Amendment_1_to_RFP_72026318R00002.pdf

RFP No. 72026318R00002

Amendment No. 01

I. REVISE RFP No. 72026318R00002

Based on the questions received for Egypt Value Added Solutions RFP, the FINAL RFP is posted with this amendment.

USAID edits/revisions are marked in green in the FINAL Revised RFP document.

II. ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS

The following questions were submitted to the USAID/Egypt Office of Procurement and received by January 12, 2018 at 3:00pm local time in Egypt. The names of specific organizations or individuals have been removed.

Q.1 Is there an incumbent contractor currently performing these services or is this a new requirement? If there is an incumbent, could you please provide the contract number?

USAID Response: This is a new contract requirement.

Q.2 Are UN agencies eligible to participate?

USAID Response: This solicitation will result in a contract subject to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). There is no restriction on your eligibility to participate, however we recommend that you consult with your General Counsel on the terms and conditions stated in the solicitation to determine if the organization is in a position to accept the terms of a federal contract.

Q.3 Considering the importance of coordinating with existing USAID projects in Egypt – notably FAS – would USAID please make available to all offerors the most recent FAS reporting for FY2017 and any additional FAS documentation, including value chain analysis reports, that are required to be submitted to the DEC?

USAID Response: Completed reports for existing USAID projects in Egypt including FAS are available on the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC).

Q.4 Will USAID provide copies of Quarterly or Annual reports for current and past USAID/Egypt funded projects such as the Women's Employment Promotion program and The Premium Program for Egyptian Small Growers activity?

USAID Response: Completed reports for existing USAID projects in Egypt including the Women’s Employment Promotion and the Premium project are available on the DEC.

Q.5 For budgeting purposes, is there a preferred currency exchange rate that USAID would like for offerors to use?

USAID Response: For the purpose of consistency in the budget, offerors may use an exchange rate of $1 = EGP 17.5.

Q.6 Pursuant to ADS 302.3.4.13, will USAID please confirm that they will be including the GUC authorizing language in the successful Offeror contract.

USAID Response: Confirmed.

Q.7 Will the successful offeror be expected to provide a grants manual for CO approval?

USAID Response:Yes, the successful offeror must submit grants manual for CO approval when Grants Under Contract are utilized. The RFP has been amended to include this requirement (see section F.6 and F.8 of the amended RFP).

Q.8 The authorized geographic code is stated as 937. Given the anticipated level of procurement of commodities and services under the Grants Under Contract (GUC) facility, would USAID consider changing the authorized geographic code to 935 to allow for greater flexibility in source and nationality requirements?

USAID Response: No, the geographic code 937 is the authorized USAID Principal Geographic Code for the procurement of commodities and services.

Q.9 B.4, page 2: The RFP requires a budget for social insurance for Egyptian staff. Would USAID provide guidance on what to budget for social insurance for Egyptian staff?

USAID Response: Offerors should budget for social insurance for Egyptian staff in accordance with the Egyptian Labor Law.

Q.10 B.5, page 3: The RFP states "the contractor will be paid the portion of the fixed fee that corresponds to the proportion of allowable direct costs incurred by the Contractor during the period covered by the invoice" yet the fixed fee line item in the budget template is after the total of both direct and indirect costs. Is the contractor allowed to be paid the portion of the fixed fee that corresponds to the proportion of allowable direct and indirect costs incurred during the period covered by the invoice?

USAID Response: As per section B.5 in the RFP, the Contractor will be paid the proportion of the fixed fee that corresponds to the proportion of allowable direct costs incurred by the Contractor during the period covered by the invoice.

Q.11 The table on page 2, Section B.4 Budget, includes a line for Social Insurance for Egyptian staff separate from CLIN 001 and 002. Would USAID confirm that the Social Insurance for Egyptian staff needs to be billed to its own line item, but for budgeting purposes should be rolled into CLIN 001 - Contract Total Cost, and thereby also calculated as a part of CLIN 002 - Fixed Fee? Or, should CLINs 001 and 002 not include the cost of Social Insurance for Egyptian staff at all?

USAID Response: CLINs 001 and 002 should not include the cost of Social Insurance for Egyptian staff at all.

Q.12 On page 3, Section B.5 Payment of Fixed Fee states, "If the Contracting Officer determines that this method results in paying a disproportionately higher ratio of fixed fee than the percentage of work that the Contractor has completed, then the Contracting Officer may suspend further payment of any fixed fee until the Contractor has made sufficient progress to justify further payment."

a. Would USAID consider a fee table that ties the fee to the achievement of deliverables and M&E targets to establish a transparent and clear basis for the payment of fee? This fee structure could include proportionate payments each year or quarter.

USAID Response: Not at this time.

b. On page 52, Section G.5 Invoices and Payment Office, notes that the "Contractor shall submit separate invoices for the quarterly fees." Would USAID please provide clarification on the meaning of "Quarterly Fees" in this contract?

USAID Response: This language has been removed from the award. Fee may be included in regular invoices for this contract.

Q.13 On page 4, Section B.7 (4) states, "the organization must agree in writing not to recoup the reduction in the rates on other contracts or grants with the U.S. Government – the reduction must be taken from profit, fee or other non-governmental sources of revenues." Would USAID confirm whether this written certification is required as a part of submission, or upon award?

USAID Response: This written certification is required as a part of proposal submission if the proposal includes an indirect cost rate ceiling that is less than the Offeror’s NICRA.

Q.14 Page 3, Section B.4, “Budget”, sub-section “Note on Social Insurance” states: “Per USAID/Egypt’s agreement with the Government of Egypt, this line in the budget is required to be billed separately in Egyptian Pounds and charged to a special funding line, FT-800”.

Question: The Offeror respectfully requests USAID Egypt to provide a consistent rate of social insurance for calculating the local currency line item in the bid.

USAID Response: See response to question #9.

Q.15 Page 3, Section B.7, “ADVANCE UNDERSTANDINGS ON CEILING INDIRECT COST RATES AND FINAL REIMBURSEMENT FOR INDIRECT COSTS” states: incorporate a requirement for the provision of an indirect cost rate ceiling.

Question: The Offeror respectfully requests that the requirement for a ceiling indirect rate be deleted in its entirety based on the following:

1. FAR 42.703-1 “Policy” specifically states the Negotiated Rate agreement “shall be binding on all agencies and their contracting offices”.

2. USAID’s “Best Practices Guide for Indirect Costing” policies do not support USAID requiring the Bidders to establish ceilings on Indirect Cost rates in an RFP.

3. Neither does the internal policy enable a procurement office to negotiate a different rate or base of application for an individual cost reimbursement contract or program.

USAID Response: FAR 42.707 (b) lists situations, when it would be prudent to establish a final indirect cost rate ceiling in a contract. Additionally, USAID’s “Best Practices Guide for Indirect Costing” does allow for advance understandings on ceiling indirect rates.

Q.16- Would USAID please delete the following from the last sentence in B.5? “such that costs incurred are proportionate to work completed”? We request this deletion because USAID’s decision to release any withheld fee payments should be tied to completion of the scope of work rather than to costs incurred. Per FAR 16.306(a), which describes CPFF contracts, “The fixed fee does not vary with actual cost, but may be adjusted as a result of changes in the work to be performed under the contract.” We also request that you replace “may” with “will” in the last phrase of the last sentence so that it reads “the Contracting Officer will approve payment of the amount of the fee that was suspended” since completion of the entire scope of work would warrant payment of the full fixed fee amount.

USAID Response: USAID has considered this question and determined that the language in B.5 stands.

Q.17 C.1, paragraph 2: Would USAID kindly specify on which achievements under previous USAID projects EVAS should build upon?

USAID Response: USAID’s support to Egyptian agriculture over the past 40 years has improved productivity, exports, and earnings for low-income Egyptians. The referenced section C.1, paragraph 2 in the question is an introductory paragraph which calls offerors to consider the broad landscape of support to the agriculture sector in Egypt when developing proposals.

Q.18 C.2, page 5: Can USAID clarify the first expected result, which reads “double the income of a minimum of 25,000 small farmers”? Does this refer to total annual income of the household, or income from the crop that is grown under contract with the market, as opposed to whatever crop the farmer would have otherwise grown?

USAID Response: The expected result refers to the total annual household income.

See Custom Indicator: Number of farmers whose annual household incomes have doubled as a result of USG assistance.

Q.19 C.2, page 5: Regarding the first expected result, since there is potential for growth in the value chain that may not necessarily be related to actual crop production but engendered through natural growth of agribusiness activities (e.g. custom farming, pesticide and fertilizer applications, distribution of inputs, lab services, transportation, processing, etc.) may the contractor include revenues from throughout the value chain? Can this include induced impact in the industry – not necessarily the 25000 farmers - if properly supported?

USAID Response: Please refer to Section L.6 A, page 121, of the RFP which describes the instructions for what offerors may propose in the technical approach.

Q.20 C.2, page 5: Regarding the second expected result, can the contractor include jobs that are not necessarily in the agribusiness sector, yet contribute to the development and sustainability of the local economies and communities?

USAID Response: See response to question #19.

Q.21 C.2, page 5: Regarding the second expected result, does “agribusinesses both on-and-off farm” include the entire value chain?

USAID Response: Please see footnote reference added in section C.2 for clarification.

Q.22 C.2, page 5: Regarding the third expected result, what metrics will USAID accept to support the result of “Improved agricultural water-use efficiency over 22,000 hectares”?

USAID Response: Water-use efficiency can be measured using the productivity approach using output of crop production to the input of water use in agricultural production. This can be measured as either physical output of the crop or the dollar value of output per unit volume of water.

Q.23 C.2, page 5: Regarding the fourth expected result, please define the metric used to evaluate $10 million in leverage. Will this be annual revenue? MT processed? Number of employees?

USAID Response: Leverage includes cash or in-kind contributions defined as the value of non-cash contributions provided by any third party. In-kind contributions may be in the form of space, equipment, supplies, expendable property, and the value of goods and services directly benefiting and specifically identifiable to the activity. In-kind contributions should represent new resources available to and necessary for the success and sustainability of a project. Salaries, annual revenue and MT processed are not considered newly available resources.

Q.24 C.2, page 5: USAID lists four high level results and targets that EVAS is expected the achieve. However, under E.3 (page 28), USAID lists the same four results but adds a fifth:

“Develop partnerships with Egyptian firms and agricultural organizations to build post-harvest centers and/or small to medium food processing facilities in Egypt’s food sector. Using a systemic approach, these investments will impact 250,000 beneficiaries through either new services or access to agricultural produce that meet food safety standards.” Can USAID confirm that this fifth result should be included as one of the expected results?

USAID Response: There are four expected results as indicated in C.2, page 5. The fifth result has been removed from section E.3 in the amended RFP.

Q.25 C.2, page 5: Under expected results USAID states: “Indicator targets associated with each intermediate result will be established in the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning plan and updated annually.” And under E.3, page 26 USAID states: “The MEL will include sections… [including] Definition and detailed description of the performance indicators to be tracked including; unit of measure; data source; method of data collection; justification/management utility; baseline values; annual targets….” Can USAID confirm that we do not have to include baselines and indicator targets in the Illustrative Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan included in the submission, except for the targets given, but only the full MEL plan submitted 90 days after project award?

USAID Response: Baseline and indicator targets are not required before award.

Q.26 C.2, page 5: Regarding the first intermediate result, does “linkages to Egyptian agro-processing” include linkages to inputs as well as outputs?

USAID Response: Agroprocessing is generally referred to as the manufacturing or processing of raw materials and intermediate products derived from the agricultural sector. Value-added agriculture changes a raw agricultural product into something new through packaging, processing, cooling, drying, extracting or any other type of process that differentiates the product from the original raw commodity. Please refer to Section C.1, page 5, of the RFP.

Q.27 C.4, page 6, paragraph 3: Could USAID provide the study citation for the “recent studies suggest that every 1 percent increase in agricultural income per capita reduces the number of people living in extreme poverty by between 0.6 and 1.8 percent”?

USAID Response: Please refer to footnote #3, page 7, of Section C.4 in the amended

RFP.

Q.28 C.4, page 7, paragraph 3 and footnote 3: Cooperatives and producer organizations are mentioned as part of an agricultural production hub.

i.Could hubs be based on private large/mid sized firms in Upper Egypt/Nile Delta/Greater Cairo Area, being partially or totally owned of the business of after sales services like cold storing, produce sorting, packaging and distribution?

ii.Should producer organizations & EVAS necessarily be part of the hub, for instance, by a) developing marketing/quality units and managing it in alliances with the former private firms’ infrastructure; and/or b) setting up business service centers managed by EVAS and the producer organizations?

USAID Response:This depends on the offeror’s technical approach.

Q.29 C.5, page 9, paragraph 1: EVAS focuses on increasing incomes of small farmers and create jobs by generating more sales of a wider range and quality enhanced horticultural products (fresh and processed) to local and international markets. Given that there is a high level of after harvest losses in the Egyptian horticulture (which requires a focus on a primary goal to get this produce to the market), will EVAS only monitor and focus exclusively on premium quality horticultural products to achieve the expected results on income and jobs listed in C.2?

USAID Response: Please refer to Section C.1, page 5, of the RFP.

Q.30 C.5, page 11, Required Indicators for Result 1: Regarding the “Custom Indicator: Number of contracts between smallholder farmers and market channel”, could USAID clarify if this refers to contracts that involve small farmers, and not necessarily directly between small farmers and market channels?

USAID Response: This indicator measures the number of contracts between the small farmers either individually or through their Association and a buyer such as exporters, supermarket, etc.

Q.31 C.5, page 13, Development Challenge for Result 4: Could USAID kindly provide a citation for the statement “Over $814 million in GDP is lost annually to nutrient deficiencies”?

USAID Response: The RFP has been amended with the secondary source citation.

Q.32 C.5, page 14, Required Indicator for Result 4: Regarding Standard Indicator EG.3.3-10, how does USAID define “a diet of minimum diversity” in the Egyptian context?

USAID Response: Please refer to FTF Indicator Handbook Definition available online, sheet page 92: https://feedthefuture.gov/resource/feed-future-handbook-indicator-definitions

Q.33 C.5, page 14, Scope of this contract under Result 4: Could USAID kindly clarify which nutrition-sensitive agriculture pathway they wish the EVAS project to emphasize, including how this might impact the profile of the Food Safety and Nutrition Specialist Key Personnel position under F.9?

USAID Response: All three nutrition-sensitive agriculture pathways as per C.5 page 14: “Scope of this contract under Result 4: The contractor must implement evidence-based nutrition-sensitive interventions along the three main nutrition-sensitive agriculture pathways.” More information on understanding and applying primary pathways and principles can be found on the following webpage:

https://www.spring-nutrition.org/publications/briefs/understanding-and-applying-primary-pathways-and-principles The Food Safety and Nutrition Specialist must meet the minimum requirements outlined in Section F.9 Key Personnel of the solicitation.

Q.34 C.6, page 15, paragraph 2: The RFP states that, “Stakeholders eligible to receive the above [technical] assistance are limited to MSMEs, including farmer associations and cooperatives, food processors, logistics firms, agro-input dealers, traders, and exporters”. Can USAID kindly clarify its definition of MSMEs in the context of Egypt?

USAID Response: MSME’s are defined by CAPMAS as follows: enterprises with 1– 4 employees are micro enterprises, 5 – 49 employees are small, and 50 – 99 employees are medium. In the agriculture sector USAID consider all farmers with less than 10 acres to be small scale farmers.

Q.35 C.6, page 15, paragraph 2: The RFP states that stakeholders eligible to receive grants and/or TA are limited to MSMEs. May a waiver be considered if, for instance, the proposal includes a major supermarket chain (not an SME) to establish a new type of supply chain (not based on traders) in the local horticultural sector, which demands additional current investments in marketing, quality, traceability or labeling; and which also benefits supplying farmers and producer organizations?

USAID Response: While partnerships with large firms are encouraged, stakeholders eligible to receive grants are limited to MSMEs as defined in Q.34.

Q.36- Section C.11 1) of the RFP references a Sustainability Plan due at the midpoint of the project. However, Section F.6 (j) notes that a Sustainability Plan is due within 60 days after the start date of the contract, and this deadline is reflected in the Reporting and Deliverables Matrix in Section -F.8. Would USAID please confirm whether USAID is requiring two Sustainability Plans or only one? In either case, would USAID please confirm the due date(s) for the plan(s)?

Response: A draft Sustainability Plan submitted with the proposal in accordance with Section L of this solicitation must be updated and finalized at the midpoint of the contract. Section F.6(j) has been revised in the amended RFP.

Q.37 On Page 15, USAID indicates that individual grants to US organizations must not exceed $100,000 total value. Can USAID confirm that grants to Third Country Organizations are allowable under EVAS?

USAID Response: Yes, subject to Contracting Officer approval and in furtherance of the objectives of the contract. Please refer to the purpose C.6 page 15 of the RFP:

Stakeholders eligible to receive grants are limited to MSMEs, including farmer associations and cooperatives, food processors, logistics firms, agro-input dealers, traders, and exporters. If GUCs are utilized, USAID will use the services of the Contractor to manage the grant program and USAID must remain significantly involved in establishing the selection criteria and must approve such selection criteria as well as each grant recipient.

Q.38 Section C.3 Scope of Contract indicates that the Zone of Influence for EVAS will include Upper Egypt and the Nile Delta. However, in the description of Intermediate Result 4 (Improved Nutritional Status of Women and Children), the RFP states, “Result 4 focuses on strengthening the link between agriculture and nutrition activities, and ensures that activities have a distinct focus, aimed at improving the nutritional status in targeted communities and families in Upper Egypt.” Can USAID please confirm that the intent of activities under IR 4 is restricted to Upper Egypt?

USAID Response: C.3 page 6: The zone of influence for this activity will focus on small farmers in Upper Egypt and the Nile Delta, however, activities with other value chain actors such as domestic buyers, agro-processors, and exporters may extend to other regions in Egypt including the Greater Cairo Area.

Q.39 Section C.6 of the RFP states that assistance in improving cold-chain and processing infrastructure, as well as investments to improve management of natural resources are limited to “MSMEs. ” Please confirm that for EVAS, USAID is using the Central Bank of Egypt’s definition for MSME (i.e. Micro defined as less than 10 employees, and Small and Medium defined as between 10 and 200 employees) to define this term.

USAID Response: See response to question #34.

Q.40 Under Section C.8, Coordination with USAID and Donor Programs, page 17, USAID mentions the M&E and Impact Evaluation activity. Could USAID confirm that this project is the same as the Evaluating Impact and Building Capacity (EIBC) project, implemented by IFPRI? If so, could USAID make available the most recent program reports and work plans for this program to all EVAS bidders, as they are not on the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC)? Are the “new lands” included in the geographic areas of project assistance?

USAID Response: Yes, this refers to the project implemented by IFPRI. Completed Quarterly Reports are available on the DEC. EVAS zone of influence will focus on the established small farmers in Upper Egypt and the Nile Delta.

Q.41 Page 15 paragraph 1 states, “Stimulating this sector may be done through primarily technical assistance approach exclusively, or a hybrid approach that incorporates more material support to the beneficiaries through sub-awards.” May grants be used to provide technical assistance?

USAID Response: This depends on the offeror’s technical approach.

Q.42 The RFP indicates that there are two categories of stakeholders that can be assisted in adopting agricultural technology (page 15): (1) MSMEs, including farmer associations and cooperatives, food processors, logistics firms, agro-input dealers, traders, and exporters to refurbish and develop cold-chain, food processing, or other agro-processing related equipment;

and (2) MSMEs, including farmers, or farmer associations and cooperatives to adopt technology for the sustainable management and use of Egypt’s limited natural resources such as water and land in agricultural production. a. Can the first category include logistics, transport, and other areas? b. Can the second category also include other agribusinesses as long as there is an impact on improved management of Egypt’s natural resources?

USAID Response: Yes, listed MSMEs above are illustrative examples only and specific MSMEs will depend on the offeror’s technical approach to achieving the results.

Q.43 On page 5, C.2 Expected Results states that the Offeror must "Improve agricultural water-use efficiency over 22,000 hectares." Would USAID if there is there a specific indicator under which USAID/Egypt would like to have these activities?

USAID Response: EG. 3.1.2 Hectares under new or improved/rehabilitated irrigation or drainage services as a result of USG assistance (RAA) (WOG), is illustrative. Please refer to the FTF Indicator Handbook at:

https://feedthefuture.gov/resource/feed-future-handbook-indicator-definitions

Q.44 On page 5, Section C.2 states the expected result as "Leverage $10 million dollars through partnerships with Egyptian firms and agricultural organizations to install irrigation systems, build post-harvest centers, and/or establish small- to medium-food processing facilities in Egypt's food sector."

a. Would USAID please provide parameters for the term "leverage" in this contract?

USAID Response: Please see response to question #23.

b. Does the $10 million include in-kind contributions?

USAID Response: Yes.

c. On page 28, E.3.C Indicators Bullet 5 states, "Leverage a minimum of $10 million in private sector contributions to project partnerships noted above through either Grants Under Contract or provision of goods and services." Would USAID/Egypt please confirm that these two phrasings refer to the same result? Furthermore, would USAID/Egypt confirm that in the case of discrepancy between the two phrasings, the phrasing on page 5 (Section C.2), shall prevail?

USAID Response: Please see the amended RFP. The indicator on page 28, E.3C has been revised to match the indicator on page 5, section C.2.

Q.45 On page 5, Section C.2 Expected Results includes Intermediate Result 3 as “Increased small farmer productivity and quality.” On page 29, Section E.2 Intermediate Result 3 states, “Increased productivity for small farmers and food processors.” One indicator refers to small farmers only and includes a dimension of quality in addition to productivity, while the other refers to productivity but includes food processors in addition to small farmers. Would USAID please confirm which of these two phrasings is correct?

USAID Response: Please see the amended RFP. Page 5, Section C.2 Intermediate Result 3 has been changed to read “Increased productivity for small farmers and food processors.”

Q.46 On page 21, Section C.11(3) Environmental Considerations states, "At the midpoint of the contract, the Contractor must provide a sustainability plan outlining the prospects for sustainability of work performed and what steps must be taken to ensure sustainability of the agriculture systems strengthened or developed. The sustainability plan must meet the requirements set out in Section F." Would USAID please advise if there is a PERSUAP which covers this award?

USAID Response: USAID-funded or managed activities that provide assistance for the procurement or use of pesticides must comply with the Agency's pesticide procedures, 22 CFR 216.3(b). No PERSUAP has been completed for EVAS.

Q.47 Section C.5 Scope of Work (pages 11-14) lists required indicators for each Intermediate Result, including many Standard Indicators that have been updated per the finalized list of GFSS indicators that will go into effect in FY19. Would USAID consider replacing these indicators with the more recent versions? For example, the new guidance has changed Standard Indicator EG.3.2-19, Value of smallholder incremental sales generated with USG assistance, to Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USG assistance.

USAID Response: FTF Indicators are still in effect for reporting, and the full guidance on transitioning to the revised Feed the Future indicators is forthcoming, including expectations for ongoing activities.

Q.48 Section C.5 Scope of Work (page 13) includes as a required indicator for Intermediate Result 3 Standard Indicator EG.3.6, 7, and 8, Farmer's gross margin per hectare, per animal, per cage obtained with USG assistance. The finalized list of GFSS indicators shared with implementing partners on October 20, 2017 notes that USAID “dropped the gross margin indicator due to how difficult it was for partners to collect.” Would USAID/Egypt please consider removing this indicator?

USAID Response: Please see response to question #47.

Q.49 Section C.6 (page 15) and Section L.6 (page 127): Can USAID confirm that this section refers only to subawards contemplated under C6 and not to subawards that may be made to subcontractors in the overall implementation of the contract? Please also clarify the definition of subaward and other instruments that might be used accordingly.

USAID Response: The overall technical approach as described in L.6 includes both subawards contemplated under C.6 as well as the consortium of partners that may include subcontractors in the overall implementation of the contract. Subaward means an award provided by a pass-through entity to a subrecipient for the subrecipient to carry out part of a Federal award received by the pass-through entity. It does not include payments to a contractor or payments to an individual that is a beneficiary of a Federal program. A subaward may be provided through any form of legal agreement, including an agreement that the pass-through entity considers a contract.

Q.50 Under “C.3 Scope of Contract” of the RFP, USAID stated that the “zone of influence for this activity will focus on small farmers in Upper Egypt and the Nile Delta, however, activities with other value chain actors such as domestic buyers, agro-processors, and exporters may extend to other regions in Egypt including the Greater Cairo Area.” There was no explicit mention of small farmers in the Greater Cairo Area, however, page 7 of the RFP mentions that “EVAS will … support increased incomes of farmers in the Nile Delta and Greater Cairo Area as well.” Could USAID please confirm that EVAS is expected to work with small farmers in the Greater Cairo Area?

USAID Response: No, EVAS is not expected to work with small farmers in the Greater Cairo Area. The amended RFP clarifies the language referenced.

Q.51 On page 5 of the RFP, USAID states that one of the expected results is to “improve agricultural water-use efficiency over 22,000 hectares.” Improvements in efficacy are not mentioned. However, page 28 of the RFP states that USAID expects achieving “Improved agricultural water-use efficacy and efficiency over 22,000 hectares.” Page 28 also makes a reference to indicator EG.3.1.-2 (which refers to both water-use efficacy and efficiency), but this indicator has not been listed as a required indicator under IR3 on either page 29 or page 12.

Could USAID please clarify if USAID expects improvements in water-use efficacy as well as efficiency, and if indicator number E.G.3.1-2 is a required indicator?

USAID Response: USAID expects improvements in both efficacy and efficiency of water use. Indicator E.G 3.1-2 is illustrative.

Q.52 E.3.C, page 28: The RFP lists five results that the EVAS project is expected to achieve. The fourth result: “Develop partnerships with Egyptian firms and agricultural organizations to build post-harvest centers and/or small- to medium- food processing facilities in Egypt’s food sector.

Using a systemic approach, these investments will impact 250,000 beneficiaries through either new services or access to agricultural produce that meet food safety standards” does not have an associated indicator. Can USAID please clarify the indicator that should be measured?

USAID Response: Please refer to Section C.1 page 5; EVAS has 4 Expected Results.

The result referenced in question #53 has been deleted from Section E in the revised RFP with this amendment.

Q.53 E.3.C, page 28: The RFP lists the result: “Develop partnerships with Egyptian firms and agricultural organizations to build post-harvest centers and/or small- to medium- food processing facilities in Egypt’s food sector. Using a systemic approach, these investments will impact 250,000 beneficiaries through either new services or access to agricultural produce that meet food safety standards”.

i. Can USAID please clarify what types of beneficiaries these are envisioned to be?

“Access of new services” seems to be farmers that can utilize these post-harvest centers and sell their goods to small/medium processing facilities, while “access to agricultural produce that meet food safety standards” could include consumers, processors, traders, and domestic buyers (restaurants, hotels, etc.).

ii.Can USAID clarify whether the 250,000 beneficiaries are expected include both direct and indirect beneficiaries on this project?

USAID Response: Please see response to question #52.

Q.54 On page 28, Section E.3.C Indicators, bullet 4 states, "...these investments will impact 250,000 beneficiaries through either new services or access to agricultural produce that meet food safety standards," but does not present a corresponding indicator for this result. Would USAID/Egypt please confirm that this results indicator is no longer expected?

USAID Response: Please see response to question #52.

Q.55 On page 29, Section E.3.D Evaluation Plan states, "A mid-term evaluation will be conducted through a USAID/Egypt mission-wide monitoring and evaluation mechanism.

Additionally, a final evaluation will be conducted at the end of the program to assess the achievement of project purpose and sub-purposes." Would USAID please confirm that USAID/Egypt will coordinate and fund the mid-term evaluation, and that the offeror does not need to budget for this expense? Similarly, would USAID please advise as to whether or not the offeror should budget for the completion of a final evaluation, or if that will be coordinated and financed by the USAID/Egypt Mission?

USAID Response: See Section E.3.D. The independent mid-term evaluation and final evaluation will be procured separately from this contract, the offeror should not budget for these evaluations.

Q.56 On page 30, Section E.3.D Evaluation Plan states, "the Contractor in consultation with the COR and after obtaining approval must ensure appropriate baseline data availability or gathering, periodic monitoring, adequate performance reporting, and other activities to facilitate the implementation of evaluations." Would USAID please confirm if baseline information from other ongoing projects will be made available to inform development of the baseline for EVAS?

USAID Response: Confirmed.

Q.57 Page 28 of the RFP states that one of the expected results is to “Develop partnerships with Egyptian firms and agricultural organizations to build post-harvest centers and/or small- to medium-food processing facilities in Egypt’s food sector. Using a systemic approach, these investments will impact 250,000 beneficiaries through either new services or access to agricultural produce that meet food safety standards.” However, this expected result is excluded from the list of expected results on page 5. Could USAID please clarify if this is an expected result of EVAS?

USAID Response: Please see response to question #53.

Q.58 F.6(k), page 37: Can USAID clarify if the Gender Analysis listed on p. 37 is separate from the “gender action plan” listed on pages 20, 32, and 77?

USAID Response: Section F.6(k) has been revised in the amended RFP to correctly reference the Gender Action Plan.

Q.59 F.9, page 45 F.9: Under the statement of qualifications for the Food Safety and Nutrition Specialist Key Personnel, would USAID consider revising the minimum requirements to state “At least seven years of progressively responsible experience in nutrition OR food safety”?

USAID Response: USAID will not revise the minimum requirements.

Q.60 Section F.6(v) Other Documents describes specific startup activities to be undertaken by the Contractor. This includes baseline studies, review value chain selection, and review and revise institutional strengthening options. However, due dates for these are not specified in the Reporting and Deliverables Matrix that follows in Section F.8. Please indicate by what day after contract signature USAID would like these studies and assessments to be completed.

USAID Response: Please see Section F.6(v) of the amended RFP. It has been revised to include, “Startup will entail the following initiation activities within the first 90 days.”

Q.61 On Page 40, USAID specifically mentions targeted horticulture crops including green beans, grapes, onions, herbs and spices, and citrus as potential targeted value chain crops. Can USAID please confirm that these are included for illustrative purposes only?

USAID Response: Confirmed. The crops listed are for illustrative purposes only.

Q.62 Under Section F.9, Key Personnel, page 42-43, three of the five key personnel, COP, DCOP, and Agronomist, require “a minimum of five years of experience in a supervisory role with projects of similar size and complexity.” (We note that there have been few agriculture projects of similar size and complexity in Egypt in recent years.) Under the same section of the RFP, USAID advises that “the main requirement is that key personnel, taken as a whole, and considering the overall management structure, have the skills to effectively implement the activity.” Would USAID please confirm that only one of the five key personnel must meet the requirement of a minimum of five years of experience in a supervisory role with projects of similar size and complexity, provided the “main requirement” is met by the full key personnel team?

USAID Response: Please see the amended RFP, which has revised language under Section F.9, Key Personnel.

Q.63 Per Section F.6 (o), the deadline for the final report is 90 days after project end. Would USAID consider making the final report due within the period of performance of the award?

USAID Response: Please see the amended RFP, which has changed the final report deadline to 30 days prior to the end of the contract.

Q.64 On page 31, Section F.5 Authorized Workday/Week states, "Overtime or premium pay is not authorized for any personnel hired to support this contract unless the Contractor receives prior written approval from the CO. The contractor is authorized up to a 5-day workweek for long-term staff in the field with no premium pay, and 6 day workweek for short-term advisors in the field with no premium pay." Would USAID please consider authorizing overtime for personnel below a certain FSN-level, for example staff which will be categorized as drivers or other low-wage employees, who are often eligible for overtime payments?

USAID Response: Overtime or premium pay is not authorized for any personnel hired to support this contract unless the Contractor receives prior written approval from the CO in accordance with section F.5.

Q.65 On page 36, regarding the Annual Training Plan, would USAID please clarify whether the first training plan is due 45 days after the 1 year anniversary date of the contract, or will a training plan be required before that date? Furthermore, would the training plan need to be submitted to the COR or CO?

USAID Response: Please see section F.6(i) and F.8 of the amended RFP, which has revised the due dates for the Annual Training Plan. All required deliverables must be submitted to the COR as per section F.6 of the RFP.

Q.66 On page 43, Section F.9 states that the Chief of Party must have "Minimum of seven years of progressively responsible experience managing complex private sector agricultural development programs in a developing country." Given that the other four key positions require agricultural or technical key experience, would USAID consider revising the COP requirement to include candidates with a minimum of seven years of progressively responsible experience managing relevant, international economic development programs of similar size and complexity?

USAID Response: No, USAID has considered the criteria and determined that these are the appropriate minimum requirements.

Q.67 On pages 44-45, Section F.9 states that the Food Safety and Nutrition Specialist must have "at least seven years of progressively responsible experience in nutrition and food safety." Since these two specialties typically require different experience and qualifications, would USAID consider revising the requirement to allow the Offeror to present a candidate with the required years of experience in nutrition or food safety to be supplemented by other personnel?

Q.68 Section F.6 (h) (page 35): This section states that the Annual reports will be due within 45 days after the anniversary date of the contract, however, later the same section states that the quarterly reports will be due 30 days after the end of each quarter. Given our experience on other projects that have been conflicted when the award dates and subsequent due dates do not correspond to government fiscal year quarters and fiscal year-end dates, would USAID consider changing this to read that the first Annual Report will be due at the end of the first year or partial year corresponding with the end of the fiscal year in which the contract is signed and quarterly and annual reports following this year will follow the government’s fiscal calendar? Similarly, we would suggest considering modifying the timing of requirements for the quarterly financial reports and the Annual work plan after the first year.

USAID Response: Report deadlines have been considered and revised where appropriate in the amended RFP. Please see section F.6 and F.8

Q.69 Section F.6 (page 38): Could USAID please describe the differences between Annual Inventory Report and Annual Non Expendable Personal Property Report, or eliminate one of them if they are the same thing under different names?

USAID Response: The Inventory Report includes the necessary information that would be in the Annual Non Expendable Personal Property Report. The amended RFP has eliminated the separate report under F.6 and F.8.

Q.70 Page 31, Section F.2, “PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE” states: “from the date of award.”

Question: Please confirm that Offerors should assume a start date of October 2018.

USAID Response: USAID currently anticipates making an award in August 2018.

Q.71 Page 43, Section F.9, “Key Personnel”, sub-section “Chief of Party” states: “Minimum of five years of experience in a supervisory role with projects of similar size and complexity.”

Question: After reviewing the USAID Agricultural portfolio, in addition to other donors, there have been no projects of similar size to EVAS in the last 3 years, and only 1 project which exceeded $20 million in funding. As a result, the Offeror respectfully requests that USAID Egypt remove the minimum qualification of “5 years of experience in a supervisory role on projects of similar size” for the Chief of Party position, retaining the minimum qualification of “5 years of experience in a supervisory role with projects of similar complexity”.

Q.72 Page 43, Section F.9, “Key Personnel”, sub-section “Deputy Chief of Party” states:

“Minimum of five years of experience in a supervisory role with projects of similar size and complexity.” Question: After reviewing the USAID Agricultural portfolio, in addition to other donors, there have been no projects of this size in the last 3 years, and only 1 project exceeded $20M in funding. As a result, the Offeror respectfully requests that USAID Egypt remove the minimum qualification of “5 years of experience in a supervisory role on projects of similar size” for the Deputy Chief of Party position, retaining the minimum qualification of “5 years of experience in a supervisory role with projects of similar complexity”.

Q.73 Page 44, Section F.9, “Key Personnel”, sub-section “Agronomist” states: “Minimum of five years of experience in a supervisory role with projects of similar size and complexity.”

Question: After reviewing the USAID Agricultural portfolio, in addition to other donors, there have been no projects of this size in the last 3 years, and only 1 project exceeded $20M in funding. As a result, the Offeror respectfully requests that USAID Egypt remove the minimum qualification of “5 years of experience in a supervisory role on projects of similar size” for the Agronomist position, retaining the minimum qualification of “5 years of experience in a supervisory role with projects of similar complexity”.

Q.74 Page 44, Section F.9, “Key Personnel”, sub-section “Business, Market, & Finance Development Specialist” states: “Seven years of progressively responsible experience in the provision of financial services or provision of business development services is required.”

Question: To reflect the seniority and authority of the Deputy Chief of Party and the technical role of the Business, Market, & Finance Development Specialist, the Offeror respectfully requests USAID Egypt lower the minimum years of experience from 7 years to 5 years for the Business, Market, & Finance Development Specialist position.

Q.75 Page 44, Section F.9, “Key Personnel”, sub-section “Food Safety and Nutrition Specialist” states: “At least seven years of progressively responsible experience in nutrition and food safety” as a minimum requirement. Question: To reflect the seniority and authority of the Deputy Chief of Party and the technical role of the Food Safety and Nutrition Specialist, the Offeror respectfully requests USAID Egypt lower the minimum years of experience from 7 years to 5 years for the Food Safety and Nutrition Specialist position.

Q.76 Beginning on page 55, in Section H Special Contract Requirements, would USAID please consider incorporating approval or allowance for Grants Under Contract, as Grants Under Contract (GUC) are described throughout this Solicitation and any proposal of GUCs will require prior approval from the CO?

USAID Response: Language will be added to the contract in Section H if GUCs are authorized as part of the technical approach.

Q.77 On page 65, Section H.18 (a) Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation- Limitations states, "If, during Contract performance, the contractor proposes salary or wages for a new individual(s) that exceeds the individual’s current salary or wage or the highest rate of annual salary or wage received during any full year of the immediately preceding three (3) years, the Cognizant Contracting Officer’s approval is required." In order to offer competitive market rates, would USAID please consider amending this requirement to allow for a wage increase of, for example, between 5 to 10% above the most recent or highest wage in the last 3 years?

USAID Response: In accordance with H.18, wage increases must be adequately justified and be approved by the Contracting Officer.

Q.78 On page 66, Section H.18 (d) Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation- Annual Salary Increases states, "U.S Staff (including expats: Annual salary increases (e.g. cost of living, merit, promotion increase, or any other type) of not more than 3% of the current labor pool may be granted after the employee's completion of each twelve-month period of satisfactory services under the Contract." Would USAID please consider Contractor Policy as opposed to capping this at 3%?

USAID Response: No, as described in H.18, the annual increase for U.S. Staff is capped at 3%.

Q.79 Section H.18 (page 65) (a) (1) Limitations: P.65, H.18 (a) and Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation (d) Annual Salary Increases: In (a), USAID has acknowledged the need for companies to follow their own practices by stating “Direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract”. However, the statements in referenced clause (d) require actions that may be contrary to the contractor’s policies and procedures, such as not allowing increases to take place until the completion of a 12-month period of services under the contract. This statement creates an exceptional hardship for some companies, whose systems may not correspond with this approach. In addition, this section places restrictions on annual increases that include cost of living, merit, and promotion for U.S. and TCN and CCN staff which may not be in accordance with a company’s personnel policies. This would require a company to set up a customized system for just this project, and would potentially be discriminatory to this project’s employees, compared to projects that authorize and allow the company to apply its own policies and procedures (as indeed, is noted in (a)). In addition, by creating a specially targeted set of employees for just this project which may disfavor them, compared to the company’s employees on similar USAID-funded projects around the world, it is opening the company up to lawsuits for discriminatory practices. If a company’s personnel policies are approved by the appropriate government audit organization (in our case DCAA), their personnel policies should be allowed to stand. Also, one of the key auditable issues is whether a company is applying its policies and procedures consistently. If we are not able to demonstrate this, we are subject to failing our HR audits. We request USAID to remove H.18 (a)1 and (d) from the RFP.

USAID Response: This is standard language used in USAID contracts.

Q. 80 Section H.18 (pages 66-67) “No overtime or premium pay is authorized under this contract. A six-day workweek is authorized for short-term consultants (i.e., less than one year).

Any other work week longer than five days is not allowed absent written approval from the Contracting Officer.” Would USAID please confirm that the five-day workweek…