Attachment J.9 - 72011423R00010 - Questions and Answers.pdf

Request for Proposals (RFP) No

72011423R00010

“USAID Agricultural Trade Diversification Program”

Questions and Answers

Q.1. Section B.6 (page 7) states that “payment of the fixed fee will be divided between fixed payments for activity deliverables found in Section F.6 (25%) and fixed payments based on the completed performance indicators/targets set forth in Section F.10 (75%) found in the Fixed Fee Schedule below.” The fixed fee schedule template provided in the cost proposal instructions in Section L.8.2 (page 122) only includes lines for results. Would

USAID kindly confirm that offerors may add lines to propose fee payments for deliverables?

Response 1: Confirmed.

Q 2. Section F.11 (page 33) states that “The Contractor must comply with the subcontract reporting requirements in FAR 52.219-9. However, FAR 52.219-9 is not included in list of clauses incorporated by reference under Section I. Would USAID please clarify whether offerors are required to submit subcontracting plans within the cost proposal as there is no mention of the plan within L.8?

Response 2: FAR 52.219-9 is added in the list of clauses incorporated by reference under

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS, paragraph L.8 was revised to include L.8.12 Part 12 - Subcontracting Plan (for Large Businesses Only). As applicable, the successful offeror’s subcontracting plan will be completed at award.

Q 3. Section H.4 in RFP (page 41) states “The total amount of grants made under this provision must be up to $12,500,000” and Section IV.B in SOO (page 5) states “The

Contractor must allocate no more than $12.5 million of the total budget for Grants Under

Contract,” while Section L8.3.b (page 127) states that “Offerors are instructed to use a plug figure of $12,500,000 over the course of performance to account for GUCs.” Would USAID please confirm whether offerors must budget for exactly $12.5 million in Grants Under

Contract, or whether they may propose a grants budget up to a ceiling of $12.5 million, in line with their technical approach?

Response 3: $12.5 million is a plug figure for Grants under Contract.

Q 4. Section I.11 (page 78) of the RFP limits offerors to administering 3% annual salary increases to long-term project staff. We respectfully request that the above-mentioned salary restriction be removed from the RFP, as it appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR

752.7007 Personnel Compensation, incorporated in the contract under Section I.10 (page

78), which stipulates that personnel compensation be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, with reimbursement subject only to

USAID’s Contractor Salary Threshold. The salary restriction above may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices, as required by AIDAR

752.7007.

Response 4: Annual Salary increases must be proposed in accordance with the Offeror's established policies, procedures, and practices with supporting documentation. The

Solicitation language has been revised accordingly.

Q 5. Section K.4 includes FAR 52.204-8 of which text for (c)(2) appears to be incomplete with respect to Contracting Officer identified (if any) applicable provisions. Would USAID confirm whether any of the representations and certifications specified in this section apply

— apart from 52.227-15, which appears in K.14 on page 96?

Response 5: The incomplete text “[Contracting Officer check as appropriate.]” was added.

Section K has been revised.

Q 6. Section L.5 (page 113) states that Contractor Past Performance must be submitted one week in advance of proposal submission by the time and date indicated on the cover page of the RFP.” The cover page notes that Past Performance is due on September 20, three weeks in advance of the proposal due date. Would USAID please confirm whether

September 20 is the correct submission date for Past Performance?

Response 6: The due date for Past Performance information has been revised. The new due date is Wednesday September 27, 9:00AM Tbilisi Time. Solicitation language is revised to reflect this.

Q 7. Per Section L.6.1.b (page 114) of the RFP, offerors must request referenced organizations to submit a Past Performance Reference Form for awards for which a CPARS report is not available. For offerors with relevant programming in Georgia for which CPARS reports are not available, would USAID please confirm whether it would be appropriate to contact USAID/Georgia staff to request that they complete the Performance Reference

Form?

Response 7: For activities for which a CPAR is not available, Offerors may submit this form to the relevant point of contact for completion and submission directly to RCO. If the forms are not completed and returned to RCO, this will not be considered negative or derogatory information. Offerors should provide contact details for these individuals.

Q 8. In response to the Technical Proposal outline provided in L.7 (page 116), would USAID consider allowing divider pages within the technical proposal that do not count against the page limit?

Response 8: The page limit of the Technical Proposal is 37 pages, as follows:

● Cover Page (One page limit)

● Table of Contents (Does not count against page limit)

● List of Acronyms (Does not count against page limit)

● Technical Implementation Component

○ Statement of Work (SOW) (15 page limit)

○ Technical Approach Supplement (10 page limit)

○ Results Tables (1 page limit)

● Operational Components (10 page limit) to include all of the following:

○ Management and Staffing Plan

○ Table of Management Positions

○ Organizational Chart

Blank divider pages will not count against the page limit.

Q 9. The technical proposal outline in Section L.7 (page 116) states that the page limit for the technical implementation component is 37 pages. However, the combined page limits for the Statement of Work, Technical Approach Supplement, and Results Table total 26 pages, which increase to 36 pages with the inclusion of the operational components.

Would USAID consider allowing offerors to present a one-page executive summary as part of the 37-page Limit?

Response 9: The page limit of the Technical Proposal is 37 pages, as follows:

● Cover Page (One page limit)

● Table of Contents (Does not count against page limit)

● List of Acronyms (Does not count against page limit)

● Technical Implementation Component

○ Statement of Work (SOW) (15 page limit)

○ Technical Approach Supplement (10 page limit)

○ Results Tables (1 page limit)

● Operational Components (10 page limit) to include all of the following:

○ Management and Staffing Plan

○ Table of Management Positions

○ Organizational Chart

Blank divider pages will not count against the page limit.

Q 10. The instructions in Section L.7 state that the technical implementation component must address Factor 1 (Technical Approach) and Factor 3 (Management and Staffing

Approach) of the evaluation criteria in Section M, while the operational component must address Factor 2 (adaptability and sustainability). However, the instructions for the technical implementation component in Section L.7.2 (page 117) provide the description of

Factor 2 from Section M and the operational component aligns with Factor 3 from Section

M. Would USAID please confirm that the technical implementation component should address Factors 1 and 2, while the operational component must address Factor 3?

Response 10: The technical component must address Factors 1 (Technical Approach) and 2

(Adaptability and Sustainability), while the operational components must address Factor 3

(Management and Staffing). The solicitation has been revised accordingly.

Q 11. L.8.7.b.2 of the RFP states, “Unless the Offeror’s (and each subcontractor’s)

Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement contains a fringe benefit rate(s), the rate(s) proposed in the calculations will be supported by a detailed breakdown comprising each item of fringe benefits.” Can USAID please confirm that this is for major subcontractors, as

L.8.3.a.i states that NICRA submission is required for contractor and major subcontractors only?

Response 11: The Offeror and each major subcontractor(s) must include a complete copy of its most current NICRA or other documentation from its Cognizant Government Audit

Agency, if any, stating the most recent final indirect cost rates.

Q 12. In Section L.8.8 (d) of the RFP, USAID requires “The information requested above in

Parts (3), (4), (5) and (6) for each subcontractor.” However, L.8.4 appears to be missing from the instructions. Would USAID kindly provide Section L.8.4? Furthermore, some of the information requested in these sections (including NICRA, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, and Information Concerning Work-Day, Work-Week, and Paid Absences) is only required for major subcontractors per the instructions in those sections. Would USAID please confirm that these documents should only be submitted for major subcontractors?

Response 12: Numbering is corrected.

Q 13. Section IV.A of the Statement of Objectives notes that the contractor must build on the achievements of and incorporate lessons learned from the USAID Agriculture Program.

Unfortunately, it appears that the reports for this program are not publicly available on the

Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC). Would USAID please consider sharing links to the program’s reports as attachments to the amendment? It is possible that these reports have been uploaded to DEC with USAID-only access; they do not appear in any keyword or country-level searches.

Response 13: Annual reports for years 1 - 4 of the USAID Agriculture Program have been incorporated as an Attachment to the amended solicitation, titled “Attachment J.8 -

72011423R00010 - USAID Agriculture Program PY1 to PY4 Annual Reports”.

Q 14. The RFP states that offerors must submit the technical proposal in Adobe PDF and

Microsoft Word formats. Would USAID please confirm that offerors are only required to submit the main body of the technical proposal in Word, not the front matter (cover, table of contents, and list of acronyms) or annexes? If offerors must submit the entire technical proposal in Word, would USAID please confirm that offerors may insert any pages with signatures as images for the signee’s security, and that these images may extend past

1-inch margins?

Response 14: Only the PDF format proposal requires signatures. Signatures are not required for the Word format submission.

Q 15. Could USAID please confirm that the Microsoft Word requirement only applies to the technical proposal and not to the Past Performance Information, Cost Proposal, and

Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan volumes?

Response 15: Confirmed. The Word submission applies to the Technical Proposal submission. Past Performance Information and Branding and Marking Plan volumes should be submitted using the provided templates as applicable. The Cost Proposal submission should include budget detail in unlocked Excel (or similar) format showing all formulas and references using the template provided.

Q 16. A Standard Form (SF) 33 was not included in the RFP. Could USAID please provide the form?

Response 16: The (SF 33) form is available here: SF33-22

Q. 17 Section F – Page 18, Sub-section F.6.c, Procurement Plan, states “the Procurement Plan must be submitted to the CO within 60 days of the award effective date.”

a. For information technology resources and non-expendable property required for start-up activities within 60 days of the award’s effective date, would USAID please confirm that offerors may submit such items for the Contracting Officer’s prior approval effective upon award as part of the detailed budget and budget narrative?

Response 17: Information Technology resources are subject to CIO non-objection upon award. Other non-expendable property proposed for start up may be submitted for approval effective upon award.

Q. 18 Section F – Page 33, Sub-section F.11 Subcontract Reporting (Large Business Only) states “The Contractor’s subcontracting plan dated [to be completed at award] is hereby incorporated as a material part of this Contract. The Contractor must comply with the subcontract reporting requirements in FAR 52.219-9.” However, Section L does not include instructions for offerors to submit a small business subcontracting plan as part of the Cost Proposal.

a. Would USAID please clarify if a small business subcontracting plan is required as part of the submission, given the inclusion of this clause in Section F.11, or

b. Will the subcontracting plan be developed and submitted post-award?

Response 18: The discussion of arrangements requested in Section L.8.7 (updated) does not refer to a formal subcontracting plan. The Subcontracting Plan will be completed on award.

Q.19 Section H – certain portions of Section H appear to be from a different Request for Proposals – the South Caucasus Regional Water Management Program – issued by the Mission. If that is the case, would USAID please revise the following sections in their entirety so potential bidders have an accurate understanding of the solicitation:

a. Page 41, Sub-section H.4 Considerations for Grants under Contract states “The majority of grants are expected to be issued to local entities in Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, however, grants to U.S. organizations may be considered in exceptional circumstances. Grants to U.S. organizations will not exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. The activity will use Grants Under Contract to achieve results under all four objectives of the Program…” and “USAID will work with the contractor to formalize grant https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/SF33-22.pdf selection criteria and other appropriate grant review and approval processes under the South Caucasus Regional Water Management Program.”

b. Page 43, Sub-section H.5 Language of Reports and Other Outputs states, “Reports and deliverables may also be translated into Georgian, Armenian, and Azerbaijan languages when directed in writing by the COR.”

c. Page 44, Sub-Section H.8 Value Added Tax and Customs Duties states, “VAT and customs duties required by the Governments of Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan are excluded from the price of the contract.”

d. Page 50, Sub-section H.18 Foreign Government Delegations to International Conferences states “Funds in this award may not be used to finance the travel, per diem, hotel expenses, meals, conference fees, or other conference costs for any member of a foreign government’s delegation to an international conference sponsored by a multilateral organization, except as provided in ADS Mandatory Reference… or as approved by the

TOCO/TOCOR.”

e. Pages 52-53, Sub-section H.23 Publications, Videos, or Other Information Media Products, includes multiple references to the “TOCOR” and “TOCO” as opposed to the “COR” and “CO.”

f. Pages 54-55, Sub-section H.24 USAID Implementing Partner Notices (IPN) Portal for Acquisition, includes multiple references to the “TOCOR” as opposed to the “COR” and “CO.”

Response 19: References to Azerbaijan, Armenia, the South Caucasus Regional Water Management Program are removed from the Solicitation. The Agriculture Trade Diversification Program does not include Armenia and Azerbaijan. It only includes Georgia.

TOCO/TOCOR language is revised.

Q. 20 Section I – Page 78, Sub-section I.11.d Annual Salary Increases states “One annual salary increase of not more than 3% may be granted after the employee’s completion of each twelve-month period of satisfactory services under the contract. Annual salary increases of any kind exceeding these limitations or exceeding the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold (CST) specified under AIDAR 752.7007 may be granted only with the advance written approval of the Contracting Officer.”

a. Given annual inflation rates in Georgia as well as the requirements of AIDAR

752.7007 Personnel Compensation, which states “direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractors established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract,” would USAID consider removing the 3% annual salary increase limitation as it limits Contractors from compensating staff in accordance with 1) market rates;

and 2) established policy?

Response 20: Annual Salary increases must be proposed in accordance with the Offeror's established policies, procedures, and practices with supporting documentation. This language in solicitation has been revised.

Q. 21 Section L – Page 113, Section L.6 Instructions for Preparations of Contractor Performance Information, bullet point 1. (a) states “Complete the Past Performance Information Matrix Sheet (Attachment J.4) for the most relevant awards (Contracts, Cooperative Agreements), performed over the last 3 years for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal.”

a. Would USAID please clarify if there is a limit on the number of past performance awards to be listed in Attachment J.4?

Response 21: Offerors should limit the number of references to no more than 5. This language has been revised.

Q. 22 Section L – Page 114, Section L.6 Instructions for Preparations of Contractor Performance Information gives the instructions for submitting Past Performance Information prior to the submission of the technical and cost proposals.

a. Would USAID please confirm that offerors should submit the Past Performance Information Matrix Sheet (Attachment J.4) and performance in using small business concerns directly to USAID/Caucasus, while the referees should submit filled in Attachment J.5 directly to USAID/Caucasus for those projects that are not available in CPARS?

Response 22: Confirmed. Contact information for referees completing the reference form should be included in the Matrix Sheet. The Revised Past Performance Matrix (Attachment J. 5) is attached to the Solicitation.

Q. 23 Section L – Page 116, Section L.7 Instructions for Preparation of Technical Proposal states “The Technical Proposal, including Technical Approach and Management and Staffing Plan, is limited to 15 pages total and be written in English…” While below (pulled from page 116 in the RFP) is a list of sections describing how the Technical Proposal must be organized:

● Technical Implementation Component (not to exceed 37 pages)

● A. Statement of Work (SOW) (15-page limit)

● B. Technical Approach Supplement (10-page limit)

● C. Results Tables (1-page limit)

● Operational Components

● A. Management and Staffing Approach (5-page limit)

g. Would USAID please clarify the total allocated page limit for the Technical Implementation Component, including page limit allocations for each sub-section (Statement of Work, Technical Approach Supplement, and Results Tables)?

h. Would USAID please clarify the allocated page limits for Operational Component?

Response 23: The page limit of the Technical Proposal is 37 pages, as follows:

● Cover Page (One page limit)

● Table of Contents (Does not count against page limit)

● List of Acronyms (Does not count against page limit)

● Technical Implementation Component

○ Statement of Work (SOW) (15 page limit)

○ Technical Approach Supplement (10 page limit)

○ Results Tables (1 page limit)

● Operational Components (10 page limit) to include all of the following:

○ Management and Staffing Plan

○ Table of Management Positions

○ Organizational Chart

Blank divider pages will not count against the page limit.

Q. 24 Section L – Page 117, Section L.7 Instructions for Preparation of Technical Proposal states“This section is divided into several sub-parts that collectively must address Factor 1 and Factor 3 of the evaluation criteria: The Offeror must propose deliverable and results targets that are ambitious yet feasible. The Offeror must present an adaptable implementation approach to perform the tasks described in the Statement of Work that demonstrates component integration and will achieve the Program requirements, objectives and intended results set forth in the SOO. The Offeror must describe how it will successfully adapt to unexpected challenges, mitigate against potential implementation risks, take advantage of potential opportunities and enable sustainability post-implementation period.” However, Section M – Page 135, Section M.2 Technical Evaluation Factors lists evaluation factors as Factor 1: Technical Approach; Factor 2:

Adaptability and Sustainability; Factor 3: Management and Staffing Approach; and Factor 4: Past Performance.

a. Based on the above language, would USAID please confirm that Factor 2:

Adaptability and Sustainability is part of the Technical Implementation Component evaluation instead of Factor 3, which is the Management and Staffing Approach?

Response 24: Confirmed. The technical component must address Factors 1 (Technical Approach) and 2 (Adaptability and Sustainability), while the operational components must address Factor 3 (Management and Staffing). The solicitation has been revised accordingly.

Q. 25 Section L – Page 118, Section L.7 Instructions for Preparation of Technical Proposal, 2.

Technical Implementation Component, A). Statement of Work provides guidance on the SOW outline, including bullet point f). Management Approach/Staffing Requirements.

However, Section L, Instructions for Preparation of Technical Proposal, page 116 provides the sections for the Technical Proposal which lists the Management and Staffing Approach as part of the Operational Component.

a. Would USAID please confirm that bullet point f). Management Approach/Staffing Requirements is meant to be a summary of the offeror’s management and staffing approach? And

i. That more detailed approach should be part of the Operational Component?

b. Would USAID please also clarify whether the designation of three key personnel positions should be included in this subsection of the Statement of Work?

Response 25: The technical component must address Factors 1 (Technical Approach) and 2 (Adaptability and Sustainability), while the operational components must address Factor 3 (Management and Staffing). Key Personnel information should be included in the operational component. The solicitation has been revised.

Q. 26 Section L – Page 118, Section L.7 Instructions for Preparation of Technical Proposal, 2.

Technical Implementation Component, A). Statement of Work provides guidance on the SOW outline, including bullet point g). General Implementation Approach or Guiding Principles.

a. For better flow, would USAID please allow offerors to move bullet point g). up after Results and Goals and before Services/Tasks?

Response 26: Please follow the order specified in the solicitation.

Q. 27 Section L – Page 119, Section L. 7 Instructions for Preparation of Technical Proposal,

2. Technical Implementation Component, C). Results Table states that “the Value of private sector investment in the agriculture sector leveraged by USG assistance to be attracted $50 million.”

a.Would USAID please clarify whether the target of $50 million also includes the leveraged amount from $12.5 million in grants?

Response 27: The target of $50 million of leveraged funds does not include the $12.5M in grants. The $50M target comes from external sources.

Q. 28 Section L – Page 119, Sub-section B. Technical Approach Supplement states “In this section, the Offeror must provide additional information to supplement the SOW in order to address Factors 1 and Factor 3 of the evaluation criteria.”

a. Would USAID please confirm that Factor 2: Adaptability and Sustainability should be part of this sub-sector’s evaluation instead of Factor 3?

b. If not, would USAID please clarify which section should address Factor 2 criteria?

Response 28: The technical component must address Factors 1 (Technical Approach) and 2 (Adaptability and Sustainability), while the operational components must address Factor 3 (Management and Staffing). The solicitation has been revised accordingly.

Q. 29 Section L – Page 119, Sub-section C. Results Table states “Note that offerors cannot add additional target lines to this table.” However, page 4, Sub-section C. Results and Indicators of Statement of Objectives document (Attachment J.1) states “Beyond the mandatory indicators detailed under section F, offerors may identify and propose additional indicators and targets in their proposal.”

a. Would USAID please clarify if offerors are allowed to add additional indicators and targets?

Response 29: Offerers are allowed to add additional indicators and targets to the table. The solicitation has been revised to reflect this change.

Q. 30 Section L – Page 119, Sub-section C. Results Table lists five contract results to be achieved by an implementer.

a. Would USAID please confirm that agribusinesses and businesses in Result 2: Value of annual sales from agribusinesses receiving USG assistance, and Result 4: Number of businesses with improved environmental practices and/or improved climate resilience, also include primary producers?

Response 30: With this indicator, USAID seeks to measure the number of legally registered businesses, not individual primary producers.

Q. 31 Section L – Page 120, Sub-section 3. Operations Component states “This section is divided into several sub-parts that collectively must address Factor 2.”

a. Would USAID please confirm that this section must address Factor 3 instead of Factor 2?

Response 31: The technical component must address Factors 1 (Technical Approach) and 2 (Adaptability and Sustainability), while the operational components must address Factor 3 (Management and Staffing). The solicitation has been revised accordingly.

Q. 32 Section L – Page 121, a bullet point A Table of Management Positions states “A Table of Management Positions displaying the anticipated roles/responsibilities and the minimum (required) and preferred qualifications/attributes to determine qualified candidates for the core management positions proposed in the Staffing Plan. The core management team should possess exemplary technical, strategic and managerial expertise and skills.

Consistent with their Technical Approach, The table must include proposed minimum qualifications of the Key positions identified.”

a. Would USAID please clarify whether a table of management positions should include the core management team’s roles/responsibilities and the minimum (required) and preferred qualifications/attributes, or only identified Key positions’ minimum qualifications?

Response 32: The Table of Management Positions should display the entire team, including the key personnel, consistent with the offeror’s technical approach. Minimum qualifications for key personnel positions should be included in the Management and Staffing Plan. The solicitation language has been revised to reflect this.

Q. 33 Section L – Page 122, Sub-section L.8.2 Part 2 – Section B.6 Fixed Fee Schedule, instructs offerors to complete the fee schedule including Results 1 – 5. Per Section B.6, Payment of Fixed Fee, page 7, “fixed fee will be divided between fixed payments for activity deliverables found in Section F.6 (25%) and fixed payments based on the completed performance indicators/targets set forth in Section F.10 (75%) found in the Fixed Fee Schedule below.”

a. Would USAID please confirm that the fee schedule for results in Sub-section L.8.2 should only amount to 75% of the proposed fixed fee for the Contract?

b. Would USAID please confirm that the “proposed fee amount” indicated in the fixed fee schedule should be a dollar amount and not a percentage figure?

c. Would USAID please confirm if offerors are supposed to propose a fee schedule for the remaining 25% fixed fee reserved for activity deliverables? Or, I. Will USAID assign a fixed fee schedule for the activity deliverables?

Ii. If the latter, would USAID please share the fixed fee schedule for activity deliverables?

d. Would USAID please confirm that performance indicators/targets set forth in Section F.10 and included in the fixed fee schedule will be updated annually consistent with the approval of the Annual Work Plan, to ensure indicators/targets are aligned with the implementation and payment of fee is tied to relevant metrics?

Response 33: Offerors should propose a fixed fee payment schedule divided among activity deliverables up to 50% of their total proposed fixed fee. The remaining 50% of total proposed fixed fee may be divided for fixed payments tied to completion of performance indicators/targets as proposed by Offerors and in accordance with their Technical Proposals. The solicitation has been revised.

Q. 34 Section L – Pages 126 – 127, Section L.8.3 Part 3 – Proposed Costs, provides budget line item definitions and illustrations, including Consultants per FAR 31.205-33 and Subcontracts per FAR 44.101.

a. Would USAID please advise if it considers “Consultants” to be “Subcontractors” under the Contract and subject to Consent to Subcontract requirements per FAR 52.244-2?

b. If Consultants are considered Subcontractors, would USAID prefer they be budgeted under a “Consultants” line item or the “Subcontracts” line item?

Response 34: Consultants are not considered to be subcontractors for the purposes of Consent to Subcontract. The COR will concur with proposed Consultants during implementation. For purposes of budgeting, consultants include both those who have and do not have an employee-employer relationship with the prime contractor.

Q. 35 Section L – Page 127, Section L.8.3 Part 3 – Proposed Costs, provides budget line-item definitions and illustrations, including equipment and supplies, stating “FAR 45 prescribes policies and procedures for providing government property to Contractor, Contractor’s use and management of Government property, and reporting, redistributing, and disposing of Contractor inventory.”

a. Would USAID please confirm that references to government property as used herein for budgeting purposes additionally considers AIDAR 752.245-70 Government Property – USAID Reporting Requirements, and therefore includes the following?: (1) non-expendable personal property, defined as personal property that is complete in itself, does not lose its identity or become a component part of another article when put into use; is durable, with an expected service life of two years or more; and that has a unit cost of more than $500; (2) personal property furnished to the Contractor for use in connection with performance of the Contract;

and (3) all mobile information technology (IT) equipment including but not limited to mobile phones, laptops, tablets, and encrypted devices.

Response 35: Confirmed. The Solicitation was revised to include the reference to AIDAR 752.245-70 definition.

Q. 36 Section L – Page 131, Section L.8.8 Part 8 – Subcontractor Information, bullet point

(d) states “The information requested above in Parts (3), (4), (5) and (6) for each subcontractor.” However, Section L.8.2, page 124, Part 3 – Proposed Cost states that “Any subcontract that individually totals more than 20% of the Offeror’s total proposed cost is considered a major subcontract for which the Offeror must provide a similar detailed budget and budget narrative relating to the specific activities to be performed by such subcontractor. For non-major subcontracts, such information is optional; however, sufficient information must be provided for USAID to determine whether the proposed subcontract is reasonable and realistic.” Moreover, Section L.8.3 Part 3 – Proposed Costs, page 128, bullet point (i) states “The Offeror and each major subcontractor(s) must include a complete copy of its most current NICRA or other documentation from its Cognizant Government Audit Agency, if any, stating the most recent final indirect cost rates. The proposal must also include the name and address of the Government Audit Agency, and the name and telephone number of the auditor.”

a. Would USAID please confirm that Part 3 (detailed budget and budget narrative) is only required for major subcontractors?

b. Would USAID please confirm NICRA is considered as Part 4 since Part 4 is missing out from the solicitation?

Response 36: The requested information is only required for each major subcontractor.

Section L.8.7 was revised accordingly. Part 4 is referred to SAM and UEI Requirements.

Q. 37 Section L – Page 130, Section L.8.6(c) Part 6 – Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Contractor states, “Offeror and its major subcontractors must provide a Disclosure of Lobbying Activities form (SF LLL), provided as Attachment J.3.”

a. If an offeror and/or its major subcontractors do not have any lobbying activities to disclose per 31 USC 1352, would USAID please confirm this form is not required to be submitted?

Response 37: The SF LLL is available here: SFLLL It must be completed by all offerers and major subcontractors.

Q. 38 Attachment J.1, pages 1 and 2 describe two objectives across three components, however, on page 2 Section III. Contract Objectives each objective discusses environmentally friendly interventions.

a. Would USAID please clarify whether climate resilience and environmental footprint reduction should be part of only Objective 2, or of both Objectives?

Response 38: Climate resilience and environmental footprint reduction should be part of both Objectives.

Q. 39 Section L - Page 124, Section L.8.3, Part 3 – Proposed Costs provides instructions for the proposed budget.

a. Would USAID please confirm that offerors may include additional columns to the template provided (Attachment J.3 Sample Budget CPFF) to cover the entire period of performance of the contract past Year 2?

Response 39.a: Offerors may include additional columns to the template provided (Attachment J.3 Sample Budget CPFF).

b. Would USAID prefer costs for the option period to be presented as separate column(s)?

Response 39.b: Yes.

c. Would USAID confirm that offerors may add additional lines within the template categories, as needed?

Response 39.c: Offerors may include additional columns but should not add additional rows to the budget summary. Offerors may provide additional information, including additional rows and columns in the budget detail. (The templates for the Budget summary and detail are included in Attachment J.3 Sample Budget CPFF).

Q. 40 Section L – Page 119, Sub-section C. Results Table lists five contract results to be achieved by an implementer:

https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/SFLLL_1_2_P-V12b.pdf

a. Would USAID please consider changing the wording of Result #3 to "Value of investments in the agriculture sector leveraged by USG assistance" to allow for the inclusion of a wider range of funding sources?

Response 40: This language is unchanged.

Q. 41 Section L – Page 124 and Attachment J.3 Sample Budget CPFF: The offerors have been requested to provide an overall summary budget. However, the solicitation does not include a template or example for the budget summary.

a. Would USAID please find the following presentation acceptable for effectively showcasing the summary budget for both CLINs?

Response 41: USAID has included a revised budget template in Attachment J.3 Sample Budget CPFF.

Q. 42 In Section B.4 Budget, page 6, the RFP provides two itemized budget tables for the base contract and the option period. The table for the option period lists Grants under

Contract (line item 0002b) at $0.00. Would USAID please confirm that there will be no

Grants under Contract dispersed during the option period? Additionally, would USAID prefer that the Option Period be included in the budget as an additional column after Year

5 of the base contract period, with its own line items separate from the base period’s?

Response 42: Grants under Contract should be budgeted in the base period.

Q. 43 In Section B.6 Payment of Fixed Fee, page 7, the RFP states that “payment of the fixed fee will be divided between fixed payments for activity deliverables found in Section F.6

(25%) and fixed payments based on the completed performance indicators/targets set forth in Section F.10 (75%) found in the Fixed Fee Schedule below.”

a. The fixed fee schedule that is included in Section L.8.2 Part 2 does not align with Section B.6, as it does not include any of the Section F.6 activity deliverables or any of the assessment areas included in Section F.10. Would

USAID please consider (1) permitting offerors to submit their own proposed fixed fee schedules or (2) revising the provided fixed fee schedule in Section

L.8.2 Part 2 to include Section F.6 deliverables and the Section F.10 performance indicators/targets?

b. Given that the results targets currently listed in the fixed fee schedule included in Section L.8.2 Part 2 will be heavily influenced by factors outside of the scope of the program and would therefore present significant risk to offerors, would USAID consider revising the RFP so that the fixed fee is divided between Section F.6 deliverables at 50% and other performance indicators/targets at 50%?

Response 43a: This language has been reviewed and revised for clarity and consistency.

Offerors should propose a fixed fee payment schedule divided among activity deliverables up to 50% of their total proposed fixed fee. The remaining 50% of total proposed fixed fee may be divided for fixed payments tied to completion of performance indicators/targets as proposed by Offerors and in accordance with their Technical Proposals. The solicitation has been revised.

Response 43b: Percentages for these allocations have been revised.

Q. 44 Section F., (p) Quarterly Financial Reports and Accruals, page 27, states that the financial report will show, for the contract and each subcontract, current contract budget, accumulative cost expenditures through the end of the previous USG fiscal quarter, actual and accrued expenditures for current quarter, the budget estimate for the upcoming quarters through end of the fiscal year, and remaining funds under the contract. Could USAID please confirm this report requires summary-level information only for the prime contract and any subcontracts?

Response 44: The implementer will complete SF-425 for financial reporting, found here:

SF-425

Q. 45 Section H.1 Authorized Geographic Code, page 41, designates 937 and 110 as authorized geographic codes. We respectfully request that the Authorized Geographic Code be changed to 935 to facilitate the unburdened engagement of the best resources available to the benefit of program implementation and to facilitate and maximize EU trade

(import/export) potential.

Response 45: No. Exceptions may be considered on a case by case basis with justification.

Q. 46 Section H.4 Considerations for Grants Under Contract, page 41, states “the majority of grants are expected to be issued to local entities in Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.”

However, Attachment J.1 Statement of Objectives, Section B Grants Under Contract states that GUCs “should all be directed towards local entities, unless there is an exceptional reason to engage with an international entity.” Could USAID please clarify expectations for grant recipients’ national origin?

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/SF-425%20%28Federal%20Financial%20Report%29%20%28Replaces%20SF-269%29.pdf

Response 46: Grant recipients must be legally registered in Georgia. Reference to

Azerbaijan and Armenia is removed.

Q. 47 Section I.11 Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation, (d) Annual Salary

Increases, page 78, sets a 3% limitation on annual salary increases. We respectfully request that USAID remove this limitation, given that Georgia and other countries in the region face volatile inflation rates and that such a requirement may conflict with offerors’ established personnel compensation policies. Would USAID allow offerors to adhere to their established policies and procedures regarding determination of annual and promotional increases?

Response 47: Annual Salary increases must be proposed in accordance with the Offeror's established policies, procedures, and practices with supporting documentation. The

Solicitation language has been revised accordingly.

Q. 48 Attachment J.1 Statement of Objectives, Section C: Results and Indicators sets a target of $50 million in new private sector investment in the agriculture sector leveraged by USG assistance. Given the limited presence of medium and large-sized private sector local investors in Georgia as well as the high level of risk for investors (particularly in the agriculture sector) due to complex political dynamics, the ongoing Ukraine conflict and the proximity and influence of Russia, would USAID consider allowing investment from non-private actors including IFIs or the public sector to contribute to this target?

Response 48: USAID calculates the value of financing that a private sector entity (a company or legally registered entity) leverages, whether the financing is from a public (governmental) or private source, such as a financial institution.

Q. 49 Section L.6 Instructions for Preparation of Contractor Performance Information, page 114, defines major subcontractors as those “whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost.” Given that $12.5 million (over 40% of the budget) is reserved for the Grants Under Contract fund, would USAID consider revising the definition of major subcontractors to be those “whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the total proposed cost (excluding the GUC fund)”?

Response 49: Major subcontractors are defined as those that represent 20% or more of total proposed costs, excluding the Grants Under Contract fund.

Q. 50 Section L.6 Instructions for Preparation of Contractor Performance Information, page 114, states that “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”. We respectfully request that the “major subcontractor” condition for determining which implementing partners’ qualifications are relevant to the implementation approach be deleted and left to the offeror to decide – or that the definition for “major subcontractor” be based on a more qualitative factor such as level of effort and importance of technical role and contributions, rather than a subcontractor’s share of the overall costs.

Response 50: Major subcontractors are defined as those that represent 20% or more of total proposed costs, excluding the Grants Under Contract fund.

Q. 51 Section L.7, Instructions for Preparation of Technical Proposal, page 116, states that “The Technical Proposal, including Technical Approach and Management and Staffing Plan, is limited to 15 pages total” and “any pages beyond these fifteen will NOT be given to the evaluators and will not be evaluated.” The subsequent paragraph states that the technical proposal must include a technical implementation component, which is required not to exceed 37 pages, but includes three sections with individual page limits totaling 26 pages. It also lists a separate “Operational Components” section, inclusive of the management and staffing approach, with an overall page limit of 10 pages. Could USAID please offer clarification on what the required components of the technical proposal are and their required page limits?

Response 51: The page limit of the Technical Proposal is 37 pages, as follows:

● Cover Page (One page limit)

● Table of Contents (Does not count against page limit)

● List of Acronyms (Does not count against page limit)

● Technical Implementation Component

○ Statement of Work (SOW) (15 page limit)

○ Technical Approach Supplement (10 page limit)

○ Results Tables (1 page limit)

● Operational Components (10 page limit) to include all of the following:

○ Management and Staffing Plan

○ Table of Management Positions

○ Organizational Chart

Blank divider pages will not count against the page limit.

Q. 52 Section L.7, Instructions for Preparation of Technical Proposal, Subsection 2.B, page 119, and subsequent guidance calls for a Technical Approach Supplement. Could USAID please clarify whether this supplement is considered part of the PWS which will ultimately be inserted as Section C of any awarded contract, or if it is a separate item, as this impacts the structure and content of the supplement?

Response 52: The Technical Approach Supplement describes how the offeror will achieve their proposed SOW. Only the SOW will be incorporated into Section C of the contract.

Q. 53 Section L.7, Instruction for Preparation of Technical Proposal, Subsection A, page 118 lists details on what offerors must address in the SOW, including seven General Program

Parameters offerors should consider and respond to. Similarly, Attachment J.1 SOO, Section

IV, pages 4-8, covers Activity Parameters, with a list of nine Parameters that overlap in some areas with the General Program Parameters and in others are contradictory to those in the instructions. Could USAID please clarify the differences and provide further guidance with regards what the RFP is requiring offerors to respond to – including whether

Management Approach/Staffing Requirements are to be addressed in both the General

Program Parameters section of the SOW per Section L.7, and the separate Operational

Components section which includes a five-page Management and Staffing Approach?

Response 53: The technical component must address Factors 1 (Technical Approach) and 2

(Adaptability and Sustainability), while the operational components must address Factor 3

(Management and Staffing). The solicitation has been revised accordingly.

The seven General Program Parameters in the solicitation have been revised to match the nine parameters included in the SOO.

Q. 54 Section L.8.3 Part 3 – Proposed Costs, page 124, states that “offerors are expected to utilize the budget template provided as Attachment J.3 with respect to the summary and detailed budgets.” Would USAID consider allowing the offeror to use their own template for the summary and detailed budgets? If not, would USAID consider providing a revised budget template that includes the entire period of performance (5 years plus the option period) and excludes cost share?

Response 54: The budget templates have been revised. Offerors must include all major cost categories reflected in the summary budget.

Q. 55 Section L.8.8, Part 8, page 131 – Subcontractor Information states “(d) The information requested above in Parts (3), (4), (5) and (6) for each subcontractor.” The solicitation does not currently include a Part (4) – could USAID please clarify these requirements?

Response 55: Numbering is corrected. Part (4) refers to SAM and UEI Requirements.

Q. 56 Section L.8.3, page 129 states that “it is not expected that fee will be applied to other than direct costs for sub-awards.” Fee determinations are unique to each organization’s established pricing approach, which includes assessments of risk as well as methodologies designed to be competitive and reasonable, resulting in fee determinations less than the

10% limitation imposed under FAR 14.404(c)(4)(i)(C). Please kindly confirm that this expectation is intended as a suggestion rather than instruction on how to determine fee, and/or provide additional rationale for suggesting the exclusion of these costs from the fee base.

Response 56: This language has been revised.

Q. 57 Section M.2 Technical Evaluation Factors, page 135, includes “Factor 2: Adaptability and Sustainability” and “Factor 3: Management and Staffing Approach” as separate criteria.

However, Section L.7, page 120, states that the Operations Component (including the

Management and Staffing Approach) “is divided into several sub-parts that collectively must address Factor 2”, while the Technical Approach Supplement is intended to provide additional information to address Factors 1 and 3 (page 119). Could USAID please clarify whether Factor 2 is intended to evaluate the Operations Component and the Management and Staffing Approach alone?

Response 57: The technical component must address Factors 1 (Technical Approach) and 2

(Adaptability and Sustainability), while the operational components must address Factor 3

(Management and Staffing). The solicitation has been revised accordingly.

Q. 58 Question regarding Program’s target “$50 million in new private sector investment in the agriculture sector leveraged by USG assistance, of which at least 20% supports adoption of climate innovation.” Could you please advise if private sector investments in agri-enabling sectors, such as distributors of agricultural equipment, agricultural inputs suppliers (seeds, fertilizer, crop protection, etc.), and agricultural technology companies

(AgriTech), would count towards achieving this target or does this target apply only to agri producing & processing companies?

Response 58: Investments in distributors of agricultural equipment, agricultural inputs suppliers (seeds, fertilizer, crop protection, etc.), and agricultural technology companies count as investments in the agriculture sector. Investments in post-harvest handling, processing and export infrastructure and equipment count as investments.

Q. 59 The cover page states that proposals must be submitted electronically. Can USAID please confirm that electronic signatures will be accepted in all cases where the RFP refers to an “original signature,” such as the SF 33 in the cost/business volume and in Section

L.8.1, page 122?

Response 59: Electronic signatures are acceptable. The solicitation is revised accordingly.

Q. 60. Section B.4, page 6; Section H.4, page 41; and Section L.8.3, page 127 state “offerors should use a plug figure of $12,500,000 over the course of performance to account for

GUCs;” however, page 5 of Attachment 1 - SOO states the GUC pool is “no more than

$12,500,000.”

Can USAID confirm the guidance in the SOO is correct and offerors may budget up to

$12,500,000 for GUCs in line with their proposed approach?

Response 60: $12.5 million is a plug figure for Grants under Contract.

Q. 61 Sections F.6, page 23-24; Section L.7, page 119; and L.8.2, page 122 -124 refer to

“Results,” which are worded slightly differently than the “Targets” listed in J.1. - Statement of Objectives (SOO) Section III.C:

RFP Language SOO Language…