72026719R00002_Amendment_0002_Attachment_A_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

ATTACHMENT A

1. Would USAID please provide a ceiling amount for the first Task Order?

RESPONSE: USAID anticipated a range of between $40M and $70M however this range is in no way binding. Offerors are free to propose the budget that best works for their proposal.

2. Section B.4, Maximum Contract Ceiling, indicates that the overall IDIQ ceiling is $125 million.

However, there is no funding ceiling or range indicated for Task Order 1. We have the following questions:

a. Would USAID please provide a funding ceiling or range for Task Order One?

RESPONSE: USAID anticipated a range of between $40M and $70M however this range is in no way binding. Offerors are free to propose the budget that best works for their proposal.

b. Would USAID please provide an approximate set-aside for GUCs for the IDIQ?

RESPONSE: There is no set aside for GUCs needed under Task Order One. All remaining ceiling after covering the 5 year Task Order One budget will be available for future task orders.

Those task orders will be primarily funds for a set of GUCS limited by that task order’s specific identification of geographic scope, communities, and/or technical areas for interventions. Those task orders may also have some additional personnel and associated costs to manage that suite of GUCs or subcontractors or personnel and associated costs if the task order is performing other activities other than or in addition to GUCs.

3. Could USAID please provide a budget range for Task Order One?

RESPONSE: USAID anticipates a range of between $40M and $70M however this range is in no way binding. Offerors are free to propose the budget that best works for their proposal.

4. Would USAID please clarify whether the GUCs will be financed through a Letter of Credit (LOC),and add relevant language within Section H as appropriate?

RESPONSE: Offerors may request the use of a LOC for any GUCs as part of their proposal.

USAID negotiations on contractor’s fee would take that request into account. Any final agreement on an LOC would be part of the final award.

5. Does USAID anticipate approving additional subcontractors based upon specific task orders?

RESPONSE: USAID anticipates the majority of future task orders will primarily be a suite of GUCs with the potential to add some additional personnel (for example additional grants specialists) and associated costs to manage that specific TO. Subcontractors that are to support a specific task order, for example a task order that is performing activities directly versus issuing GUCs, would certainly be possible and allowable under this award. Any subcontractors that are meant to support the overall 5 year Management Team (for example: a security subcontractor, a subcontract to perform a specific Task Order One deliverable, or a subcontractor to provide specific Task Order One personnel to support the overall IDIQ PWS) would more appropriately be included in Task Order One’s budget.

6. Would USAID please adjust the definition of major subcontractor to include those subcontractors who will contribute significantly to a technical component given that budget allocations are complicated by security costs and GUC pools?

RESPONSE: In regard to GUC pools please see the response to Question 2.b. For past performance purposes only major subcontractors can be limited to those whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost and contribute to a technical component.

7. Should the small business subcontracting plan be developed at the IDIQ level or for Task Order 1?

RESPONSE: In accordance with FAR 19.705-1 and 19.705-2, the IDIQ will only have one subcontracting plan. The goals in the initial plan will be for Task Order One. Future individual task orders will have separate goals.

8. As part of the solicitation, USAID provided Attachment J.5 – “Model Subcontracting Plan Outline.”

Neither Section L.7 nor Section L.8 indicate if and where a Subcontracting Plan should be included. Would USAID please clarify if a Subcontracting Plan is required? If yes, where should it be included?

RESPONSE: The Subcontracting Plan must be included as part of the cost proposal.

9. Page 29, Section H.17 Environmental Compliance: Can USAID please provide the Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) referenced as “IEE (ME 19-14) approved by the BEO on 02/14/2019”?

RESPONSE: The initial IEE referenced in H.17 is unnecessary for the development of a technical proposal. Please refer to the text of H.17.

10. Page 68, Section L.7.c.1 “Performance Work Statement of IDIQ” says that this section is not to exceed 10 pages. However, the five required subsections have not-to-exceed limits that total 15 pages. Would USAID please confirm that the page limit for the Performance Work Statement of the IDIQ and the total proposal excluding Annexes?

RESPONSE: The page limits indicated in L.7 are correct.

11. Page 71, Section L.7.c.5.1: Will USAID please increase the page limit for key personnel CVs to 3 pages each given the requirement that “The work experience must be presented chronologically and will contain sufficient details to enable the technical review team to evaluate the qualifications and appropriateness of technical background and academic credentials.”

RESPONSE: The key personnel CV page limit is increased to 3 pages. Changes to the RFP will be incorporated in Amendment 0002.

12. Section L.7 Instructions for the Preparation of the Proposal, page 71, states: “A resume for each key personnel (not to exceed 2 pages each).” To permit offerors to sufficiently demonstrate the candidates’ experience, will USAID allow 3 pages for each CV?

RESPONSE: The key personnel CV/resume page limit is increased to 3 pages.

13. Page 71, Section L.7.c.5.ii says, “Submit the name of the Contracting/Agreement Officer Representative (COR/AOR) for USAID-funded activities or the equivalent Project Manager for other donor-funded activities for each proposed candidate, with complete contact information including telephone and e-mail addresses, as a reference of their work experience. Offerors must ensure that references are prepared to respond promptly to email or telephone inquiries.”

Regarding Key Personnel references:

a. Would USAID please state how many references are required for key personnel?

RESPONSE: After review, USAID has decided to delete the requirement to provide references.

L.7.c.5.ii is deleted in Amendment 0002. Offeror will only provide the CV/resume as described in L.7.c.5.i which must not include any references. Changes to the RFP will be incorporated in Amendment 0002.

b. Would USAID please confirm that references do not count toward the two-page limit on resumes?

RESPONSE: See response immediately above.

c. Please confirm that in cases where the candidate did not interact directly with the donor, other professional references are acceptable.

RESPONSE: See response above.

14. Page 71, Section 5, Annex 1: Could USAID clarify if the 2 page limit per resume is inclusive of the references, or can those be included on a separate page?

RESPONSE: See response to Question 13. References will no longer be included.

15. RFP p. 71, L.7.C.5 – Annex 1, Information on Key Personnel – Can USAID please confirm that the referenced directions (on p. 71) refer to the Key Personnel listed in RFP J.2 – the RFTOP for Task Order 1, pp. 11 – 12 of 17? In other words, Annex 1 of the proposal is to include the Resumes and other requested (contact) information for only the Task Order’s proposed Chief of Party, Senior Grants Manager and Knowledge/Outreach Manager? If that is the case, please confirm that the Prime Contractor’s IDIQ Manager is not to be identified (or named, as nobody else is to be named in the bid, other than the Prime’s authorized signatory/negotiator).

RESPONSE: Annex 1 must only contain the resumes for the three listed key personnel, the Chief of Party, Senior Grants Manages and Knowledge/Outreach Manager. These three individuals’ qualification will be the only ones evaluated. No other individuals can be named (except and authorized signatory or potentially an organization’s POC for the proposal).

16. Page 71, Section 5, Annex 1: Please confirm if the number of Key Personnel references to include is up to 3?

RESPONSE: See response to Question 13. References will no longer be included.

17. Section L.7 Instructions for the Preparation of the Proposal, page 71, states: “ Submit the name of the Contracting/Agreement Officer Representative (COR/AOR) for USAID-funded activities or the equivalent Project Manager for other donor-funded activities for each proposed candidate.” We have the following two questions:

a. Would USAID permit offerors to submit COR, Project Manager or supervisory referees dating back to a minimum of five years?

b. Can offerors include reference information in a separate annex in the technical proposal, excluded from the page count?

18. Section L.7 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, page 71, states: “List in an annex to the technical proposal, up to two (2) of the most recent and relevant contracts/agreements for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal for the offeror and up to (2) three for each major subcontractor…” We have the following two questions:

a. Can USAID please confirm that offerors may include up to (3) three past performance references for each major subcontractor?

RESPONSE: Three was a typo and is corrected with Amendment 00002. The correct number is 2.

b. If there are two major subcontractors, may offerors include 3 past performance references for each (i.e. a total of 6 references for major subcontractor)?

RESPONSE: Three was a typo and is corrected with Amendment 00002. The correct number is 2 per major subcontractor. See also the response to Question 6 in regards to major subcontractor for past performance information.

19. Page 71, Section 6, Annex 2: Would USAID please confirm that the number of PPIs to submit for anticipated major subcontractors is 2.

RESPONSE: Three was a typo and is corrected with Amendment 00002. The correct number is 2.

20. Page 71, Section L.7.c.6.i.a says “List in an annex to the technical proposal up to two (2) of the most recent and relevant contracts/agreements (active or ended no more than 3 years ago) for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal for the offeror and up to (2) three for each major subcontractor using the template provided in Attachment J.4.” Would USAID please confirm that this annex should include past performance information for two contracts/agreements for each major subcontractor?

RESPONSE: Three was a typo and is corrected with Amendment 00002. The correct number is 2.

21. RFP p. 72 L.7.C.6 – Annex 2, Contractor Performance Information – Are bidders (primes and major subcontractors) limited to using only Contracts as example projects or may they also use other types of Awards, such as Cooperative Agreements?

RESPONSE: Bidders are limited to only using contracts. Please also see the response to Question 23.

22. Page 71, Section L.7.6.i.b: Please confirm if offerors can submit PPIs for activities implemented under grants or cooperative agreements, or those not be subject to evaluation?

RESPONSE: Offerors are limited to only using contracts. Please also see the response to Question 23.

23. Page 81, Section M.2.e: Could USAID please clarify how they will evaluate offeror’s PPI against item (4) (i through vi) if offeror has implemented similar activity but under grants or cooperative agreements, or other similar non-federally funded activities. In these instances for instance, a Neutral evaluation score may not be fair to the offeror, or put them at a disadvantage compared to other offerors

RESPONSE: Please see Section M.2.e.5. Contractor PPI is established through FAR procedures that have formalized review processes that set out the specific areas to be evaluated, specific standards for scoring, and allows for Contractors to respond to any adverse past performance during the review process. No such system exists for assistance mechanisms.

Evaluating an offeror’s performance using references for assistance awards and absent a formalized system would lead to significant issues. Neutral ratings neither advantage nor disadvantage an offeror. Neutral ratings are USAID’s method for ensuring entities without relevant contractual past performance are not disadvantaged.

24. Page 76, Section L8.d - Would policies and procedures still need to be submitted if the Offeror has prior Federal contracting experience? Alternatively, if policies and procedures need to be submitted irrespective of federal contracting experience, can USAID confirm that the offeror would only need to submit its personnel policies and procedures to satisfy this requirement?

RESPONSE: Personnel policies and procedures are sufficient.

25. Page 78, Section L.9 calls for a Branding Implementation and Marking Plan (BIMP) to be submitted with the proposal. Should the BIMP be included with the technical proposal, the cost proposal, or as a separate document?

RESPONSE: Please submit the BIMP with the cost proposal as an annex.

26. Section L.9 Instructions for the Preparation of Branding and Marking Plans, page 76, states: “In accordance with Section D of this solicitation, the offeror must submit a Branding Implementation and Marking Plan with their initial proposal.” Can USAID confirm that the Branding and Implementation and Marking Plan should be submitted in the cost proposal as an annex?

RESPONSE: Yes. Please submit the BIMP with the cost proposal as an annex.

27. RFP p. 78 L.9, as well as RFP pp. 10-11, both on the Branding Implementation and Marking

Plans – We understand that this must be prepared and submitted as part of the proposal. Does it go in the Technical or Business (Cost) proposal? It differs by RFPs, although most often it goes in the latter.

RESPONSE: Please submit the BIMP with the cost proposal as an annex.

28. We respectfully request USAID to extend the submission due date of proposals for up to 60 days from the RFP release date to allow adequate time for offerors to submit compliant proposals

RESPONSE: The response deadline will remain at May 10, 2019 to allow for sufficient time for internal reviews and permit a final award to be completed prior to the end of the fiscal year.

29. In Amendment 001, issued on April 16, 2019 states the response date is May 10, 2019. However, because questions are due on April 24, 2019, (12 business days before submission) and it will take a few days before offerors get responses that may significantly impact the technical and cost proposals, we respectfully request a one week extension so that the proposal response date is May 17, 2019.

RESPONSE: The response deadline will remain at May 10, 2019 to allow for sufficient time for internal reviews and permit a final award to be completed prior to the end of the fiscal year.

30. <ORGANIZATION NAME> is very interested in applying for this opportunity. There is just one eligibility-related item I would like to clarify in the RFP regarding procurement under Section L, L.8, B, 8, v, titled "Procurement" which reads as follows: "Goods and services provided by the offerors under this USAID-financed award will be subject to the Geographic Code 937."

I am just wondering if the above language refers to any potential suppliers <ORGANIZATION NAME> may contract with for procurement purposes or if it refers to <ORGANIZATION NAME> itself? If the latter, is <OFFEROR NAME>- as a Denmark-registered organization - eligible to bid for this opportunity?

RESPONSE: The geographic code restrictions apply to the offeror. Please see ADS 310;

especially ADS 310.3.1 and ADS 310.3.1.1.

31. Will USAID allow offerors to include a one-page executive summary that is not included in the page count?

RESPONSE: No executive summary is required or permitted under this RFP.

32. Will USAID kindly allow offerors to include a staffing chart and organizational chart in a separate annex that is not included in the page count?

RESPONSE: Yes. Offerors may provide a 1 page maximum staffing chart and a 1 page maximum organizational chart as Annex 3 listed under L.7.b and will be evaluated in accordance with M.2.b. Annex 3 must not include any names or qualifications of individuals. The formatting and sizing requirements found in L.7.a apply.

33. Section L.6 Proposal Submission, page 66, states: “The offeror must submit the proposal via e-mail with up to 4.5 MB limit per email compatible with Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, etc.) and/or WordPerfect in a MS Windows Environment.” Can USAID confirm that offerors may submit the technical proposal in PDF format?

RESPONSE: The technical proposal may be submitted as a pdf.

34. RFP p, 66 – Software programs for the submission attachments – While the RFP is clear on case submissions being compatible with MSOffice (Word, Excel) and/or WordPerfect, and warns about using *.zip files, it does not specifically mention the option of files submitted in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) non-zipped format. In addition to accepting proposal documents in “soft” versions, such as Word and Excel (for the budget spreadsheets), will USAID allow bidders to submit the proposal in PDF, with the exceptions of the Business (Cost) Volume budget in Excel?

RESPONSE: The technical proposal may be submitted as a pdf. The Cost proposal may also be provided in pdf with the exception of the excel budgets indicated.

35. Page 66, Section L.6.b: Would USAID also accept proposal submissions (with the exception of Microsoft Excel Sheets) in .PDF formatted files? This can help to ensure proposal content and formatting remains consistent.

RESPONSE: The technical proposal may be submitted as a pdf. The Cost proposal may also be provided in pdf with the exception of the excel budgets indicated.

36. Section L.7 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, page 67, states: “The font used in tables and charts may be adjusted as appropriate but must be no smaller than 8pt.” Can USAID please confirm that offerors may also use 8pt font for graphics?

RESPONSE: 8pt font may be used for graphics as well.

37. RFP p. 67, L.7.a – Fonts – Will USAID allow the used of Arial Narrow font, in addition to the regular Arial, throughout the proposal?

RESPONSE: Only regular Arial is allowed.

38. RFP p. 67 – Applicability of formatting instructions to the two volumes? – Will USAID please confirm that the formatting instructions on page 67 (font, page numbering, paper size, margins, etc.) apply only to the Technical Proposal volume and not the Business (Cost) Proposal?

RESPONSE: The formatting instructions found in L.7.a on page 67 of the RFP apply only to the technical proposal. USAID does however encourage offerors to use a readable size font for the cost proposal.

39. Section L.7 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, page 67, states: “The Technical Proposal is limited to a maximum of twenty-six (26) pages.” However, the maximum pages allowed according to the breakdown is as follows:

PWS of IDIQ - Background Not to exceed 3 pages

PWS of IDIQ – Objective 1 Approach Not to exceed 4 pages

PWS of IDIQ – Objective 2 Approach Not to exceed 4 pages

PWS of IDIQ – Cross-cutting Issue: Inclusive Development

Not to exceed 2 pages

PWS of IDIQ – Cross-cutting Issue: Coordination with other Actors

Not to exceed 2 pages

Case Study Analysis Not to exceed 5 pages

PWS of Task Order No. 1 Not to exceed 6 pages

Proposed PMEL Plan Not to exceed 5 pages

Combined Total 31 pages maximum

Will USAID confirm that the overall technical proposal page limit is 31 pages?

RESPONSE: The overall limit is 26 pages. Offerors have the flexibility to determine where to best focus their 26 pages of content but cannot exceed any of the specific” not to exceed” amounts identified in L.7.

40. RFP p. 68, L.7.C.1 – Clarification on maximum number of pages within Section 1. Performance Work Statement (PWS) of IDIQ – The RFP provides guidance for the maximum number of pages within each of the five sub-sections of Section 1; these total to a maximum of 15 pp. However, earlier, in the bold heading on p. 68, we’re instructed that Section 1 cannot exceed 10 pages. So is it 10 or 15 pages maximum for Section 1? If the answer is “15,” then will the total number of pages in the Technical Proposal’s body be raised to 31 pages, to account for the five extra pages of Section 1?

RESPONSE: The overall limit is 26 pages. Offerors have the flexibility to determine where to best focus their 26 pages of content but cannot exceed any of the specific not to exceed amounts identified in L.7. The same is true for Section 1. That maximum total page limit is 10 pages but the offerors have some discretion on where to use those 10 pages without exceeding the identified subsection limits.

41. Page 67, Section L.7.a, The Technical Proposal page limit is listed as 26 pages, but Section L.7.4 (PMEL Plan) notes a maximum page count of 5 pages. Could USAID confirm if the Technical Approach under L.7.a is limited to 31 pages, including the not to- exceed 5 page limit for the PMEL plan?

RESPONSE: The overall limit is 26 pages. Offerors have the flexibility to determine where to best focus their 26 pages of content but cannot exceed any of the specific not to exceed amounts identified in L.7.

42. Page 68, Section L.7.c.1 notes that the PWS of the IDIQ is not to exceed 10 pages. The sections listed under i to v each have not-to-exceed page limits (i=3pages, ii=4pages, iii=4pages, iv=2pages and v=2 pages), which add up to 15 pages total. Can USAID confirm that the not-to-exceed page limit for the PWS of the IDIQ is 15 pages.

RESPONSE: That maximum total page limit for the PWS of the IDIQ is 10 pages but the offerors have some discretion on where to use those 10 pages without exceeding the identified subsection limits.

43. Attachment J.2. Task Order One, Section F.3.10.o, page 9, Annual Report states, offerors must include in the Annual report:

a. “provide two success stories per IGPA objectives with images that can be shared with media outlets, English and Arabic versions required;

b. Data for Reporting under Foreign Assistance Objectives;

c. Report on IGPA targets and deliverables”

Can USAID please confirm that the reference to “IGPA” should be removed?

RESPONSE: Correct. The IGPA references are deleted in Amendment 0002.

44. Attachment J.2. Task Order One, Section F.3.6 Performance Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan, page 6, states: “Pursuant to FAR 37.604, the offeror must submit a quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) as part of the Performance Work Statement…. The PMEL Plan will act as the offeror’s QASP as long as it fulfills the requirements found in FAR subpart 46.4.” However, Section L.7 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal makes no mention of a QASP requirement. Can USAID please confirm that offerors do not need to submit a separate QASP as part of the technical proposal.

RESPONSE: No separate document is required if in accordance with those instructions and information provided in Attachment J.2 Task Order One, Section F.3.6. USAID will use the indicators in the final PMEL Plan as performance measures for the contractor’s success. Future individual task order will supplement the PMEL Plan with specific outputs and/or targets for that task order that will help measure the PMEL Plan indicators. Additionally the annual work plan and individual issued GUCS will be used to plan USAID inspections of the contractor’s provision of services. Finally, the Contractor will also reviewed annually through the CPAR system.

45. Attachment J.2, Task Order One, Section F.5, Fixed Fee Payment Table, pages 12-13, sets the fixed fee payment percentages for all required deliverables. Would USAID confirm that Offerors may propose changes to the payment percentages in the payment schedule?

RESPONSE: The Offeror is welcome to propose payment percentage changes for the chart found at F.5 of J.2 Task Order One. However USAID is unlikely to agree to significant changes given the internal deliberations on the relative importance of each deliverable.

46. Section L.10, Instructions for the Submission of Required Vetting Information, page 78, requires Partner Information Forms to be submitted. Would USAID please specify whether the vetting information per L.10 should be included in the technical or cost volume?

RESPONSE: Please review L.10.a. The Vetting Form must be sent to the POC identified in H.24.d.

47. RFP p. 22, Sec H.1.c – Clarification on Period of Performance: 5 yrs or 2-yr Base + three 1-yr Optional Years? – Most of the RFP refers to a straight “5-year” period of performance. However,

p. 22 shows a table with a 2-year Base Period + three one-year Options. Which is it?

RESPONSE: F.2 of the RFP is the controlling section for the period of performance.

48. RFP p. 67, L.7.b – Transmittal Letter and/or Executive Summary – Will USAID allow bidders to include a Transmittal Letter with the Technical Proposal, before that volume’s Table of Contents, outside the 26-page count? Similarly, will USAID allow bidders to present a one- or two-page Executive Summary outside the 26-page count?

RESPONSE: Neither a Transmittal Letter with the technical proposal nor Executive Summary are required or allowed for this RFP.

49. J.2 -Task Order One describes the deliverables in section F. Among them there is no requirement of number of beneficiaries reached, number of grants, or any other measurable deliverable that related to the intervention. Does this mean that this task order requires only the production of the mentioned plans, strategies and assessment, and no implementation of activities in the two selected communities (activities related to the contribution/achievement of the two objectives)?

RESPONSE: Correct. Task Order One will provide the management team that will implement the overall IDIQ PWS as well as produce the deliverables in Section F of Task Order One. The two selected communities for the Case Study are for evaluation purposes only to demonstrate a hypothetical application of the Offeror’s approach and methodology found in the PWS for the

IDIQ.

50. (no RFP reference) - Will USAID allow bidders to include a Transmittal Letter with the Business (Cost) Proposal, before that volume’s Table of Contents?

RESPONSE: A transmittal letter for the Business/Cost proposal is acceptable if desired but will not be considered as part of the cost evaluation.

51. RFP p. 7, B.8 – Labor Categories for the IDIQ – Unburdened Ceiling Daily Rates table – The only labor category listed for the full IDIQ is “Grants Specialist.” So is this the only labor category anticipated by USAID, for the entire IDIQ? Also – the RFP states that this is just for senior-level and mentions that personnel at the junior level must be proposed at rates below the seniors.

However, there is no mention of potential mid-level staff. Shall bidders give ceilings for seniors, mids, and juniors…or just seniors and juniors?

RESPONSE: This is the only labor category that will be negotiated to have a CDR cap. USAID anticipate the majority of labor will be included in the five year management team for Task Order One. All labor and associated costs for the five year management team will be evaluated for cost reasonableness and cost realism. No mid level category is required. Please also see the responses to Question 52, Question 2.b and Question 5.

52. Page 7, Section B.8: Please clarify why ceiling daily labor rates (CDR) are requested under this type of IDIQ and whether offerors shall present a similar table for all proposed positions under the IDIQ as well as the RFTOP proposal? Page 16, Section F.5.4 specifies CPFF (term or completion) or any FF type. Please clarify whether labor hours/time and material task orders anticipated under the IDIQ?

RESPONSE: In this procurement USAID anticipates the grant specialist position to be the most utilized for supporting future task orders that will be primarily GUCs. No similar table is needed for other positions. Any other positions identified for future task orders will be negotiated at the RFTOP stage for that task order and must undergo the normal cost reasonableness and cost realism analyses.

Only those contract types identified in Section F.5.4 will be used.

53. Page 59, Section K.10: please confirm if FAR clause 52.222-52 is applicable to this Solicitation.

RESPONSE: Pursuant to FAR 22.1003-2, the Service Contract Labor Standards statute is not applicable to contracts performed outside the U.S. K.10 FAR 52.222-52 is deleted in Amendment 0002 as it is not required.

54. Page 65, Section L.5.d makes reference to concurrence to proposed delivery dates and fee schedule as specified in Section F of this RFP or to propose alternates. Section F of the RFP does not have this information. Does this refer to Section F of the RFTOP?

RESPONSE: Correct. This refers to Section F of Attachment J.2.

55. Page 69, Section L.7.2.i: Please confirm if the $5 million listed under the Case Study Analysis should be budgeted for as a program activity under Task Order One, including grants under contracts (GUCs) but excluding Other Direct Costs (ODCs), NICRA and Fee.

RESPONSE: The $5 million listed under the Case Study Analysis must not be budgeted under Task Order One. The Case Study Analysis is solely for the evaluation of proposals. See also the response to Question 66.

56. Page 73, Section L.8.b.1: Please confirm if the Task Order One budget will include all associated costs for the entire 5 years, such as all labor, travel, allowances, ODCs, NICRA and Fixed Fee.

Also, please confirm if future task orders will also include additional Labor (including benefits, fixed fee), GUC, ODCs, NICRA and Fixed Fee on Grants?

RESPONSE: Exactly correct. Cost that cut across all implementation would be included in the Task Order One budget including the majority of personnel with associated costs, security, odcs, etc. USAID anticipates that future task orders will be primarily funds for specific sets of GUCs.

However there is flexibility to also cover costs for other task order specific needs including, but not limited to, personnel working solely on that task order, subcontractors performing specific task order activities, task order specific travel (such as travel for monitoring of activities), and indirects and fee on the task order’s costs, etc. USAID designed this model to allow for a more streamlined base 5 year team that can expand as necessary to support specific future task order activities. For these reasons USAID also recommends careful consideration of any proposed lease arrangements.

57. Page 74, Section L.8.b.9.ii: Could USAID please elaborate on the requested Pay Scale for short-term consultants? Daily rates of off-shore or local STTAs are usually determined based on the organization established policies and procedures (AIDAR 752.7007), which may include USAID SF-1420 consultancy rate history.

RESPONSE: Section L.8.b.9 is deleted in Amendment 0002 as it is not required. Also note AIDAR 752.7007 is applicable to the contractor’s personnel. Please also review H.14 and AIDAR

752.7027 as relevant.

58. Page 74, Section L.8.b.9.i and (iii): Could USAID please explain the difference between (i), (iii) and the salary table rates caps requested under Section B.8?

RESPONSE: Section L.8.b.9 is deleted in Amendment 0002 as it is not required.

59. Page 76, Section L.8(d)-Part 4: Could USAID please clarify which policies and procedures are requested? For instance, are only personnel policies for Iraq requested?

Also, please explain the reason for requesting offeror’s wage scales if the offeror will comply with the Iraq Local Compensation Plan for CCNs/TCNs.

RESPONSE: Only personnel policies and procedures that would be applicable to this award and in existence at the time of the issuance date of the RFP are required at this time.

60. Page 76, Section L.8.b.9.iv, requests a statement that the offeror has completed ORCA, AND Page Page 76, Section L.8(c) Part 3 requests signed Section K which includes K.2(d). Please clarify if both requirements are the same, different, or if offeror should still submit both the statement and signed Section K.

Section L.8.b.9 is deleted in Amendment 0002 as it is not required.

61. Page 77, Section L.8(i)-Part 9: Please confirm if offerors can propose locally procured vehicles (contingent upon USAID S/N waiver approval) under the Non-Expendable property section.

RESPONSE: Procurement of motor vehicles is subject to the limitations in 22 CFR 228.19 and would require a waiver. USAID highly encourages offerors to budget for transportation services rather than the purchase of motor vehicles given numerous logistical hurdles for procuring vehicles for an Iraq contract. Vehicle purchases are rarely a more efficient and effective use of USAID funds than transportation services given the circumstances in Iraq.

62. Page 78, Section L.10: Please confirm if vetting procedures will be performed on all offerors or if this requirement can be limited to offerors identified within the competitive range per Section M.5.c, if established, or prior to award to apparent successful offeror.

RESPONSE: Offeror’s are required to submit a completed “Partner Information Form” (See Section J.6) by the initial proposal submission date. If a competitive range is established, any offeror included in the competitive range must submit Partner Information Forms for any new key individuals resulting from any changes between the initial proposal and any Final Proposal Revision.

63. Attachment J.2, Page 16, Section H.2 of the RFTOP indicates that Grants Under Contract (GUCs) are NOT authorized for this Task Order One. Please confirm if offeror shall not budget for any GUC amount under the Task Order One budget. Related:, Attachment J.2, Page 11, Section F.4.c.1, an identified Key Personnel for Task Order 1 is a Senior Grants Manager. If no grants are authorized for Task Order One, does USAID envision this position will support subsequent Task Orders with GUCs?

RESPONSE: Grants Under Contract are not authorized for Task Order One. The Senior Grant Manager position will support the PWS of the overall IDIQ, the production of the deliverables listed in Section F. of Task Order One, and support overall management which can include future task orders. See also the responses to Questions 2.b and 5.

64. Page 68, Section L.7.c.1 says the PWS must include the following elements:

● Methodology for identifying and proposing initial and future communities and related opportunities, assumptions, constraints and mitigation plan.

● Procedures to identify, prioritize, and implement activities and achieve results.

However, the required structure for the PWS (background, objective 1 approach, objective 2 approach, inclusive development, and coordination with other actors) does not indicate where these elements should be included. Will USAID please allow two additional sub-sections for the PWS and increase the page limit accordingly?

RESPONSE: USAID envisions the PWS Objective 1 and Objective 2 approaches to primarily focus on the methodology for identifying and proposing initial and future communities and related opportunities, assumptions, constraints and mitigation plan and procedures to identify, prioritize, and implement activities and achieve results. Elements of those may also fit within the background or two cross-cutting issues. USAID suggests these sections be written as broadly as feasible to allow for flexibility in the issuance of future task orders.

Individual task order will then be used to execute actual interventions which fall within the scope of the IDIQ PWS as the IDIQ PWS will explain both the method for identifying communities as well as procedures to implementing activities and achieving results for both Objectives.

65. Section L.7, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, page 71, states:

“Knowledge management Plan: must map out the learning and knowledge management that will need to be applied in order to deliver the expected results and how it will support the M&E System,” and “Proposed Iterative Learning Strategy to capture, document and use project successes, achievements, impact, lessons learned, and recommendations” Can USAID please clarify the difference between the knowledge management plan (L.7.4.ii) and the Iterative Learning Strategy (L.7.4.iii.a)?

RESPONSE: The Knowledge Management plan should be considered as defining ‘what type’ of information and data that would be collected to inform results. Its essentially a plan to collect information that inform output or outcome related indicators, proxy or otherwise. The Iterative Learning Strategy looks at ‘how’ the information is collected and more specifically ‘how’ information and date will be utilized in informing future project activities and ultimately how that will inform the achievement of results. It should be thought of in terms of the scope of performance management and then the utilization of the information and knowledge to improve achievement of results.

66. RFP p. 69, L.7.C.2 vs. L.7.C.3 – Case Study Analysis (Sec. 2): Target Communities to be identified at time of the proposal – In L.7.C.2, we are instructed to identify 2 diverse Target Communities for Task Order 1, yet RFP L.7.C.3 states, “After Award, the successful Offeror will identify target geographic areas for implementation…” So, should bidders assume that the two Communities identified in the Case Study Analysis (for TO1) are purely for bidding purposes?

Please clarify.

Related to this, SOO, p.2 “Considerations for location of implementation may include, for example, concerns surrounding protracted displacement and/or the marginalization of certain populations outside of northern Iraq, evolving tensions within other vulnerable or displaced communities, the opportunity to build upon private sector investment or other economic opportunities, donor saturation, duplication of existing activities, or other considerations.”

Does this mean that the preference is to address issues/conflict potential in areas of protracted displacement (northern Iraq – KR-I), rather than similar issues in return locations (with large number of returnees, such as Ninewa, Anbar, Salah al-Din, Kirkuk, Diyala)?

RESPONSE: Correct. The Case Study Analysis is being done solely for evaluation purposes so that offerors can demonstrate a practical application of their overall technical approach described in the PWS of the IDIQ. The case study analysis will not be incorporated into the final contract in any way. After contract award, activities and interventions for actual task orders, consisting primarily of GUCs but with the potential for other forms of interventions, would be identified using the overall IDIQ PWS approach in a similar manner to that demonstrated in the hypothetical Case Study Analysis. The Task Order One management team will be responsible for carrying out the IDIQ technical approach, managing the overall award, and producing the deliverables found in Section F. of Task Order One.

No, protracted displacement is just an example of many factors that may influence community consideration. The contractor will be expected to explain their methodology for the identification of communities.

67. RFP p. 70, PWS for Task Order 1, ii. Objective two: Contextual Analysis, says “specific deliverables listed in Section F; it is expected that these assessment will inform future task orders issued under this IDIQ. These deliverables will lead to an identification and proposal of target communities after award”. Only one country-wide level assessment is mentioned in J2. Task Order 1, p.5, F.3.4 – Political Economy assessment, the remaining deliverables in section F.3 are strategies and plans. Please clarify.

RESPONSE: This should say deliverables not assessment. Please see Amendment 0002 for changes to the language in the RFP. Future task orders will be issued based on the technical approach described in the overall IDIQ and the relevant deliverables in Section F. of Task Order One. Through these processes the implementer is expected to identify potential sets of interventions that will be completed through individual task orders. The Task Order One management team will be responsible for carrying out the IDIQ technical approach, managing the overall award, and producing the deliverables found in Section F. of Task Order One.

68. RFP p. 70, PWS for Task Order 1, Section 4. It is requested that the contractor develops: Results

Framework (RF) and LogFrame (LF): this will focus on overarching outcomes of key Durable Communities results and outputs, and a description of linkages between them. Does the Results framework need to be identical to the one in J.1 USAID IDIQ Statement of Objectives, page 3, or can the contract suggest their own?

If we need to follow the already suggested RF, does it still need to be included in the Tech Volume?

RESPONSE: Offeror’s will use the RF for the Strategic Objectives and Intermediate Results (IRs). Offerors may include their own sub-IRs if the offeror chooses.

69. Page 80, Section M.2.c.2: Could USAID please elaborate on “adequate Knowledge Management

Plan”?

RESPONSE: USAID will evaluate the adequacy of the offeror’s proposed Knowledge Management Plan. Please also refer to L.7.c.4.