RFP72026818R00001_Amendment_No_1_Questions_Answers.pdf

RFP #72026818R00001

Amendment 01

USAID/Lebanon Community Support Program

RFP #72026818R00001, QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Technical Proposal

General

1. The cover letter for the RFP lists the geographic code for this procurement as 937. For offerors to access niche regional expertise relevant to the program, would USAID consider making the applicable geographic code 935, so that contractors can access services from Jordan, Tunisia, and so on?

USAID response: The authorized geographic code for this procurement is 937. See 22 CFR 228 Subpart D for purposes of exceptions or waivers of the authorized geographic code.

Section B

2. RFP Section B.5 Fixed Fee Ceiling Pg. 5, “This fee ceiling is not applicable to Grants under Contracts (GUCs), if any, or other costs that have a separate fee ceiling established in the contract.”

Can USAID please clarify why fixed fee is not applicable to Grants under Contract? Can offerors propose management fee for the administration and management of GUCs?

USAID response: Section B.5 Fixed Fee Ceiling has been revised to add:

“(c) Separate Fixed Fee Ceiling Applicable To Grants Under Contracts (GUCs)

In no event may the amount of fixed fee (if any) applicable to GUCs in any individual task order exceed _____ percent (Offeror proposes ceiling percentage) of the task order GUC cost.”

Additionally, please see page 86. L.9. Part 2. Paragraph 7.Grants under Contract: which indicate that “Any fee or indirect rates charged against the GUC should be clearly delineated and explicitly shown in the submitted budget and explained in the budget narrative”.

3. On page 5, the RFP states: “The fee ceiling is not applicable to GUCs, if any, or other costs that have a separate fee ceiling established in the contract.” Please confirm that offerors may include a separate fee ceiling for GUCs and include this in Section B.

USAID response: The RFP is revised to include the following paragraph:

“(c) Separate Fixed Fee Ceiling Applicable To Grants Under Contracts (GUCs)

In no event may the amount of fixed fee (if any) applicable to GUCs in any individual task order exceed _____ percent (Offeror proposes ceiling percentage) of the task order GUC cost.”

Section C

4. Section C.3.3 of the RFP (TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR KEY ESSENTIAL SERVICES) for Component Three indicates that the component is to “provide needed technical and capacity building to relevant municipalities, local organizations, and individuals involved in the activities implemented under Component Two and Component One.” The RFP assigns implementation of Components One and Two under Task Order 2. However, Attachment J.2 (SOO for the Management Task Order No. 1), Page 1, indicates that the implementation of Component Three will be funded under subsequent TO(s) and that “one or more TO(s) will be issued when a sufficient number of partner municipalities and/or civil society organizations have been identified to make a capacity building program practicable and effective.”

Can USAID please confirm that Offeror can program and budget for Component Three technical assistance activities under TO 1 or TO2, and not defer these until future Task Orders are approved?

USAID response: Component Three will be funded and implemented under subsequent technical TO(s). In the Technical Approach, offeror(s) must provide their vision and methodology to implement Component 3 according to the Section L.8.3.1 c) and Section M.2.1 c).

Management resources shall be allocated under the Task Order No.1 during 5-year period to ensure the achievement of CSP IDIQ objectives per the offeror(s)’ Technical Approach and address the needs of the three CSP components per the offeror(s)’ Technical Approach.

5. RFP Section C.4.6 Communication and Outreach, Pg. 13, “The Contractor must develop an overall Communication and Outreach plan, to be incorporated into individual Task Orders. … Offerors Communication and Outreach approach must be reflected in their Technical approach, Management Approach, and Staffing Plan.”

Can USAID please confirm that the Communications and Outreach Plan is to be developed as a deliverable under the contract post-award and is not to be submitted with the proposal?

USAID response: As per Attachment J.1 Section F.3.f, the Outreach and Communication Plan will be submitted as a deliverable after award.

6. RFP Section C.4.1 Job Creation, Pg. 10, “the Contractor will identify infrastructure activities with a view toward labor intensive investment, as an effective way to implement activities, with potential to create temporary employment.”

Can USAID provide illustrative examples of temporary employment that falls under the CSP scope?

USAID response: Temporary employment such as, but not limited to, construction labor including construction supervision labor that will be employed temporarily until the construction work is completed.

7. Section C.4.2, “Gender Consideration,” (page 11) refers to USAID’s Country Level Gender Assessment (2012). Can USAID please confirm whether there a more recent gender assessment relevant to CSP that has not been released and, if so, make it available to Offerors?

USAID response: The USAID’s Country Level Gender Assessment dated 2012 is the most recent assessment currently available.

8. RFP Section C.4.3 Environmental Compliance Pg. 12, “…the contractor will develop mitigation measures, as necessary, and to specify monitoring and reporting as part of an Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP).”

Can USAID please confirm that the Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) is to be developed as a deliverable under the contract post-award and is not to be submitted with the proposal?

USAID response: The Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) will not be submitted with the proposal. The EMMP is a post award requirement. It will be developed for every activity that might have an impact on the environment as clarified under the RFP section C.4.3.

Section F

9. Section F.6.3.1 (pg. 24) references only cost-plus-fixed-fee (term or completion) or fixed-price as task order types, but Section B.2 (pg. 5) also references cost-plus-award-fee as a possible task order mechanism. Could USAID please clarify which types may be issued under this IDIQ?

USAID response: There is a possibility that Cost-Plus-Award-Fee task orders will be issued in future. Section F.6.3.1 is clarified accordingly.

10. In F.6.3.1 (p 24), the RFP indicates that Task Orders may be either Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF)

(term or completion) or any Fixed-Priced type.” In L.3 (pg 72) the RFP also mentions the possibility of Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) Task Orders. Would USAID please clarify what types of Task Orders are expected?

USAID response: Section F.6.3.1 was revised to add Cost-Plus-Award-Fee type.

Section H

11. Section H.8 (pg. 38) includes insurance rates related to Worker’s Compensation Insurance (Defense Base Act). Kindly confirm that the rates listed are meant to be percentage of salaries, not dollar units.

USAID response: It is dollar unit per $100 employee remuneration. Please see AAPD 17-01 Defense Base Act (DBA) Insurance for 2015 – 2020 (JAN 2017).

12. In Section H.8 (pg. 38), please confirm that the rates listed are meant to be percentage of salaries, not dollar units.

USAID response: See response to #11.

13. According to H.18 b. Audit Requirements, the thresholds stated in this article are below the recently updated thresholds in 2 CFR 200. Can USAID please confirm that the thresholds in 2 CFR 200 apply to this RFP?

USAID response: Section H.18 is revised to reflect the updated thresholds.

Section L

14. RFP Section L.7 (b) Electronic Submission Pg. 76-77, “The offeror must submit the proposal via e-mail with up to 25 MB limit per email compatible with Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, etc.) in a MS Windows environment.”

May the technical proposal and cost proposal be submitted in PDF format with budget sheets be submitted in Excel?

USAID response: Offerors can submit proposals in PDF for the technical volume. The budget portions of the cost volume must be submitted in Excel with unlocked cells, but the notes portion may be submitted in PDF.

15. To ensure secure transmission of all proposal information and to facilitate USAID’s reception of proposals, would USAID please confirm that offerors can submit proposals in PDF for the technical volume and in PDF and Excel for the cost volume?

USAID response: See response to #14.

16. L.8.1 (p. 77) says “The content of the technical proposal must be organized by the major technical evaluation criteria listed in Section M.” However in L.8.2 the RFP says “The TECHNICAL PROPOSAL must be structured as follows” and provides an outline which clearly distinguishes between technical contents and annexes. Can USAID please confirm that “major” in the first sentence refers to Technical Approach, Management Approach, and Contractor Past Performance Information, and not the sub-criteria below each of those headings within M.2, which seems to include items that L.8.2 reserves for the annexes?

USAID response: Offerors should follow the Technical Proposal structure provided in Section L.8.2 and L.8.3. The body of the technical proposal and annexes are corresponding with criteria and sub-criteria stated in Section M.2.

USAID confirms that the term “major” comprises the Technical, Management, and Past Performance criteria and sub-criteria. The technical proposal will be evaluated according to the entire list of evaluation criteria listed in Section M including the sub-criteria regardless whether the different sections are included in the Annexes or in the main body of the proposal.

17. We appreciate USAID providing specifications in L.8.2 (pg. 78) to enable consistent visual presentation of proposals. Would USAID please consider allowing offerors to use a font for text boxes smaller than 12 points in size, but no less than 8 points, as the font allowed for graphs and charts?

USAID response: Yes, the RFP states: “Text in graphs and charts may be less than 12 points in size but no less than 8 points and must be legible.”

18. On page 78, the RFP indicates that all graphs and charts must be included in the annexes, but there is not an annex for graphs and charts identified in the list of annexes provided. Can USAID please indicate where in the annexes graphs and charts should be presented?

USAID response: The sentence “All graphs and charts must be included in the annexes.” is deleted in the RFP.

19. Section L.8.2, “Page Limitations,” (p. 78) states: “All graphs and charts must be included in the annexes.” However, further down the page, the RFP states: “Only those annexes listed…or specifically required in other parts of this solicitation can be submitted. USAID will not review and consider any additional annexes provided.” Would USAID kindly allow the inclusion of relevant graphics, graphs and charts (in no less than 8 point font, per the RFP) in the technical and/or management narratives, subject to the page limits specified?

USAID response: See response to #18.

20. RFP Section L.8.2, Page Limitations, Pg. 78, “Annex D: CV/Resumes for proposed Key Personnel (up to two pages per person)”. However, under RFP Section L.8.3.2 Management Approach, Pg. 80, “Resumes and Statements of Qualification for Key personnel must be provided in Annex. The CVs must not exceed three pages each, and must provide three contact references.”

Please confirm page limitation for Key Personnel resumes. Also, please confirm if the statements of qualification for key personnel is in addition to the resumes page limitations.

USAID response: Resumes and Statement of Qualification for Key Personnel must not exceed in total three pages per person and must be provided in Annex D. The RFP Section L.8.2 and L.8.3.2 are revised accordingly.

21. Section L.8.2. (pg. 78) limits CVs/resumes for proposed key personnel to two pages per person.

However, L.8.3.2.b. (pg. 80) notes that CVs must not exceed three pages. Could USAID please clarify the page limit for CVs?

USAID response: See response to #20

22. Section L.8.3.2.b. (pg. 80) references the inclusion of statements of qualifications and signed letters of commitment from key personnel. Could USAID please confirm that these should be included in Annex D and if any page limit applies?

USAID response: See response to #20. There is no page limit for signed letter of commitment from key personnel.

23. Section L.8.3.2 (b) 2, “Staffing Plan,” (page 80) states that “signed letters of commitment must be submitted for all key personnel.” However, the RFP does not specify where these letters should be included in the proposal.

Could USAID confirm that key personnel letters of commitment can be included in Annex D and not count toward the page limit for the CVs?

USAID response: Key personnel letters of commitment shall be included in Annex D. There is no page limit for signed letter of commitment from key personnel.

24. L.8.2, (p. 78) says: “Annex D: CV/Resumes for proposed Key Personnel (up to two pages per person).” However, section L.8.3.2 (p.80) says, “The CVs must not exceed three pages each…” Would USAID please clarify whether CVs submitted as Annex D should be 2 pages as per page 78, or 3 pages as per page 80?

USAID response: See response to #20.

25. L.8.3.2 (p. 80) says, “Resumes and Statements of Qualification for Key personnel must be provided in the Annex.” Would USAID please confirm that the Statements of Qualification are to be separate from the Resumes in the annex?

26. Section L.8.2, Page Limitations, Annex D, (p.78) indicates that each CV cannot exceed two pages. However, Section L.8.3.2 (b) 2, “Staffing Plan,” (page 80) states that the Key Personnel CVs “must not exceed three pages each.” In addition, Section L.8.3.2 (b) 2, “Staffing Plan,” states that “Resumes and Statements of Qualification for Key Personnel must be provided in the Annex.”

We have the following questions regarding these instructions:

a) Could USAID please clarify whether the page limitation for Key Personnel CVs is two or three pages each?

b) If the page limitation to question a) above is only two pages, will USAID allow Offerors to include an additional list of qualifications in the Annex indicating how each proposed individual meets the requirements for their positions.

27. RFP Section L.8.3.4 A.1 Past Performance Pg. 81, “List in an annex to the technical proposal up to five (5) of the most recent and relevant contracts/agreements … In the body of the Technical Proposal, the Offeror must demonstrate its experience in implementing of relevant and similar projects.

Can USAID please confirm that the additional Past Performance Information listed under item A.2 may also be included as part of the Past Performance Annex F of the technical proposal?

USAID response: Yes, Past Performance Information listed under item A.2 may also be included as part of the Past Performance Annex F.

28. RFP Section L.8.3.4 Contractor Past Performance Information, Pg. 81, “must provide performance information for itself and each major sub-contractor”

Can the offeror also provide Past Performance information for non-major sub-contractors in the Technical proposal or will it not be subject to evaluation?

USAID response: The past performance will be reviewed and evaluated for major subcontractors (one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the Offeror’s total proposed cost or performs a critical activity) only.

29. Section L.8.3.4.D, “Performance in Using Small Business (SB) Concerns,” (page 82) states that offerors must provide:

a. a narrative summary of small business concerns over the past three years;

b. a list of contracts over the past three years for which the offeror has submitted subcontract reports to eSRS and a copy of up to 10 similarly recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS.; and

c. names and addresses of up to three SB concerns for USAID to contact for their assessment of the offeror’s performance in using SB concerns.

However, the RFP does not say where this information should be included in the proposal. Given the required supporting documentation including references, compliance elements, subcontractor reports etc., could easily exceed 20 pages, we respectfully request that USAID allow all Small Business past performance information to be included in Annex F.

USAID response: Please include Past Performance Information in Annex F.

30. RFP Section L.9 Part 2 1. Direct Labor Salary and Wages Pg. 85, “Completed biographical data sheets, Form AID 1420-17, must be provided for all proposed personnel.”

Please confirm that AID 142-17 forms are required for all named personnel, non-Key and Key Personnel?

USAID response: Yes, AID 1420-17 forms are required for all named personnel, non-Key and Key Personnel.

31. L.8.3.4 (p. 81) directs Offerors to “List in an annex to the technical proposal up to five (5) of the most recent and relevant contracts/agreements…using the template provided in Attachment J.11.” However, the instructions for the template in Attachment J.11 say, “The form is not required if the below information is available in the Government past performance systems.” Later in L.8.3.4 (p. 82) the RFP says, “2. For all contracts listed above that are not in CPARS, provide a list of contact names, job titles, mailing addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, explanation of relevance to the proposed acquisition and a description of the performance to include:

Scope of work or complexity/diversity of tasks;

Primary location(s) of work;

Period of performance;

Skills/expertise required;

Dollar value; and Contract type, i.e., fixed-price, cost reimbursement, etc.

Since the information listed in bullet points is essentially captured in Attachment J.11, would USAID please allow offerors to use Attachment J.11 for all contracts and cooperative agreements, even if they are featured in CPARs? Alternatively, can USAID please clarify the instructions so that offerors correctly provide the information needed? Currently, the instructions seem to indicate the following:

Offerors shouldn’t list contracts in CPARs at all (so they may not be reflected) Contracts not in CPARs should be listed in the template in J.11 AND in a separate list (that asks for much of the same information) Grants/cooperative agreements are listed only in the template provided.

USAID response: Please use Attachment J.11 PP for submitting Past Performance Information for contracts available and not available in CPAR. For contracts not available in CPAR make sure to follow instructions in the paragraph A.2 under L.8.3.4, along with the other requested information in this Section L.

32. Section L.8.3.4, “Contractor Past Performance Information,” (pages 82-83) requires Offerors to use Attachment J.11 in the Annex to list relevant contracts, and that “for all contracts listed that are not in CPARS, provide a list of contact names, job titles, mailing addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, explanation of relevance to the proposed acquisition and a description of the performance to include: scope of work or complexity/diversity of tasks, primary locations of work, period of performance, dollar value, and contract type” (Italics added).

Can USAID please confirm that Offers can list the contracts/agreements, even those in CPARS, using the Attachment J.11 Past Performance Short Form?

USAID response: Yes, please use Attachment J.11.

33. L.8.3.4 lists required past performance information in four subsections (A through D). The solicitation specifies that the information for subsection A (performance information for the Offeror and major contractors) and subsection C (quality awards or certifications) may be included in the annex. Would USAID please confirm that the requested information in subsection B (explanation of extraordinary problems and corrective actions) and subsection D (performance in using small business) may also be included in Annex F – Past Performance Information?

USAID response: Yes, please include all past performance information listed in L.8.3.4 in Annex F.

34. Would USAID consider allowing up to 9 pages for the case study analysis, or 3 pages per case study, to ensure that contractors can respond to all requirements in full?

USAID response: The Offeror’s response must not exceed three pages for each case study.

35. Will a mid-term or final evaluation be conducted externally? If not, can the contractor budget for them?

USAID response: Offerors should not budget for external evaluations. USAID will conduct external evaluations directly. However, offerors may determine the need to conduct targeted evaluations as part of their PMEL learning process, which they have to budget for.

36. USAID requests that offerors include a results framework in the PMEL on page 81 of the RFP.

However, USAID has also included a results framework in Attachment J.15. Can USAID please confirm that contractors are not expected to develop an additional results framework as part of their proposals?

USAID response: Offerors are required to submit a specific Results Framework relevant to their technical approach representing the targets and results they intend to achieve under the CSP activity. The Results Framework will be part of their PMEL as per the instructions under Section L.8.3.2 .c. The Results Framework included in the RFP is presented as a guide that offerors can adopt, build on, or modify. However, offerors are required to include the performance standards listed in Attachment J.4 Section III and the indicators listed as PMP indicators in the Results Framework table (Attachment J.15).

37. Are the indicators in the CSP Results Framework mandatory or illustrative?

USAID response: See response to # 36.

38. May the offeror propose indicators not included in either the Mission PMP (provided in Annex B of Attachment J.19), Attachment J.4, or the CSP Results Framework?

USAID response: The offerors can propose indicators that are not included in the Mission PMP, Attachment J.4 and the CSP Results Framework. See response to # 36.

39. In the description of allowed Technical Proposal annexes (p78), the solicitation indicates the

PMEL plan should be only for TO No1. However, on p. 94 the solicitation indicates the PMEL plan should establish a system for the entire CSP IDIQ as disaggregated by task orders. Can USAID clarify whether the PMEL plan should include indicators and a learning strategy for both TOs, or only TO1?

USAID response: There will be one CSP PMEL plan that will be submitted as a deliverable under the Management Task Order 1 (as per attachment J.1 Section F.3.e) and will reflect results of the Technical Task Order 2 to be awarded with the IDIQ, and all other subsequent technical task orders. The PMEL plan will be developed for the entire CSP IDIQ reflecting indicators and results to be achieved throughout the CSP activity. Technical Task Order 2 results will feed into the CSP PMEL plan (as stated under CSP section E.3). Similarly, results of the subsequent task orders that will be issued under the CSP IDIQ will feed into the CSP PMEL plan.

Section L.8.2 Annex C is rectified accordingly.

40. Section L.8.3.2 (c) 2, Performance Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (PMEL) Plan, (page 81), refers to “Performance Standards.” In addition, performance standards are also mentioned in Attachment J.4, Page 2, Section III, and that these standards have been converted into indicators in the LogFrame found in Attachment J.15. Page 21. Section F.4, also references “performance standards,” but in the context of CPAR categories.

Will USAID clarify that the Performance Standards to be defined for the PMEL Plan refer to the Offeror’s proposed approach for how it will monitor its activities and work under each of the two Task Orders currently identified under the Program?

USAID response: Please see responses on #36 and #39.

41. Section L.8.3.2 (c) 3, for the Monitoring System of the PMEL requires the inclusion among other things of:

· a set of Quantitative and Qualitative Performance and Context Indicators with detailed performance reference sheets that include definitions, disaggregation, frequency of collection and analysis, baselines and annual and life-of-project targets

· a comprehensive description of the basis/rationale for the proposed targets

· Performance reference sheets provide detailed instructions on how an indicator should be operationalized, and

· A careful planning process that involves USAID and partners to ensure the indicators are approved on the one hand and feasible on the other.

These performance reference sheets typically require more than a page of text per indicator, which can amount to dozens of pages, as well as extensive consultation and review for suitability and cost-effectiveness. Generally, they are not developed until indicators are finalized and the MEL plan is approved.

For these reasons, would USAID consider removing the performance reference sheets requirement for the proposal submission?

USAID response: The performance reference sheets are the tools to substantiate and evaluate the soundness of the offeror’s proposed PMEL plan including indicators, baselines, and targets.

It is up to the Offeror(s) to judge on the inclusion of the most appropriate information to reflect and support the offeror(s)’ proposed technical approach. It is understood that the PMEL plan will be further developed and finalized within 30 calendar days post award. Additionally, please see response to # 44.

42. Section L.8.3.2 (c) 3, Performance, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (PMEL) Plan, under

Data Management Procedures (page 81) refers to a data collection system involving “USAID Task Order evaluations.”

Can USAID please confirm that these TO evaluations refer to USAID-funded external evaluations with which the CSP team will cooperate?

USAID response: TO evaluations will be conducted directly by USAID which would require collaboration with CSP contractor. The contractor may need to conduct evaluations as part of their own PMEL learning process. Please see response to # 35.

43. Is the Mission planning on conducting public perception surveys or drawing from third party public perception surveys to collect data for indicators of citizen or community member perceptions included in the Mission PMP (and the CSP Results Framework)?

USAID response: It is up to the offeror to propose the approach they see most appropriate for data collection.

44. Would USAID consider expanding the page limitation for the PMELP to address the requirements listed on pages 80-81?

USAID response: The RFP is revised to delete page limit for the PMEL plan. The only page limitation for the Indicator Reference Sheet not to exceed 2 pages per indicator is included; see the PMEL plan template on Attachment J.19. Section L.8.2 Annex C is rectified accordingly.

45. Section L.8.3.2 (c) 1, Performance Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (PMEL) Plan, (page 81), states: “The RF and LF may be in the MEL Plan narrative, annexes, or both.” However, Section L.8.2, “Page Limitations,” (page 78) states that the entire PMEL Plan is to be included in Annex C. Could USAID please confirm that the entire PMEL Plan is to be included in Annex C?

USAID response: The entire PMEL Plan is to be included in Annex C.

Section M

46. Section M.2.2 (c), “Management Approach,” (page 94) states that the PMEL Plan will be evaluated on the extent to which it “reflects a robust and sound system that maximizes achievement of realistic targets and results for the entire CSP IDIQ as disaggregated by the task orders under the IDIQ” (Emphasis added).

Could USAID please confirm that targets should be proposed only for Task Orders 1 and 2 since other task orders have not yet been identified?

USAID response: Offerors will be evaluated on development of results and targets to meet the objectives of the overall CSP activity. Results will be disaggregated by Task Orders. Please see response on # 39.

Attachment J.1

47. Attachment J.1 (Task Order No. 1), Page 6, Section F.3 (e) “Performance Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (PMEL) Plan,” states: “A finalized PMEL plan will be submitted for TOCOR approval within 30 days calendar days of the TO award date.” Because Page 4 of this attachment states that the Work Plan is due 30 calendar days after the start date of the TO, and this Work Plan will inform the finalization of indicators and targets, would USAID consider extending the deadline for the final PMEL Plan to 45 days after the award date?

USAID response: The PMEL plan must be submitted with the offerors proposal. The finalization of the PMEL is included into the TO No 1 with the assumption that minor changes to no changes would be required at the time of award. Thus, USAID considers 30 calendar days sufficient time.

Attachment J.3

48. Attachment J.3 Task Order 2, Section F.3, Pg. 4, “Selection of Priority Community Activities: The community support activities identified and selected by the contractor will be submitted for USAID approval. The first set of selected activities is expected no later than four months after the TO is awarded.”

Will the Offeror be expected to identify one or more priority communities as part of its response to Task Order 2?

USAID response: USAID expects offeror(s) to develop the approach they consider the most appropriate. The “Selection of Priority Community Activities” will be based on the contractor’s approved methodology and work plan. The priority activities that are identified and proposed for USAID approval can be in a variety of communities based on the contractor’s approved methodology and work plan.

Attachment J.4

49. Attachment J.4 Statement of Objectives for Task Order 2, Pg. 2, “USAID will direct the Contractor to promptly start implementing activities in up to ten preidentified communities.”

Can the Offeror/implementer identify/propose additional communities to USAID or will these be determined/preidentified by the Mission?

Have the ten pre-identified communities referenced by USAID completed activity selection? If yes, will the Offeror be required to support only those activities that have been pre-identified or may they design additional activities based on its proposed activity identification methodology for Task Order 2?

USAID response: USAID has pre-identified up to 10 activities to be implemented by the contractor upon award using their proposed and approved methodology. The contractor is required to implement both the pre-identified activities as well as the activities it will identify post award according to its own methodology.

According to Attachment J.4.II.1 and 2, the offeror is required to do the following:

1) Identify and implement community activities “The Offeror will propose a methodology to rapidly identify, prioritize, and implement activities for CSP funding…”, “…The Offeror will use its proposed methodology to implement and complete impactful and sustainable community activities…and will commence immediate implementation of the activities that are approved by USAID”; and

2) Implement immediate community activities pre-identified by USAID “…In addition, immediately following award, USAID will direct the contractor to promptly start implementing activities in up to ten pre-identified communities”.

50. TO2 indicates that the contractor will start implementing activities in up to 10 pre-identified communities. After those 10, will the contractor determine which communities will be engaged or will USAID select them?

USAID response: See response to # 49. The contractor will implement activities it has identified according to its proposed and approved methodology no later than four months after the task order is awarded.

51. Related, for the 10 pre-determined communities, will USAID direct the contractor to do specific activities, or will the contractor go through its prioritization and selection process to determine the activities?

USAID response: See response to # 49.

Attachment J.5

52. Would USAID please clarify the following items related to Case Study 1 to assist offerors in making a considered analysis?

a. In the third paragraph, is it the municipality’s council that has 9 members?

b. Out of its $60,000 budget, how is it providing $100,000 of construction works that it offers in paragraph 1?

c. The municipality spends its budget on the salary of two employees but has only one full-time and no part-time employees according to the third paragraph.

d. Why is the municipal council operating from a premises in the village—aren’t they separate geographic entities?

e. While the first page of Attachment J.5 defines "municipality," "town," and "village," can USAID please clarify what is meant by “community” in this context? The first sentence of the first paragraph of the case study references the “community and the village.” Are those different?

Will the events venue benefit the larger town and/or municipality, or just the village?

USAID response:

a. Yes, the municipality’s council has 9 members.

b. Refer to Section L.8.3.1.b Instructions related to the case studies includes the offeror’s “identification of opportunities and issues in each case…”.

c. The last sentence in paragraph three is revised as following: “There is one full time municipal employee and one part time employee due to budget constraints”.

d. The sentence “The municipal council does not have its own municipal office and operates from a small premises provided by the religious authority in the village” means that the municipality does not have ownership of a building or venue in the village as a municipal office and has established its municipal offices on a venue in the village provided (through lease or temporary use agreement) by a religious order.

e. For the purpose of the Case Studies, community has the same general meaning as village, and is used to describe generally the people in the village. It is up to the offeror to describe the opportunities they see.

Attachment J.13

53. The map provided in Attachment J.13 is difficult to read. Would it be possible to provide a clearer version?

USAID response: A better resolution map is provided and one additional related map is added to Attachment J.13.

Cost/Business Proposal

54. On page 86 & 87 USAID requests a separate “line item” to show the costs for Monitoring and Evaluation as well as Security. M&E and Security costs could be captured under several line items (e.g. personnel, equipment, supplies, subcontracts, etc.), making it difficult to demonstrate their sum in a single line item. Would USAID permit offerors used a column to the right of the budget total (i.e. columns T and U in the provided template) to demonstrate which costs are being captured against these two categories and their total at the bottom?

USAID response: It is at the offerors’ discretion.

55. Page 87 of the RFP instructs offerors to complete the Cancellation Ceilings as part of B.9 of the

RFP but there is no corresponding section in part B of the RFP and Section B ends after B.6:

Indirect Costs and Advanced Understanding on Ceilings. Please confirm that offerors should include ceilings as the last sub-section of part B and also confirm that there are no missing parts of Section B.

USAID response: The reference to cancelation ceiling is removed.

56. On page 87, the RFP explicitly states that “offerors are not required to submit the security plan as part of the overall offeror’s cost proposal. Later in the same paragraph the instructions say “The budget must delineate and justify for reasonableness all costs and provide a coherent, overall integrated security plan that demonstrates the offeror has undertaken a thoughtful review of their security needs and includes analysis of the various elements of a security system.” Can USAID please revise the second set of instructions to remove the reference to providing a “coherent, overall integrated security plan…?”

USAID response: The RFP is revised to remove: “and provide a coherent, overall integrated security plan that demonstrates that the Offeror has undertaken a thoughtful review of their security needs and includes analysis of the various elements of a security system.”

57. For Task Orders 1 and 2, the summary presentation of costs as requested in Section B.4 is unclear. Are “Activity Costs” meant to be inclusive of all major budget line items (i.e. personnel, fringe, allowances, travel, ODCs, subcontracts, GUCs, etc.)?

USAID response: “Activity Costs” meant to be inclusive of all major budget line items (i.e.

personnel, fringe, allowances, travel, contractual). Though, some contractual work could be allocated under “Community Development Activities” (Task Order 2), if they are clearly budgeted for these purposes.

58. On page 25, the RFP indicates that offerors will “propose a blended daily consultant rate for each type of consultant and experience level.” However, the IDIQ does not specify types of consultants or requisite qualifications to distinguish experience levels. Please confirm that offerors may propose a daily rate for consultants commensurate with the anticipated level of experience required and support the calculation of their rate in their narrative.

USAID response: Page 87. Section L.9, Part 2, paragraph 3. was revised to remove the reference to “blended daily consultant rate”.