SOL 72011423R00006 - USAID South Caucasus Regional Tourism Program - Amendment 1 - Attachment 1 Answers to Questions.docx.pdf

Amendment 01, Request for Proposals: Solicitation No. 72011423R00006, USAID South Caucasus Regional Tourism Program

Attachment 1, Questions and Answers List

No. Questions Answers

1 1.1. Page 1 states, “USAID/Caucasus anticipates awarding a

Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Completion type contract for three (3) years with a base total estimated cost ceiling of $6 million. The total estimated cost of the option, which expands the grants under contract, is $1.3 million. The total ceiling for the base and option, if exercised, is $7.3 million.”

1.2. Page 17, Section F.2 Period of Performance, states, “The period of performance for this contract is three (3) years starting from the date of award.”

1.3. Page 109, Section L.7, states, “The Cost/Business Proposal at a minimum must contain the following for the five-year contract period of performance:”

1.4. Page 110, Section L.7, (b) Part 2 – Proposed Costs/Prices, (ii), states, “The estimated cost for this contract is up to $6 million for the period of 3 years.”

1.5. Page 111, Section L.7, (b) Part 2 - Proposed Costs/Prices, (iii)10. Grants Under Contract (GUCs), states, “The option, if exercised, is anticipated to cover years 2 and 3 of the period of performance with no time extension.”

a) Confirmed, the total period of performance is 3 years. The reference to 5 years was included in L.7 (b) in error and has been removed.

b) The option increases funding for Grants with no time extension.

If the option is exercised, the period of performance will remain 3 years. USAID anticipates that funding availability will be known and the option exercised in year 2, ergo instructions in Section L.7 to include separate option budgets covering years 2 and 3.

a. Could USAID please confirm that the total period of performance, with the contract option exercised, is three

(3) years and not five (5) years?

b. Could USAID please clarify how many years is the base period and how many years is the option period? For example, should Offerors assume one 1-year base period and one 2-year option period?

2 Program Title: The RFP specifies “South Caucasus Tourism

Program” in some instances and “South Caucasus Regional

Tourism Program” in other instances. For consistency, could

USAID please confirm that Offerors are to use the latter, “South

Caucasus Regional Tourism Program”?

Confirmed. Offerers are to use “South Caucasus Regional Tourism Program”

3 Page 19, Section F.6 Reports and Deliverables or Outputs, No. n, “Special Assessments and Reports” and page 27, “Applied

Political Economy Analysis (APEA)”. Are APEAs the only “special assessments and reports” to be conducted by the Contractor?

Confirmed.

4 Page 22, Section F.6 Reports and Deliverables or Outputs, e)

Monitoring and Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Plan and Data: It states under “Core Content” that the MEL Plan must include “an internal and external evaluation plan”. However, on page 24, under “External Evaluation”, it states that “USAID or its designee may conduct independent mid-term and/or final evaluations of the activity.” Could USAID please confirm our understanding that the MEL Plan should make references to internal evaluations only and mention that external evaluation(s) will be carried out separately by USAID?

Confirmed. The MEL Plan should reference evaluations that are conducted by the program.

5 Page 29, Section F.7 Key Personnel states: "The Key Personnel that the Contractor must furnish for the performance of this contract are as follows: [to be inserted at award]". Additionally, the table on page 18, Section F.6 Reports and Deliverables or

Outputs, No. b and page 20, b) Key Personnel, states: “The

Contractor must nominate candidates for proposed Key

Personnel positions within 45 days of award.” Could USAID confirm that the contract made to the apparently successful

Offeror will be modified to include the names of the Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel approved by the CO/COR?

Confirmed. The successful Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel positions and qualifications will be incorporated into the contract at the time of the award and modified to include names after they are approved.

6 Page 108, Section L.6.3. Past Performance, states, “…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…” Would

USAID please consider allowing past performance information to be submitted for non-major subcontractors who are also deemed critical by the Offeror?

USAID will only consider Past Performance for the Prime and major subcontractors.

7 Page 108, Section L.6.3. Past Performance: Up to how many awards (Contracts, Cooperative Agreements) may Offerors provide in the Past Performance Information Matrix Sheet

(Attachment J.4)?

Offerors may submit up to five (5) relevant references for the Prime and major subcontractors, respectively, for awards performed within the last three (3) years.

8 Page 97, Section L.6, states, “…(charts, graphs, and tables may use no less than Calibri font size 9)…” Could USAID also allow text boxes, in addition to charts, graphs, and tables, to be in no less than Calibri font size 9?

Confirmed

9 Pages 97 and 98, Section L.6, states, “Required Annexes specified below will be counted towards the page limit.” Could USAID please confirm that this is a typo, and that required annexes will not be counted toward the overall 15-page limit of the technical proposal?

Confirmed and corrected.

Pages 99-107, “Technical Approach – 10 pages” and “Annex A –

Statement of Work (SOW) (15 page limit)”: Under Section L.6, the requirements for the Technical Approach and the Scope of

Work (SOW) seem to overlap and it is not sufficiently clear to us what should be included in each of these two separate sections.

For example, “Grants Under Contract,” under the SOW outline on page 101 of the RFP, states that this section “must provide a general summary of the proposed methodology and criteria that will be applied in identifying and selecting grantees and explain how this will contribute to the program’s goals.” Whereas

Attachment J.1 – Statement of Objectives, page 3, appears to already specify USAID’s desired methodology and selection criteria for Grants Under Contract.

a. Could USAID clarify whether the Statement of Work

(SOW) is equivalent to a Performance Work Statement

(PWS)?

b. Could USAID please clarify the level of detail expected for describing the proposed approach and methodologies in the SOW, given that the Offerors must also provide a detailed proposed approach and methodologies in the

Technical Approach section? Page 100 states, “The SOW

A. Correct. The successful Offeror’s SOW will become Section C of the resulting contract.

B. The Offeror’s SOW should detail what will be done whereas their Technical Approach should focus on how the Offeror intends to achieve work described in the SOW. It is at the discretion of the offeror to determine the appropriate level of detail to be included in their proposal to demonstrate its proposed methodology and approach to achieve the desired results. The general summaries of the proposed approaches are intended to outline the various lenses that should be considered when developing an appropriate methodology.

C. Confirmed.

must outline the proposed approach, methodologies, and interventions for addressing contextual challenges and achieving all objectives described in the SOO with deliverables, results, and deliverable metrics.” However, many of the SOW components (pages 101-107) appear to require detailed approaches as opposed to “outlines” or general summaries of the proposed approach and methodologies (e.g., Sustainability Considerations, Cross-cutting Approaches, etc.).

c. Could USAID please clarify that only high-level outlines / general summaries of the Offeror’s proposed approach and methodologies are required in Annex A – SOW, as opposed to a more detailed proposed approach and methodologies that are required in the 10-page Technical

Approach section?

11 Page 101, Section L.6, Annex A – Statement of Work (SOW) (15 page limit): “The SOW must be written from the perspective of USAID. For example, the SOW will say, “the Contractor must…” as opposed to “we will…”” Some parts of the SOW instructions/outline of sections use “must” while other parts use

“will”, “should” or “are required to.” Is this done intentionally or should these be standardized to just “must”, in order to comply with the bolded requirement stated on page 101?

The language cited is an example of how Offerors must write the SOW from the perspective of USAID. Offerors may use “must”, “will”, “should”, etc. as appropriate in the SOW. Use of the terms “will”, “should”, etc. in the instructions for drafting the SOW indicate areas for Offerors’ consideration whereas “must” indicates a requirement.

12 Page 107, Section L.6, Annex A – Statement of Work (SOW) (15 page limit), Environmental Compliance: It states, “The Initial

Environmental Examination will be developed and finalized

Confirmed.

together with the Contract award. No activity may occur under this program until an IEE amendment with the climate risk screening is approved.” Given this, could USAID confirm that

Offerors are not expected to write a detailed “Environmental

Compliance” section in their Annex A – Statement of Work

(SOW), but rather summarize the Environmental Compliance considerations already stated in the RFP?

13 The Attachment J.3 Budget template indicates a 3-year base period as “YEAR 1, YEAR 2, YEAR 3” and a two-year Option period as “Option YEAR 2” and “Option YEAR 3”. Could USAID please clarify the total period of performance, with GUCs exercised, as well as base versus option years?

The total period of performance is 3 years. The option, if exercised, is for increased Grants Under Contract and associated administrative costs and is anticipated after Year 1, which is why only years 2 and 3 have been included in the template. This increase would be in addition to existing activities in years 2 and 3 and does not include a time extension.

14 Page 114, Section L.8, states, “Offerors must include all estimated costs associated with the Branding Implementation

Plan and the Marking Plan.” Could USAID please confirm that

Offerors should provide estimated costs associated with

Branding and Marking within their Cost/Business Proposals, and not separately within the Branding and Marking Plan submission?

Confirmed.

15 Could USAID please specify whether GuC will be $900,000, as mentioned in Attachment J.1, and whether this amount is part of the $6 million base total estimated cost ceiling?

The $900,000 for Grants under Contract is a plug figure and included in the $6,000,000 base total ceiling. Similarly, the $1,000,000 for Grants Under Contract is a plug figure for the Optional increase in GUCs in years 2 and 3 and, if exercised, is included in the total ceiling including options of $7,300,000.

16 Could USAID elaborate on the $1.3 million estimated cost of the option?

The option includes a plug figure of $1M in additional funding for Grants Under Contracts plus funding for administrative costs associated with this increase in Grants and grant management.

17 Could USAID confirm that in total $1.9 million out of $7.3 total estimates cost and option is allocated for GuC?

Confirmed.

18 Could USAID clarify whether for the subcontractor to qualify as a major subcontractor it should have 20% of $6 million total estimated cost ceiling or of $7.3 million total ceiling for base and options?

Major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost for the base ($6 million) ceiling.

19 On page 109 of the RFP it is said that “Cost/Business Proposal at a minimum must contain the following for the five-year contract period of performance”. Please specify whether it should say three-year contract period of performance as on the cover page it is mentioned that the project will last three years.

The total period of performance is three years. This reference to five years has been corrected.

20 On Page 97 of the RFP it is said that the Technical proposal should use Calibri font size 12, while on page 109 it is said that the Cost/Business Proposal should use Times New Roman point 12 font size. Could USAID clarify which font should be used for the proposals?

Calibri font size 12 for all documents. This has been corrected in the revised RFP.

21 Could USAID clarify whether the Technical Proposal should be submitted in both word and pdf, or will just pdf submissions be accepted as well?

Technical Proposal must be submitted both in Word and PDF formats.

22 Could USAID clarify whether the offeror should submit both Cover Letter and Executive Summary, limited to one page in total, or submit one or another? Would USAID consider giving a separate one-page limit to the Cover Letter and separate one page limit to the Executive Summary?

Offerors must submit either a cover letter OR executive summary limited to 1 page.

23 Could USAID specify if there is a page limit for Consolidated results/targets table for Objectives 1 and 2?

No page limit.

24 Could USAID specify whether the draft MEL plan should be included?

The MEL plan will be drafted and submitted to the COR for review and approval within 90 days of award.

25 Could USAID confirm that Theory of Change should be included in background section of the SoW?

Offerors may include Theory of Change in the “Objectives and Results” section of SOW.

26 Would USAID allow additional charts and graphs to be included as Annexes?

USAID will only consider required Annexes for evaluation purposes.

27 Could USAID specify the number of references to be submitted in Past Performance Information?

Offerors may submit up to five (5) relevant Past Performance references for the Prime and major subcontractors as described in the response to Question 7 above.

28 Could USAID confirm that there is no page limit for the Past Performance Information?

Confirmed.

29 Could USAID please confirm that the Past Performance Information should solely be provided in the given template (Attachment J.4)?

Confirmed.

30 Could USAID specify whether Section K, REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS, AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS should be submitted only online or be included in the Cost Proposal as well?

REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS, AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF

OFFERORS must be included in the cost proposal.

31 Could USAID clarify whether Section K, REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS, AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS is required for the major subcontractor?

No.

32 Could USAID clarify whether Evidence of Responsibility is required for the major subcontractor?

Offerors are required to submit Information to Support Consent to Subcontractors as described in Section L.7(f) Part 6.

33 Could USAID change the evaluation process from "Highest Technical Rating with Fair and Reasonable Price and Realistic Cost (HTR)" to "Best Value"? Considering that Technical Evaluation Criteria (M.3) includes Past Performance as one of the criteria, the HTR evaluation method decreases the competitiveness of the Local and Regional offerors, while under the Best Value method, an offeror with the second-best technical score may still get a chance to be considered for an award.

No. Offerors lacking relevant Past Performance history will be assigned a “Neutral” rating for this criterion.

34 Section L.6, Page 97-98. USAID indicates 10 page limit for the Technical proposal and 5 page limit for Management and Staffing Plan, total of 15 pages. Will USAID consider increasing the page limit to 15 pages for the technical proposal (total of 20)?

Page limits are unchanged.

35 Cover letter page 1 and Section L.7 page 111. USAID indicates grants under contract on the cover page in the amount of 1.3Mil.

In the Section L.7 the amount is included 900K and 1Mil as plug-in numbers for base and option periods, respectively. Please clarify these amounts.

The base plug figure for Grants under Contract is $900,000. The option plug figure for GUCs is $1,000,000, subject to funding availability.

Additional funding (up to $300,000) included in the option ceiling is intended for costs associated with increased grant administration and management.

36 Please clarify whether the Grants under Contract will be in addition to total estimated cost ceiling of $6 million for the base period or if 900K is included in this amount for the base period.

$900,000 is a plug figure for GUCs in the base period and is included in the $6,000,000 base ceiling.