SF30 and Q&A Report_Amendment No. 4.pdf

iv

Question No. 1:

Page 18, F.6, Key Personnel, Chief of Party, Experience Requirement states: “A minimum of seven

(7) years of recent experience (within the last 15 years) at a senior level on a successful project(s) similar in scope and scale to ARE, with experience in agri-business and market-systems approaches, rural and peri-urban economies, productive sectors and other relevant topics.”

Would USAID consider the following revised language for Page 18, F.6, Key Personnel, Chief of Party, Experience Requirement: “A minimum of seven (7) years of recent experience (within the last 15 years) at a senior level on a successful project(s) similar in scope to ARE, with experience in agri-business and market-systems approaches, rural and peri-urban economies, productive sectors and other relevant topics.”

USAID Response to Question No. 1:

USAID will not change the requirement and will maintain the activity scale relevance as an experience requirement for the proposed Chief of Party.

Question No. 2:

Page 49, H.12(d), Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation, notes “One annual increase salary increase not more than 4% percent may be granted after the employee’s completion of each twelve-month period of satisfactory services under the contract.” Earlier in the solicitation, pg 48, H.11(a), 752.7007 Personnel Compensation, notes “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.”

The reference in Clause H.12(d) to limit on annual increases conflicts with recent USAID/OAA guidance, may undermine gender equity, and may not reflect historical inflation within Lebanon.

It also conflicts with the cost principles for Personnel Compensation found in FAR 31.205-6(a)(3):

“conform to the terms and conditions of the contractor’s established compensation plan.” The Offeror respectfully requests confirmation from USAID to adhere to Contractor’s established policy and practice regarding annual increases.

USAID Response to Question No. 2:

USAID agrees and has removed the requirement that one annual salary increase shall not be more than 4% after completion of each twelve-month period of satisfactory services under the contract.

In accordance with AIDAR 752.7007 Personnel Compensation, 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. Merit or promotion increases should not exceed those provided by the contractor's established policy and practice.

Please see page 46 of amended RFP for revised language.

v

Question No. 3:

Page 120, Section L.12.2, Organization of Technical Proposal does not include an Executive Summary.

The Offeror respectfully requests that a one-page Executive Summary be allowed to be included, which is not considered within the 20 page Technical Proposal page limit.

USAID Response to Question No. 3:

USAID will not allow the submission of an Executive Summary with the Technical Proposal.

Question No. 4:

Page 121, Section L.13.1.A Technical Approach Summary states “Offerors must provide definitions to key terms used in their proposals.”

The Offeror respectfully requests that a supplemental section be allowed to present “Definitions of Key Terms” as part of the Acronym List, which is not considered within the 20-page Technical Proposal page limit.

USAID Response to Question No. 4:

USAID will allow Offerors to include “Definitions of Key Terms” as part of the Acronym list.

This section will not be considered within the 20-page Technical Proposal page limit and must not be more than 5 pages. Please see pages 117-118 of amended RFP for revised language.

Question No. 5:

Page 123, Section L.13.2.C, Key Personnel, makes reference to the inclusion of a “Statement of Qualifications (SOQ),” as Annex A (not to exceed three pages per position), and states: “(3) shall include items normally associated with CVs or resumes i.e. list of all previous employers & positions occupied and main achievements.”

The Offeror respectfully requests that given the limitation of space, that each three-page SOQ limit previous employers and positions to most recent and relevant to the Activity and fulfilling its objectives.

USAID Response to Question No. 5:

USAID will allow Offerors to limit previous employers and positions to most recent and relevant to ARE and fulfilling its objectives as part of point (3) of Section L.13.2.C, Key Personnel, SOQ.

Please see page 123 of amended RFP for revised language.

Question No. 6:

vi

Page 135, Section L.16.2 Part 2 (A), Instructions for the preparation of the cost/business proposal notes under Subcontracts “... Cost element breakdowns should include the same budget items as the prime as applicable. Information sufficient to determine the reasonableness of the cost of each specific subcontract must be included.” Subsequently on page 136 of the same section, the solicitation notes “... The subcontracts budget must follow the same template and format provided for the prime” which appears to contradict pg. 135.

The Offeror respectfully confirms guidance from page 135 “Cost element breakdowns should include the same budget items as the prime as applicable. Information sufficient to determine the reasonableness of the cost of each specific subcontract must be included” supersedes pg. 136.

USAID Response to Question No. 6:

The subcontracts budget for major subcontractors must follow the same template and format as provided for the prime. For non-major subcontractors (total cost under 10% of the total estimated cost of the offeror’s proposal), must submit cost element breakdowns to include the same budget items as applicable and must contain information sufficient to determine the reasonableness of the cost of each specific subcontract. Please see amended RFP pages 132-133 for revised language.

Question No. 7:

Page 155, Section J- Attachments, J.1.Section VI.A), Operating Objectives and CrossCutting Requirements, Coordination states: “Coordination with ongoing USAID-funded activities in Lebanon, […] is expected under ARE as part of efforts’ complementarity, increasing the sustainability potential of interventions and avoiding duplication.” and “ARE will also coordinate with the Lebanon Enterprise Development (LED) activity, as LED is assisting tens of firms in the agro-food industry”. Unfortunately, no reports on the Lebanon Enterprise Development (LED) activity are posted on DEC, limiting offerors’ ability to propose effective coordination approaches nor activities.

Would USAID kindly make available relevant reports from the Lebanon Enterprise Development (LED) activity?

USAID Response to Question No. 7:

Please refer to LED’s Factsheet, included as Attachment J.13 to the amended RFP. Please see page 106 of amended RFP for revised language.

Question No. 8:

Due to the complex operating environment and details required to address the Activity solicitation, the offeror respectfully requests that USAID consider extending the deadline of the subject RFP by a minimum of two weeks.

vii

USAID Response to Question No. 8:

USAID extends the deadline of the submission of Technical and Cost Proposals for the subject amended RFP to March 19, 2020 at 10:00am EST time. See amended RFP Cover Page and SF30 for revisions.

Question No. 9:

On page 34 under Section F.7, the RFP states that the Contractor must submit the grants manual for approval 90 days after contract execution. However, on page 35 of Section F.8, the RFP states that the grants manual is due 60 days after contract award. Could USAID clarify whether the grants manual is due 90 days or 60 days after contract execution?

USAID Response to Question No. 9:

The Grants Manual is due 60 days after contract execution. See amended RFP Page 31 for revised language.

Question No. 10:

We request that USAID remove the requirement for cost share in the grants-under-contract component per Section L.13.1.B. Our previous experience has shown that mandatory cost sharing under grants can eliminate potential organizations that are notable to meet the cost-share targets.

As an alternative, we propose grantee contribution and leveraging to solidify the goal of both grantee and other stakeholder buy-in in the grants-under-contract component. The selected contractor will work with USAID to establish an appropriate level of grantee contribution and leveraging for the grants-under-contract program.

USAID Response to Question No. 10:

Section L.13.1.B states that “The offeror is highly encouraged to include cost share under its proposed Grants under Contract component; however, this is not mandatory.” Moreover, USAID agrees to replace, “i) have financial cost sharing from recipients”, with “i) have grantee contribution and leveraging from recipients”. Please see page 120 of the amended RFP for the revised language.

Question No. 11:

Section H.12(a)(1) and H.12(d) state that initial salaries may not exceed 4 percent over the current salary and that annual salary increases may not exceed 4 percent. We respectfully request the removal of H.12(a)(1) and H.12(d) as it appears to conflict with AIDAR 752.7007 Personnel Compensation, incorporated in the contract under Section H.11, which stipulates that personnel compensation be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, with reimbursement subject only to the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold. The limitation on salary increases may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices as required by AIDAR 752.7007.

viii

USAID Response to Question No. 11:

Please see the response to Question 2 above.

Question No. 12:

On page 49, Section H.12(f) states: “Unless the consultant is an employee of the contractor, they are considered subcontractors subject to the applicable clauses 52.244-2 requirements.” We respectfully ask USAID to consider the following revision: “Unless consultants are engaged as labor and hence considered contractor personnel, they are considered subcontractors subject to the applicable clauses and requirements.” It is our understanding that a consultant by definition cannot be an employee. FAR 31.205-33 (a) defines “professional and consultant services,” […] as “those services rendered by persons who are members of a particular profession or possess a special skill and who are not officers or employees of the contractor.” Because consultants provide personal services, they are considered contractor personnel, and their billable costs are governed by the contract clauses and regulations related to personnel (RFP Sections H.11 and H.12). When an individual is engaged as a legally constituted organization, including sole proprietorship, they are considered a subcontractor and subject to the appropriate contractual requirements.

USAID Response to Question No. 12:

USAID agrees to the requested change in language that, “Unless consultants are engaged as labor and hence considered contractor personnel, they are considered subcontractors subject to the applicable clauses and requirements.” See amended RFP Page 47 for revised language.

Question No. 13:

As offerors are not required to procure and deliver commodities or services directly to or for USAID that adhere to Section 508 standards, and Section 508 standards apply only to U.S. federal agencies (See E202.1 Application, and General Exceptions E202.4 of the 508 standards), we respectfully ask USAID to remove Section H.23 from the contract.

USAID Response to Question No. 13:

USAID agrees and has removed this provision from the amended RFP. Please see page 56 of the amended RFP for this deletion.

Question No. 14:

Section I.4 incorporates FAR 52.216-24 (Limitation of Government Liability). This FAR clause prescribes that this clause be included when a letter contract is contemplated. Because prior sections of the RFP describe a cost plus fixed fee contract instead of a letter contract, would USAID please consider removing this FAR clause?

ix

USAID Response to Question No. 14:

USAID agrees with this request and has deleted the provision FAR 52.216-24 from the amended RFP. Please see pages 79, and 87 of amended RFP for revised language.

Question No. 15:

Section L.16 (page 133) requires that offerors to adhere to a local employee compensation plan.

We respectfully request that the above-mentioned salary restriction be removed from the RFP as it appears to conflict with AIDAR 752.7007 Personnel Compensation, incorporated in the contract under Section H.11, which stipulates that personnel compensation be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, with reimbursement subject only to the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold. The salary restriction above may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices as required by AIDAR 752.700.

USAID Response to Question No. 15:

USAID will not remove the requirement in Section L.16 that offerors adhere to the local compensation plan because AIDAR 722.170 states, “(b) Compensation. Compensation, including merit or promotion increases paid to TCN's and CCN's may not, without the approval of the Mission Director or the Assistant Administrator having program responsibility for the project, exceed the prevailing compensation paid to personnel performing comparable work in the cooperating country as determined by the USAID Mission. Unless otherwise authorized by the Mission Director or the Assistant Administrator having program responsibility for the project, the compensation of such TCN and CCN employees shall be paid in the currency of the cooperating country.” Also RFP Section H.12 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONNEL COMPENSATION requires that “(h) Compensation of Cooperating Country and Third Country Nationals (CCNs/TCNs): Consistent with AIDAR 722.170(b), it is USAID policy that TCN/CCNs who are hired as local employees and whose salaries are 100% financed under an acquisition instrument be compensated in local currency, and their salaries must not exceed those under the USAID Local Compensation Plan (LCP) for comparable positions, unless a Mission waiver has been obtained permitting compensation in dollars. Employee agreements or contracts entered into by contractors and CCN/TCNs must reflect a fixed annual or monthly salary, dominated in local currency with a provision for annual salary increases that have been approved by the Contracting Officer through negotiations.”

Question No. 16:

Amendment No. 1 revised the language skills requirements in Section F.6 Key Personnel, including reducing the Arabic proficiency of the chief of party to “preferred but not required.” In response to this adjustment, could USAID omit the first sentence of Section H.16 (page 54 of RFP Amendment No. 3), “Language Requirements and Reporting,” that states, “Language skills at the following Foreign Service Institute proficiency level or equivalent: Arabic Level IV; and English Level IV”?

x

USAID Response to Question No. 16:

The referenced requirement for Arabic Level IV has been removed. See amended RFP Page 51 for revised language.

Question No. 17:

Per Section L.16.8(4), in reference to the information requested per Section L.16.3 Part 3– Annexes, could USAID please confirm that offerors are only required to submit policies and procedures (Annexes 3, 4, and 5) for major subcontractors without prior USAID contracting experience (per Section L.16.5)?

USAID Response to Question No. 17:

USAID confirms that offerors are required to submit Cost Proposal Annexes 3, 4 and 5 for major subcontractors that have not previously submitted this information to USAID. Please see page 141 of amended RFP for revised language.

Question No. 18:

For non-major subcontractors, per Section L.16.8.(4), could USAID please confirm that offerors are not required to submit the information requested in Section L.16.3 Part 3 – Annexes, with the exception of Annex 1 (Form AID 1420-17) and Annex 9 (Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offeror)?

USAID Response to Question No. 18:

USAID confirms that non-major subcontractors are not required to submit Cost Proposal Annexes 3, 4 and 5 and are required to submit Annexes 1 and 9. Please see page 141 of amended RFP for revised language.

Question No. 19:

On page 141 under Section L.16.4 – Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors, the RFP states that, “(a) The Offeror and each proposed subcontractor shall complete all ‘Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offeror’. All Offerors and subcontractors must register with the Government Contractor Registration (SAM). The preferred method for submission of certifications and other statement is to complete the statements at the USG Online (SAM - System for Award Management) web-site at http://www.governmentcontractorregistration.org/index.html, the signed and dated printout must then be submitted with the proposal as an annex (see Attachment J.4 Section K).” Could USAID confirm that the signed and dated printout is to be included with Annex 9 (Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offeror) referenced on page 130?

xi

USAID Response to Question No. 19:

Yes, USAID confirms that the offeror is to include within Annex 9 the signed and dated printout of the SAM registration for the offeror and all subcontractors. Annex 9 must also include in all other Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors as required in the amended RFP Section K.

Question No. 20:

On page 27 under Section B.7 (Baseline Report), the RFP states that, “The draft MEL Plan will outline the Contractor’s approach for establishing the baseline.” In Section C.8 (Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan) on page 31, the RFP states that, “The draft MELP must include estimated values for baseline data (including plan for baseline data collection).” Could USAID confirm that the offeror is to propose estimated values for baseline data in addition to the approach for establishing the baseline?

USAID Response to Question No. 20:

USAID confirms that the Offeror is to propose estimated values for baseline data in addition to explaining the approach for establishing the baseline in the MEL Plan. Section F, paragraph B, point 7 means that the awarded offeror has to complete the baseline data collection within 180 days of award and submit it to the COR for approval in a baseline report.

Question No. 21:

Section B.4 on page 11 of the revised RFP, Amendment 3, includes a budget schedule where the lower end of the budget range totals $47,000,000, as opposed to the $50,000,000 stated in the cover letter of the RFP. Could USAID confirm that the lower end of the maximum budget estimate range is $50,000,000?

USAID Response to Question No. 21:

USAID confirms that the lower end of the maximum total estimated budget amount is $50,000,000. Please see pages 8-9 and 128-129 of amended RFP for revised language.

Question No. 22:

Section F.4 on page 19 of the revised RFP, Amendment 3, lists Mrs. Rana El Jordi and Mr. Juan E. Proaño as recipients of all official communications related to the activity. Should Mrs. El Jordi and Mr. Proaño also be copied on proposal submissions?

USAID Response to Question No. 22:

No. Mrs. El Jordi and Mr. Proaño are not to be copied on proposal submission. All proposal documentation must be submitted to ARELebanonProposal@usaid.gov xii

Question No. 23:

Section F.6, page 21-23 of the revised RFP, Amendment 3: The Business Development Officer, a key personnel role on the ARE team, is a managerial level position. Would USAID permit offerors to adjust the title to reflect its level of responsibility, to Business Development Advisor, Business Development Lead or a similar title?

USAID Response to Question No. 23:

USAID allows Offerors to adjust the title of the position to reflect level of responsibility, but the Offeror must still abide by the minimum requirements set for this Key Personnel position in the amended RFP.

Question No. 24:

The Reporting and Deliverable Matrix in Section F.8 on page 34 of the revised RFP, Amendment 3, lists a due date for the Grants Manual of sixty (60) days after contract award, while section F.7.D.4 on page 34 states a due date of ninety (90) days after contract execution. Could USAID confirm the due date for the Grants Manual is ninety (90) days after contract execution?

USAID Response to Question No. 24:

Please see the response to Question 9 above.

Question No. 25:

Section H.12(a)(1) on page 49 of the revised RFP, Amendment 3, requests Cognizant Contracting Officer’s approval of salaries for “individual(s) that exceed 4% ceiling of 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.” Under USAID’s new instructions on the Employee Biographical Data (EBD) sheet, implementing partners must propose salaries at the market value for positions combined with a supporting rationale. On page 133, the revised RFP further states that “The Biographical Data Sheets must include market value determination, proposed position, chronology of relevant work experience and academic qualification.” Considering the new EBD sheet and market value determination method, can USAID remove or revise the language contained in RFP section H.12(a)(1) to reflect the new requirements?

USAID Response to Question No. 25:

Please see the response to Question 2 above.

Question No. 26:

Section H.42 on page 75 of the revised RFP, Amendment 3, states that “VAT and customs duties are excluded from the cost of this contract.” Given the difficulties in obtaining VAT exemptions xiii for USAID projects in Lebanon, would USAID consider amending the RFP to instruct all offerors to include VAT in their cost proposals?

USAID Response to Question No. 26:

No. VAT costs are not to be included in cost proposals.

Question No. 27:

Section L.6(d) on page 117 of the revised RFP, Amendment 3, requires that a separate cover letter in PDF format accompany the ARE proposal. Section L.12.2 on page 120 requires a cover letter be included as part of the technical proposal. May offerors include a 1-page cover page in the technical proposal instead of a second cover letter?

USAID Response to Question No. 27:

Yes, Offerors are allowed to include a 1-page cover page in the technical proposal that is not within the 20-page technical proposal limit, per Section L.12.2, instead of a second cover letter as specified in Section L.6(d).

Question No. 28:

Section L.12.1.5 on page 119 of the revised RFP, Amendment 3, permits the use of a font smaller than 12 point for maps, charts, and exhibits. May offerors also use a font smaller than 12 point for textboxes?

USAID Response to Question No. 28:

Offerors are not allowed to use a font smaller than 12-point for textboxes.

Question No. 29:

Section L.12.2 on page 120 of the revised RFP, Amendment 3, lists the draft Monitoring, Learning, and Evaluation (MEL) Plan both in section 5 of the technical proposal and as Annex E. Please confirm that the draft MEL Plan should be submitted only as Annex E, as referenced elsewhere in the RFP.

USAID Response to Question No. 29:

The MEL Plan is to be submitted only as Annex E.

Question No. 30:

Section L.13.1.B on page 122 of the revised RFP, Amendment 3 requires that the Program Work Statement (PWS) include sub-sections on 1. Objective, 2. Background, 3. Results and Goals, and

4. General Program Parameters. Please confirm our understanding that these initial sub-sections xiv of the PWS, preceding 5. Services/Tasks Required, are to be very brief summaries of material covered in other proposal sections and are to be included in the PWS solely to enable the PWS to become the complete Statement of Objectives of the resulting contract. Would USAID also consider including a page limit for these preliminary sub-sections over and above the 20-page limit for the technical proposal?

USAID Response to Question No. 30:

Please follow the instructions for the sub-sections on 1. Objective, 2. Background, 3. Results and Goals, and 4. General Program Parameters of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) as stated in Section L.13.1.B of the RFP.

USAID will not consider including a page limit for these sub-sections over and above the 20-page limit for the technical proposal.

Question No. 31:

Section L.12.2 on page 120 of the revised RFP, Amendment 3, instructs offerors to include a draft organizational chart in Annex E to the technical proposal. Would USAID consider allowing offerors to also include the organizational chart in the technical proposal as a non-counting page for ease of reference?

USAID Response to Question No. 31:

No, please include the Draft Staffing Plan and Organizational Chart as instructed in the amended

RFP.

Question No. 32:

Section L.13.1.A on page 121 of the revised RFP, Amendment 3, states that “Offerors must provide definitions of key terms used in their proposals”. Would USAID consider allowing a list of definitions to be included as a non-counting page?

USAID Response to Question No. 32:

Please see response to Question 4 above.

Question No. 33:

Section L.16.3 on page 134 of the revised RFP, Amendment 3, instructs that “For CCNs, the salary in Blocks 6, 14, and 15 must be stated in local currency with the US Dollars equivalency in parenthesis.” Would USAID confirm this language applies only to Box 6, considering USAID’s new EBD sheet eliminating salary history from boxes 14 and 15?

xv

USAID Response to Question No. 33:

USAID confirms that only Box 6 must be stated in local currency with the US Dollars equivalency in parentheses as salary history has been eliminated from boxes 14 and 15 in the new Biodata Form. Please see page 131 of amended RFP for revised language.

Question No. 34:

Section L.13.2.C on page 126 of the revised RFP, Amendment 3, states that offerors “must include a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) (as Annex A) listing prior positions and employers (including contact information) for all proposed key personnel (not to exceed three pages per position) and technical experts (not to exceed two pages per position). For each proposed individual, the SOQ:

(1) will clearly explain why the individual is suited for the proposed position; (2) will demonstrate that the proposed personnel possess the skills, knowledge and experience to function as proposed on the project team; (3) shall include items normally associated with CVs or resumes i.e. list of all previous employers & positions occupied and main achievements. Each SOQ shall also include at least three (3) recent references (within the past seven years) including telephone numbers and email addresses for each reference. SOQs are not part of the 20-page limit.”

a. Could USAID confirm that offerors do not need to submit contact information for every employer listed in SOQs, as this could jeopardize an employee’s standing and employment with their current employer? A comprehensive list of prior employers could also absorb a large portion of the two-page limit for those with multiple short-term consultant engagements. Would USAID instead confirm that offerors submit SOQs with position, company name, location of employment, and dates of engagement, and that contact information is to be provided for references only?

b. Would USAID please confirm that offerors need not provide SOQs for every technical expert but only the senior and more important technical experts?

USAID Response to Question No. 34:

a. USAID confirms that Offerors must submit contact information for at least (3) recent references (within the past seven years) and not for all previous employers. Please also see response to Question 5 above.

b. Offerors must submit SOQs for proposed Key Personnel only.

Please see page 123 of amended RFP for revised language.

Question No. 35:

Section L.16.5 on page 142 of the revised RFP, Amendment 3, states that “If the Offeror and/or its major subcontractor(s) does not have prior USAID contracting experience, it shall submit as an annex a copy of its personnel and travel policies, especially regarding salary and wage scales, fringe benefits, merit increases, promotions, leave, differentials, travel and per diem regulations etc. as indicated above. (Cost Proposal Annexes 3, 4, 5).” Could USAID confirm that Cost Proposal Annexes 3, 4, and 5 listed in L.16.3 on page 130 of the revised RFP, Amendment 3, are only required for offerors without prior USAID contracting experience?

xvi

USAID Response to Question No. 35:

Please see response to Question 17 above.

Question No. 36:

Could USAID clarify the difference between technical deliverables (referenced in section F.7.A on page 23 of the revised RFP, Amendment 3, and in section F.8 on page 34), and performance deliverables (referenced in section L.13.1.A on page 121 and section L1.6 on page 137 onward)?

Could USAID also clarify how the two relate to performance standards, referenced in such sections as L.13.1.A on page 121 and J.1.II on page 150?

USAID Response to Question No. 36:

Technical and performance deliverables are synonymous terms that are defined as specific milestones and reports that the Offeror is expected to propose with a schedule in order to achieve ARE targets and objectives. These technical/performance deliverables must be described in Technical Proposal Annex G, and as per Section L.16.2 Part 2 - Proposed Costs/Prices Fixed Fee, of the amended RFP, are linked to fee payments for the contractor (See Attachment J.12 for Fixed Fee Schedule Template to be submitted as Cost Proposal Annex 6) and are to be inserted into Section B of the final Contract. Please see pages 21, 117-120, 134-139 and Attachment J.12 of amended RFP for revised language.

USAID will evaluate the Contractor’s performance during Contract implementation by using performance standards such as technical quality, cost control, timeliness, management/business relations, small business subcontracting (as applicable), and regulatory compliance regarding the Contractor’s performance. For more detailed information about Performance Standards, please refer to Section E.3 of the amended RFP. Please see pages 7, 117-118, 144, 148 of amended RFP for revised language.

Question No. 37:

Section F.7.A on page 23 of the revised RFP, Amendment 3, requests the “Offeror to propose the technical deliverables based on their proposed PWS as part of the MEL Plan”. Section L and Section M do not require the technical deliverables to be included in the MEL plan. Could USAID confirm that technical deliverables must be included in the MEL plan, as referenced in section F.7.A on page 23?

USAID Response to Question No. 37:

USAID has changed the language in Section F.7.3 of the amended RFP to instruct Offerors to propose technical deliverables based on their technical approach in the PWS and submitted as Technical Proposal Annex G. Please see pages 20 and 117-120 of amended RFP for revised language.