1. Answer to Questions RFP 72011724R00003, Amendment 1 November 10 signed.pdf

Amendment Issuance Date: November 10, 2023

Subject: Amendment 01 to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 72012124R00003

Reference: Harvest Activity, USAID/Ukraine

Dear Offerors, The purpose of Amendment 01 is to is to answer the questions received in response to the solicitation, and as a result revise the RFP. All changes made to the revised RFP are highlighted in yellow for ease of reference. All other terms of the RFP remain unchanged.

Sincerely, Craig Riegler, Supervisory Contracting Officer

USAID/Ukraine

RFP 72011724R00003, Amendment 1

USAID UKRAINE HARVEST ACTIVITY

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

November 10, 2023

1. Section C.6 of the RFP, on pages 11–12, mentions a Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) Analysis that USAID/Ukraine commissioned and notes that “Bidders will integrate the findings and recommendations of the GESI Analysis Report into its gender action plan to target gender mainstreaming during the activity implementation.” Would USAID please share the report or other outputs of this analysis?

Answer: Thank you for the question. The USAID/Ukraine Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) Analysis has been included as Attachment J.6 in the revised RFP.

2. In Section H.5.4 of the RFP, on page 33, USAID notes that “an Initial Environmental

Examination (IEE) number DCN: 2024-UKR-0XX has been approved for the Activity funding this contract.” Would USAID please share the initial IEE as an attachment to the RFP?

Answer: Thank you. The RFP has been updated to rectify Section H.5.4 for clarity, indicating that the IEE is currently awaiting approval.

3. Section H.5.8 on page 34 indicates that “Prior to initiating any activity that has a Negative threshold determination, the IP shall prepare an environmental review document in the Environmental Review Checklist/Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (ERC/EMMP) format provided by the BEO/MEO. After discussing with the BEO and with approval from the MEO, the IP may prepare a single/blanket environmental review document that covers multiple sub-activities that are similar in nature and potential impact on the environment. The COR/AOR and MEO shall approve the environmental review document prior to implementation or procurement action.” Would USAID please clarify the timeline for EMMP development and anticipated turnaround time for approvals, given the short implementation window prior to the spring growing season?

Answer: USAID does its best to swiftly review ERC/EMMPs submitted for approval.

The turnaround time depends on the quality of submitted documentation and the amount of revisions needed to finalize and approve the ERC/EMMP.

4. Further, Section H.5.4 on page 33 indicates that “Activity implementation cannot begin without an approved PERSUAP.” Would USAID please confirm that a Mission-level PERSUAP is in place and will cover Harvest Activity efforts to facilitate rapid startup of activities in the critical spring growing season?

Answer: The current USAID/Ukraine Mission level PERSUAP expires in December 2023. A new PERSUAP that will cover activities under Harvest is drafted and is awaiting approval. If PERSUAP somehow will not cover the planned activities, an amendment will be prepared.

5. Regarding Section H.6 on page 34, would USAID please consider providing a blanket authorization for a six-day work week for STTA while in Ukraine (with no premium pay)?

Answer: No.

6. Regarding the technical proposal instructions in Section L.7 (page 69), please confirm that offerors may use a font smaller than 12 point for tables, text boxes, and graphics in their technical proposals.

Answer: Yes, so long as the text is legible. RFP section L.7 was revised to confirm this.

7. In Section L.7 on page 69, USAID lists a cover letter as a required element of offerors’ technical proposals but then presents the requirements for a cover page. Please confirm that only a cover page is required.

Answer: Thank you for the question. These two items are synonymous. The RFP language has been updated for consistency in Section L.7 to use “cover page” as a required element for offerors' technical proposals.

8. In Section L.8, Part 3(ii), on page 72, USAID lists the local compensation plan (LCP) threshold for cooperating country nationals. Would USAID please share an LCP or salary ranges for 2024?

Answer: As identified in Section L.8, Part 3(ii), the current LCP threshold for CCNs salaries is $86,541/year. Offerors are expected to conduct their own market research and use their established policies to propose justified CCN salaries.

9. In Section L.8, Part 5, Past Performance (page 75), USAID refers to the “Attachment 3 ‘Past Performance Information Sheet.’However, the template the RFP provides for the presentation of past performance information is Attachment J.2, Past Performance Matrix. Please clarify the format to be used for the presentation of past performance information.

Answer: Thank you. The RFP has been revised to correct the reference numbering in L.8, Part 5, Past Performance to “Attachment J.2”, Past Performance Matrix.

10. Given that the data provided in the RFP regarding the number of farmers that produce the target crops and farmland between 10 and 2,000 hectares in size (Attachment J.1, Section 2, footnote 4 [page 82]) differs from the official statistics published by the Government of Ukraine, would USAID please elaborate on the data source used for its own estimate?

Answer: USAID used data of the State Statistics Service of Ukraine for 2021. After the RFP was released, the State Statistics Service has published updated information on agricultural producers reporting for 2022. Please see the revised Statement of Objectives.

11. Attachment J.1, Section 2 of the RFP (page 82) states that the Contractor must “reach at least 14,000 legally registered producers of target commodities...” However, in Section 4, Operating Constraints, of the same attachment, the RFP does not include a requirement that the target participants should be “registered.” Section 4 reads “Target participants: The Contractor must focus support on small and medium producers (10 to 2,000 ha) that grow the target commodities but should also engage larger producers...” Can USAID please clarify whether the “at least

14,000” farmers must be registered in the new electronic agrarian register? Could USAID also clarify that the contractor may also reach non-registered farmers and whether these will count toward the 14,000-farmer minimum target?

Answer: Thank you. All the target participants must be legally registered in Ukraine.

They could be registered in the State Agrarian Register and/or the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs and Public Associations. The Contractor may not reach non-registered farmers and count those toward the target participant group.

12. Column L in Attachment J.2, Past Performance Matrix, asks if a CPARS report is available for the project listed. Please confirm that offerors should include information for projects that both do and do not have CPARs available in Attachment J.2.

Answer: Thank you. As stated in L.8, Part 5, Past Performance, please use the Attachment J.2 for projects not in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

13. USAID provides a budget template in Attachment J.3. Would USAID please confirm that offerors may use their own standard budget template, provided the major cost items are in the same order as for USAID’s budget template?

Answer: Thank you. Yes, the offerors may use their own standard budget template, provided the major cost items are in the same order as for USAID’s budget template.

14. Will USAID please remove the Cover Page, Table of Contents, and Acronym List from the 35-page limit for the Technical Proposal to ensure adequate space is given to the technical approach?

Answer: No.

15. Will USAID please confirm that a major subcontractor is defined per the language in section L.7

(pg. 69): “major subcontractor as subcontractor expected to perform at least 20% or a prominent part of the technical effort”; and please remove the contradictory guidance in section L.8 Part 3(3)

(pg. 72) that states a major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor individually reflecting 15% of the total prime budget?

Answer: Thank you. The RFP has been revised to correct the percentage number to determine a major subcontractor in Section L.8 Part 3(3) (pg. 72) which is now correctly stated as "20%".

16. Section L.8, Part 5 instructs offerors to not submit past performance information for contracts in the CPARS and to only complete the “Past Performance Information Sheet” for contracts not in the CPARS. However, Attachment J.2, is titled “Past Performance Matrix” and includes columns that require indicating if the contract is in the CPARS or not. Given the format of the attachment provided by USAID, could USAID please confirm that offerors may include contracts that are in the CPARS if they are the best representation of the offerors’ performance involving similar work as achieving the objectives in the SOO? Alternatively, can USAID please replace the Matrix template with the Past Performance Information Sheet template?

Answer: Thank you. As stated in L.8, Part 5, Past Performance, please use the Attachment J.2 for contracts/projects not in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Consequently, please state “No” under the column L. In addition, the RFP language was revised to correct the reference and instruct offerors to use the “ Past Performance Matrix” provided in attachment J.2 and not “Past Performance Information Sheet”.

17. Will USAID please confirm that the HARVEST Activity should not include any type of support to demining efforts in order to meet the required minimum results?

Answer: Thank you. We confirm that the Harvest Activity should not include any type of support to demining efforts.

18. On page 82, under “Quick Start”, the RFP notes that, “Given that the Activity will start up as the 2024 planting campaign is underway, the 2023-24 marketing year is in full swing, and farmers have faced two years of mounting challenges, the Contractor must implement a rapid startup and ramp up.” Can USAID please confirm the anticipated start date of the Activity and whether bidders are expected to fund the procurement and distribution of inputs to farmers for the spring 2024 planting season that begins at the end of March? Our estimate is that providing inputs for the planting season will require a 6-8 week lead time.

Answer: Thank you. The anticipated/desired start date of the Activity is March 2024.

The Contractor is not expected to fund the procurement and distribution of inputs to farmers for the spring 2024 planting season that begins at the end of March.

19. Will USAID please share the AGRO FY22-23 annual report with offerors?

Answer: Thank you for the question. The USAID/Ukraine AGRO FY22-23 annual report will be available for access in the near future. Kindly follow up on sam.gov for updates.

20. The USAID AGRO program reports (included in the RFP attachments) note that the USAID AGRO program has completed many Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) documents. There are currently no IEEs for the AGRO program on the USAID website. Will USAID please share any approved or draft IEEs for AGRO and/or for the HARVEST Activity?

Answer: Thank you for the question. The USAID/Ukraine AGRO IEE will be available for access in the near future. Kindly follow up on sam.gov for updates.

21. Does USAID have an approved Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safer Use Action Plan (PERSUAP) for Ukraine activities, and if so, could USAID please share it with the offerors?

Answer: Thank you for the question. The current mission level USAID/Ukraine PERSUAP expires in December 2023. A new PERSUAP is drafted and is awaiting approval.

22. Should offerors use March 15, 2024 as the project start date for budgeting purposes?

Answer: Thank you for the question. Offerors may use April 1, 2024 as the project start date for budgeting purposes.

23. The cover letter states that the submission deadline is January 10, 2024. However, SF-33 states that proposals are due on January 8, 2024. Can USAID clarify the due date?

Answer: Thank you. The RFP has been revised to correct the submission deadline date in SF-33 which is now correctly stated as "January 10, 2024".

24. Section B.6, page 10, states that “Fixed Fee for measurable results not achieved by year 3 do not, without the approval of the Contracting Officer, roll over into years 4 and 5.” Measurable result targets set as part of the proposal process will likely change during implementation due to Ukraine’s highly dynamic operating context. The activity envisions returning production and income for target commodities to pre-war levels, which assumes several factors that are outside of the contractor’s control — including but not limited to the liberation of currently occupied territories; sufficient workforce resources in areas greatly impacted by external and internal population migration; and the stabilization of agricultural markets, both regionally and worldwide. To account for this high level of uncertainty, would USAID consider revising the above cited language as follows: “Fixed fee for measurable results not achieved by Year 3 do not, without the approval of the contracting officer, roll over into Years 4 and 5. Any unpaid fee resulting from the contractor not achieving a certain result beyond its manageable control can be reallocated among other or new deliverables in the work plan for the current or upcoming year.

The Fee Payment Schedule may be adjusted during annual work planning to reprogram any unpaid fees from partially completed or non-accepted deliverables from the past year into other or additional deliverables as mutually agreed to between the contracting officer’s representative and the contractor, ensuring the fee remains fixed”? Allowing this flexibility with the fee schedule will enable the contractor to reallocate effort and resources as needed to achieve the greatest attainable results within the total estimated cost.

Answer: No. The purpose of Section B.6, page 10, is to establish contract clarity and contractor accountability. Fixed fee is awarded based on successful activity completion as initially defined in the Statement of Objectives Section J.1.3 Required Minimum Results. An Offeror should carefully consider the contract requirements in submitting their Performance Work Statement and appreciate how it will be associated with the Fixed Fee.

25. Section F.6.1, page 19, requires that the grants under contract (GUC) management plan be submitted 45 days after award. Given that the activities identified in the work plan and our overall implementation approach will feed into the development of the GUC management plan, would USAID consider requiring the GUC management plan to be due 90 days after award?

Answer: Thank you. The RFP has been revised to update the deadline for GUC plan submission under Section F.6.1 to “60 days”, which coincides with the submission of the Work Plan.

26. Section L.8, page 71, states that “Offerors may propose up to 20% of fixed fee linked to deliverables under Section F.6 with the remainder to be linked to the Offeror’s proposed minimum quantifiable results from the PWS and subsequently included in F.7.” While we acknowledge the need to create an incentive for the contractor by tying some fee to results, the project will be operating in a context that requires the contractor to take on a high degree of risk.

We believe that it is reasonable to have a larger portion of the fee tied to deliverables that will be reliably achieved despite shifts that may occur within Ukraine’s highly dynamic operating context. We respectfully ask USAID to either remove this limitation or consider allowing offerors to tie up to 50% of their proposed fixed fee to the deliverables under Section F.6.

Answer: USAID/Ukraine is focussed on achieving the realistic life of project targets, therefore a significant portion of the contractor’s fixed fee is tied to fully achieving the life of contract targets. After taking your question into consideration, we have increased the amount of fixed fee tied to the deliverables in section F.6 from 20% to 30%.

27. In Section L.8, page 72, USAID states “Labor cost for CCNs must not exceed the thresholds in the US Embassy’s local employee compensation plan (LCP) at $86.541/year, unless authorized by USAID.” We respectfully request that this restriction be removed from the RFP as it appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007, Personnel Compensation, incorporated in the contract under Section H.1 (page 30), which stipulates that personnel compensation be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, with reimbursement subject only to the USAID contractor salary threshold. The salary restriction above may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices, as required by AIDAR 752.7007.

Answer: Our market research indicates that a significant majority of the anticipated Harvest activity positions will be within the current LCP. As per AIDAR 722.170(c), stipulated in Section H.1- Compensation, including merit or promotion increases paid to TCN's and CCN's may not, without the approval of the Mission Director having program responsibility for the project, exceed the prevailing compensation paid to personnel performing comparable work in the cooperating country as determined by the USAID Mission. Requests for waivers will only be considered on a case by case basis and must be accompanied with sufficient justification.

28. Past Performance instructions in Section L.8, page 75, request performance information for contracts not in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System. Considering that USAID’s agriculture sector growth and development work, like Harvest’s Statement of Objectives, spans both contract and cooperative agreement mechanisms, would USAID consider allowing offerors to include all relevant past performance information, regardless of mechanism?

In addition, would USAID consider expanding the valid past performance period to five years from three?

Answer: Thank you. The RFP language was revised in Section L.8, Part 5, from “contracts” to “projects” to cover all relevant mechanisms. However, the valid past performance period remains at three years for consideration of relevancy.

29. In Section M.3, page 78, in the bullet about the performance work statement, USAID references “...the operating constraints and principles referenced in Section C.” Can USAID confirm that this reference should be to the “operating constraints and operating principles” in the Statement of

Objectives in Attachment J.1, rather than the “other cross-cutting issues” that appear in Section C.7?

Answer: Thank you. That is correct. The RFP language in M.3 references SOO sections C.4 Operating Constraints and C.5 Operating Principles. The RFP was revised to provide clarity.

30. On page 82, the final bullet under “Operating Constraints” references H.19. Can USAID confirm that this should instead be in reference to H.18 (Security)?

Answer: Thank you. The RFP has been updated to rectify the reference to Security requirements in Attachment J.1.4 (SOO) to “H.18 Security Clause” .