of the other

Question 41: Is the total USAID funded amount is $15 mln or $15 mln is a maximum amount for each activity ?

Answer : The total estimated cost for the Private Sector Activity contract will not exceed $15 million.

Question 42: Last but not the least, is it possible to receive proposal templates for Azerbaijan specifically?

Answer: Please review Section L of the RFP for instructions on proposal development and submission.