J.10 - Questions and Answers.pdf

Request for Proposals # 72027623R00002 – Growing Agriculture and Incomes in Syria

Questions and Answers

Dear Offerors, USAID/MERP and USAID/Syria would like to thank you for your interest in working with the U.S.

Government. We are grateful for the insightful comments and questions received in response to the above Request for Proposals. Below are the responses to the questions and this document is incorporated into the Request for Proposals through Amendment # 2. The Request for Proposals has been amended in response to some of the comments and questions. The changes are highlighted in green in the amended Request for Proposals accompanying this Q&A document for ease of review. If there is any inconsistency between this document and the amendment Request for Proposals, this document takes precedence.

1. The RFP makes reference to third-party monitoring and that USAID has a third-party monitoring provider. At the sametime, USAID has forecasted that it will issue a third-party monitoring contract in Syria in FY 2023. Can USAID clarify who is the current TPM provider or the title of that mechanism so that organizations can properly assess any possible conflicts of interest when deciding whether or not to pursue this opportunity?

USAID Response: Implementer: Proximity International. Mechanism: Syria Accountability and Research Team (ART).

2. Do we assume correctly that, in general, it is possible to bring in project references from the

German [Company] to this proposal in order to comply with the requirements related to “past performance (see chapter L.13.7.)”, as the US company does not have any own references yet?

USAID Response: Past performance references should be included for the Prime Offeror and major subcontractors. Offerors without past performance information will be assigned a “neutral” score for this evaluation criteria. Please see Section M.3 for details added through Amendment 2.

3. To which extent is such use of references of the German corporation [Company] for [Company] possible in this specific case under the geographic code 937? Do we assume correctly that also a German company would be eligible to bid for tender of this geographic code 937?

USAID Response:

a. See response to Question # 2 for the first part of this question.

b. For the second part of this question, USAID has amended the authorized geographic code for this action to 935. Therefore, a German company would be eligible to submit a proposal.

4. Can you please elaborate what is meant with “up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal” (L.13.7. page 129). What would be the timeline for contracts to still be considered as “recent”? Would a similar contract which has been finalized 5 years ago still be considered as “recent” to be eligible for evaluation?

USAID Response: “Most recent” refers to awards that have ended within the last five years. The RFP has been amended to clarify this.

5. Do we understand correctly that also running contracts which are not yet fully finalized can be mentioned here and would be considered as eligible for evaluation?

USAID Response: If the question relates to whether an ongoing award that has not yet reached the end of its period of performance may be used as a reference, the answer is yes, it may be used.

6. F.5.a., p. 19, Please clarify the requirement that "The Offeror must submit a report in support of completion of technical/performance deliverables, that will be inserted prior to award.." Are these the same as deliverables proposed in Annex D? In other words, is it expected that a report supporting the completion of technical/performance deliverables be provided prior to award?

USAID Response: Correct. This is the same report as Annex D. The final list of outputs/performance deliverables to be accomplished during the period of performance will be inserted into the award in F.5.a. The contractor will then submit evidence of the completion of each output/performance deliverable during the period of performance of the award as they are achieved during the award.

7. H.7, p. 45, Can the geographic code be changed from 937/110 to 935? Doing so would promote efficiency in using United States foreign assistance resources by using commodities and services from regional, USAID-presence, advanced developing countries.

USAID Response: See response to Question # 3.

8. H.19, p. 51, Will vetting occur after the award but before the start of the program?

USAID Response: As the vetting process can take up to 30 days (and sometimes longer), USAID will request the apparently successful Offeror to begin the vetting process as soon as possible. An award may not be made without successful completion of the vetting process and a finding of eligibility by the apparently successful Offeror.

9. L.12.2, p. 123, what is the difference between "6) ii) Draft Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning

Plan (MEL Plan) (included in page limit)" and p. 124 "Annex F: Draft Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (maximum 5 pages; included in the page limits)"?

USAID Response: Amendment 2 updates the requirements for the MEL Approach Summary and associated annex. The MEL Approach Summary is included in the 25-page limit of the PWS. The previous requirement for a separately Annexed MEL Plan has been revised to be a separately Annexed Draft Results Framework with an indicator table, which is not included in the page limit.

10. L.12.2, p. 123, Is 7) Past Performance included in the page limit? Additionally, section L.13.7(a) 1),

p. 129 requires that Offerors “List in an annex to the technical proposal up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal."? Should this be a new Annex G? If not, which Annex should it be considered a part of, and what is the page limit? Should PPRs that are not in CPARS be included here?

USAID Responses:

a. Past performance references are not included in the page limit. This has been clarified in

Amendment 2 to the RFP.

b. Amendment 2 clarifies that past performance references should be included as part of the technical proposal, not as an annex.

c. Past performance references not in CPARS should be provided in the format outlined in

Section L.13.7(a)2).

d. USAID has also clarified in the RFP Amendment that grants/cooperative agreements may be used for past performance.

11. L.12.2, p. 124 – Is the purpose of "Annex A: Draft Staffing Plan and Organizational Chart" to expand on material provided in the main technical report (Personnel, Management and Monitoring Approach)?

USAID Response: Yes. The annexed Draft Staffing Plan and Organizational Chart should include the “proposed organization chart identifying the roles and responsibilities of individual team members” and also “specify how coordination and collaboration with subawardee(s) partners, subcontractors (if any) and USAID is envisioned to operate” and include a “description of the Offeror’s personnel resources for the activity, duty locations, source of labor (i.e. local, US expatriate), type of engagement (i.e., long term expatriate, long term local, short term expatriate, short term local), time of availability, corporate source (Contractor or sub-awardee) and the associated roles and responsibilities.”

12. L.12.2, p. 124 – Do the deliverables in Annex D: PWS Annex: Technical/Performance Deliverables need to be restated/summarized in the PWS?

USAID Response: Annexes in the Amendment have been updated. The PWS Annex:

Technical/Performance Deliverables is no longer required. Technical deliverables should be summarized as indicators with annual targets in the new Annex: Draft Results Framework with Indicator Table.. The Technical Approach: PWS can reference the Annexes; content included in the Annexes do not need to be restated in the PWS.

13. L.12.2, p. 124, Why is "Annex F: Draft Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (maximum 5 pages; included in the page limits)" the only annex included in the page limits?

USAID Response: Refer to Question #9. Amendment 2 updates the requirements for the Annexes and page limits.

14. L.13.5, p. 126, Do the general program parameters have to be presented as listed and in the order listed in the RFP?

USAID Response: It is up to the Offeror to decide how to present their technical work and consideration of the program considerations.

15. L.13.5, p. 126, What is the distinction between "d) Cross-Cutting Themes (e.g., Youth, Disability, Partnerships)" and "f) General Implementation Approach or Guiding Principles"?

USAID Response: This has been revised in the Amendment for clarity.

16. L.13.5, p. 126, Why aren't c) Gender and b) Sustainability considered cross-cutting themes?

17. L.13.5., General Program Parameters (p. 126), requires offerors to discuss expectations and priorities with regard to e) Management Approach/Staffing Requirements and f) General Implementation Approach. What is the distinction between the two, and how is e) Management Approach/Staffing Requirements different from L.13.6.A., Management Approach Summary (p.

127)?

18. L.13.5., p. 126, states that the PWS must include the following sections in the specified order: 1)

Objective; 2) Background; 3) Results and Goals; 4) General Program Parameters; and 5) Services/Tasks Required; and that the PWS must be written from the perspective of USAID. For example, the PWS will say, "the Contractor must…" as opposed to "we will…". There are sections of the PWS, however, that do not lend themselves to writing a proposal in these terms, e.g., 4) General Program Parameters, e) management approach/staffing requirements, which typically include background with regard to an Offeror's unique experience and capabilities. Would it be possible to indicate which specific sections of the PWS must be written in the generic "the Contractor must…" terms? Additionally, please advise if it is acceptable that Offerors rather include a mix of references, using both the name of the Offeror (to highlight its unique experience/capabilities) and what "the Contractor must" do.

a. USAID believes that the sub-section “General Program Parameters” does lend itself to being written from the perspective of USAID. Management Approach/Staffing Requirements is not part of the PWS. This has been revised in Amendment 2 for clarity.

b. Note that the section on references is not part of the PWS and is therefore not subject to this requirement. The PWS will be inserted into the final contract therefore the PWS must not reference the word Offeror and instead use the term Contractor.

19. L.13.6.A, p. 127, Does the prohibition of U.S. citizens entering Syria mean that U.S. citizens cannot be key personnel?

USAID Response: Offerors are able to propose US citizens as key personnel. However, Offerors are advised to ensure that the limitation on US personnel (key or not) traveling into the country does not impact their ability to implement their approach, and measures to minimize any impact are outlined in the proposal.

20. L.13.6.A, p. 128, has the following text: Individual key personnel will not be considered during the evaluation of proposals; and the proposal must not include individual names and resumes. Is the expectation that the experience of the proposed key personnel will be described without mentioning names? Also, can the names of non-key personnel be used? If names and details of actual persons cannot be used, how will proposed personnel be evaluated?

a. The evaluation criteria for “Personnel, Management and Monitoring Approach” states that this evaluation criterion “will be evaluated based on the extent that it demonstrates a cohesive, flexible, and responsive management structure, with appropriate key personnel and non-key personnel necessary to achieve the objectives of the program.” The intention is that the structure of the proposed team will be evaluated, including any additional proposed key personnel positions with suggested minimum qualifications. Offerors must not propose specific individuals for key personnel positions, nor provide resumes. The Amended RFP clarifies this.

b. The names of non-key personnel may be proposed, but the individuals will not be evaluated.

The intention of requesting biographical data forms for these individuals is to determine the reasonableness of the proposed salaries. The RFP has been amended to clarify that biographical data forms are only required for any proposed non-key personnel that are named in the proposal.

21. L.15 part 3, p. 139, Do all subcontractors (including local subcontractors) need a SAM registration?

USAID Response: There is no requirement for proposed subcontractors to be registered in SAM.

However, all proposed subcontractors must have a Unique Entity Identifier. See Automated Directives System 302.3.6.11, Contract Reporting and System for Award Management (SAM) for further information (https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/302_2.pdf)

22. J.6.3, p. 148 Does the statement "GROW will not directly benefit the Self-Administration of North and East Syria (SANES), the de facto governing body in NES, or other de facto governing agencies in non-regime held Syria" preclude working on policy and enabling environment issues or simply that it prohibits directly addressing them with/through SANES?

USAID Response: This statement does not preclude coordinating with SANES or other de facto governing agencies. USAID does not envision that the Contractor works on the policy or enabling environment through this activity. Primarily, the Contractor is expected to take a market systems approach and “to work with all types of stakeholders in the sector such as, but not limited to, commercial and smallholder farmers, agribusinesses, livestock and poultry businesses, agro-pharmacies and agro-service providers, laboratories, farmer cooperatives, service providers, aggregators, etc”, as outlined in the SOO.

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/302_2.pdf

23. Can the references to Lebanon be removed and replaced appropriately (on p. 31, p. 45-3 times, p.

50)?

USAID Response: Yes, changes made in Amendment 2.

24. Please provide a Local Compensation Plan for Syria.

USAID Response: USAID will not provide the entire compensation plan for Syria. However, the range in the local compensation plan is as follows (base salary without bonus):

FSN 12/12: $55,374

FSN 02/01: $6,299

25. Can local subcontracts be substituted for grants?

USAID Response: Any local awards awarded as grants will be considered Grants Under Contract.

26. Are there specific limits to the size of the base fee and/or award fee?

USAID Response: Offerors must follow RFP Attachment J.4, FAR 15.404-4, 16.305, 16.401, 16.405- 2, RFP Sections B.7, G.10, and M.4 in proposing the size of the base fee and award fee. The base fee may range from 0%-3% of the estimated contract cost amount exclusive of the fee.

27. Could USAID please share any assessments and/or analyses conducted by relevant USAID-funded programs in Syria?

USAID Response: Previous public assessments can be found on USAID’s Development Experience Clearinghouse website (www.dec.usaid.gov).

28. Pg. 20, F.5 Reports and Deliverables, (c) Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL), 1. MEL Plan:

The contractor is expected to include USAID Standard Foreign Assistance indicators. However, the link is dead http://www.state.gov/f/indicators. Can USAID provide the updated and specific link on the indicators?

USAID Response: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/201.pdf

29. Pg. 30, F.7 Key Personnel: USAID states, “The DCOP will work in close coordination with the

Business Development Officer to ensure that proper sub-sectoral technical aspects are incorporated in the activity’s grants and technical assistance.” Would USAID please confirm that there is no requirement for a “Business Development Officer” position and this should be removed from the solicitation?

USAID Response: The language has been amended to indicate that the DCOP must work with relevant stakeholders and there is not a requirement for a Business Development Officer.

30. Page 55, H.27(a), Grants Under Contract: USAID states “The total value of any individual grant to

US organizations must not exceed $100,000,00.” ADS 302.3.4.13.c(1) Grants Under Contract indicates “Award Amount Threshold: The total value of an individual grant to a U.S. NGO must not http://www.dec.usaid.gov/ https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/201.pdf exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT)….” Could USAID please clarify which threshold we are intended to go by for purposes of this RFP?

USAID Response: The total value of any individual grant to US organizations must not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. This has been corrected in Amendment 2.

31. Pg. 123, L.12.2. Organization of Technical Proposal: The Draft Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning

Plan (MEL Plan) is listed both as part of the Personnel, Management and Monitoring Approach in technical proposal and as Annex F. Will USAID please confirm that the MEL plan should be included as an annex?

USAID Response: See response to Question # 9.

32. Pg. 126 L.13.5. Technical Approach – Performance Work Statement, Background: USAID states, “The Background section must present the problems the Offeror intends to address in the Syrian agriculture, agro-food and other non-ag rural based sectors and their business development service side, employment creation facilitation, income generation, access to new markets and policy environment.” Could USAID please clarify what “business development service side” refers to?

USAID Response: This text is revised in Amendment 2 to be “associated private sector actors”.

33. Pg. 129, L.11.6.B Draft Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan refers to Section F.4 (c) on pages

19 – 20. Can USAID please confirm that this reference is intended to point to section F.5(c)—(c) Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL)? If so, could USAID please clarify what aspects of the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) plan in section F.5 (c) on pages 19 – 20 is expected in the proposal versus as a deliverable in the project in order to keep within a 5-page limit for the Annex? Specifically, we assume that Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) are not expected in the Annex to keep to the 5-page limit. Would USAID consider eliminating the page maximum for Annex F to accommodate for detail requested in the RFP?

USAID Response: See the response to Question # 9. The requirements for an Annexed MEL plan have been updated.

34. Pg. 127, L.13.5. Technical Approach – Performance Work Statement, Services/Tasks Required:

USAID states, “The Offeror must propose a Grants under Contract component to its Technical Approach not to exceed $15,000,000.00 in value. Offerors must define clear criteria and objectives for small grant awards that would require the grants to: i) have financial cost-sharing from recipients…” [Would] USAID consider removing the cost-sharing requirement for GUC-funded activities that are not for the purpose of generating a profit?

USAID Response: USAID has clarified that cost sharing is not required for grants whose purpose is not for generating profit.

35. Pg. 127, L.13.5. Technical Approach – Performance Work Statement: If any GUC-funded activities generate a profit does USAID consider this program income? If so, does USAID anticipate allowing implementers to use the additive approach, increasing the total program amount by the amount of generated income?

USAID Response: Profit will be considered program income for the particular grant and may be used per the three approaches outlined in Automated Directives System 303.3.10.4, “Program Income.” The method chosen must be discussed and agreed upon in conjunction with the COR, to suit the particular grant (https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/agency-policy/303.pdf).

36. Pg. 128, L.13.6.A. Management Approach Summary: USAID states, “Individual key personnel will not be considered during the evaluation of proposals; and the proposal must not include individual names and resumes.” Given the prohibition to naming Key Personnel, we request that USAID remove the following language from pg. 135, Section L.15. Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal, Part 2 – Proposed Costs/Prices, B. Budget Cost Category Definitions and Illustrations: “The Offeror must submit a fully completed and signed AID 1420-17 Form, entitled USAID Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet (AID Form 1420-17) for each proposed (identified personnel) Cooperating Country National (CCN) and Third Country National (TCN) staff member whose salary will be charged as a direct cost to the Contract. Biographical Data Sheets are also required for all (identified) long-term, short-term expatriate and home office personnel and all long-term and short-term cooperating country personnel being proposed, as well as for all proposed consultants. The Biographical Data Sheets must include proposed position, chronology of relevant work experience, and academic qualification. The Biographical Data Sheets must be complete and properly certified and signed by both the employee and the Contractor.

The form must be signed by the individual and the Offeror (or Subcontractor) in the appropriate spaces with all blocks completed. Consulting assignments must clearly specify the number of days for each consultancy excluding any benefits. The proposed period of performance of each proposed individual must be indicated on the biodata form (i.e. number of years/months/days).

Use of Biographical Data Sheets which are more than three months old is not acceptable.

Biographical Data Sheets must be presented in alphabetical order, by the individual's surname, regardless of whether the individual is to be furnished by the Prime Contractor or a Subcontractor.”

USAID Response: See response to Question # 20.

37. Pg. 129, L.13.7. Past Performance: USAID states, “List in an annex to the technical proposal up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal. The most relevant indicators of performance are contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity.” Will USAID confirm the offer may include past performance information regarding work done under assistance activities such as grants or cooperative agreements of similar size, scope, and complexity.

USAID Response: See response to Question # 10.

38. Pg. 150, Section 5. Performance Goal, Objectives, Design Principles, and Targets: Could USAID please provide a definition for “repayable grant”?

USAID Response: The term has been removed from the RFP.

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/agency-policy/303.pdf

39. Pg. 151-2, Section 5. Performance Goal, Objectives, Design Principles, and Targets: Several illustrative indicators have annual minimum targets. May offerors average these across the years of the award to accommodate for start-up time in year 1 and delays in results (i.e. incomes change as a result of better farming that wouldn’t be seen until year 2)?

USAID Response: Annual minimum targets should be annual. However, USAID recognizes that targets in start-up time during year one will likely be less than following years’ annual targets.

Annual targets must be realistic and ambitious. This has been clarified in Amendment 2.

40. Pg. 151, Section 5. Performance Goal, Objectives, Design Principles, and Targets: “Number of households with improved incomes as a result of USG assistance and average increase in incomes.

(minimum target 2,500 annually)” and, “Increase in volume of production at the farm and firm level as a result of USG assistance. (minimum target average 35% across the different sectors).”

Depending on the distribution of households and farms/firms, there may be programmatic tradeoff to focus on specific households or farms/firms that would not be the most effective for increasing average incomes/volume. What is the flexibility with this indicator based on initial distribution and inclusivity/systems-based approaches?

USAID Response: There is some degree of flexibility with indicators and annual targets, based on the Offeror’s technical approach. Annual targets must be realistic and ambitious. This has been clarified in Amendment 2.

41. Can USAID provide more clarity around the target amount versus the verifiable data indicators in the QASP? For example, are we expected to detect income increases of 2,400 households from the number of participating households (regardless of whether we can get verifiable data from them) or are we expected to detect income increases of 2,400 households only from the pool of households with verifiable data? We have the same request for clarification for detecting average increases.

USAID Response: The QASP will be submitted after the award has been made per section F.5. The RFP has been updated accordingly. The Offeror’s approach to collecting and calculating quantitative indicators must be realistic, specified in the MEL approach summary, and based on principles of statistics and best practices in data collection.

42. In reference to Section F.7 Key Personnel on p. 29 of the RFP, the RFP states “The following positions have been designated as key personnel and are essential to the work being performed under this contract: Chief of Party, Deputy Chief of Party, and up to three positions proposed by the Contractor,” could USAID please clarify that the contractor may propose up to three additional key positions but is only required to propose the Chief of Party and Deputy Chief of Party key positions?

43. Section L.15 Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal on p. 135 states that

“The Offeror must submit a fully completed and signed AID 1420-17 Form, entitled USAID

Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet (AID Form 1420-17) for each proposed (identified personnel) Cooperating Country National (CCN) and Third Country National (TCN) staff member whose salary will be charged as a direct cost to the Contract. Biographical Data Sheets are also required for all (identified) long-term, short-term expatriate and home office personnel and all long-term and short-term cooperating country personnel being proposed, as well as for all proposed consultants.” This seems to be in contradiction to RFP’s direction that “the proposal must not include individual names and resumes” in Section L.13.6.A. Management Approach Summary on p. 128. Can USAID please clarify this discrepancy and that key personnel names should not appear in the technical or cost volumes or any related personnel biodatas?

USAID Response: See response to Question # 20. Note that the requirement under Section L.13.6.A to not name key personnel refers only to key personnel positions.

44. Regarding the RFP’s direction that “the proposal must not include individual names and resumes” in Section L.13.6.A. Management Approach Summary on p. 128, please confirm which if any proposed or current staff of the offeror should be named in the proposal, for both the technical and cost volumes.

USAID Response: Please see response to Question # 20. Current staff may be named as long as they are not key personnel. However, USAID will not evaluate the named staff, except to use their biodata forms to ensure the proposed salaries are reasonable.

45. The RFP makes reference in multiple places to Lebanon, including on p. 31 of Section F.7 Key

Personnel, p. 45 of Section H.6 Personnel Approvals, and Section H.18 Environmental Compliance.

Can USAID please confirm if this is an error, and if so, what is the relevant location and country (including local compensation plan) to which USAID wants these requirements to be tied?

a. References to Lebanon have been corrected to Syria in Amendment 2.

b. See response to Question # 24 for the second part of this question.

46. Related to the previous question, implementation of programs in Syria may require staff and or offices based outside of the country. For the purposes of budgeting, local compensation, allowances, etc., how will USAID define Cooperating Country Nationals (CCNs)?

USAID Response: Syrian nationals living and working in Syria will be considered CCNs for the purposes of this award.

47. Can USAID confirm where the contract management team e.g., COR will be based?

USAID Response: The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative will be based with USAID/Syria’s platform in either Amman, Jordan and/or Istanbul, Turkey, while the Contracting Officer will be based in Frankfurt, Germany.

48. In reference to Section L.13.7 Past Performance on p.129, can USAID please confirm that the past performance information does not have page limits that are counted as part of the 25-page technical approach, and if USAID has a desired format.

49. In reference to Section L.13.7. Past Performance on p.129-131, can USAID please clarify if past performance information is required for non-major subcontractor partners.

USAID Response: This is correct. Past performance information is only required for major subcontractors.

50. In reference to Section L.13.7. Past Performance p.129-131, can USAID please confirm if offerors can present past performance information for programs that are not contracts

51. In reference to Section L.14 Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan on p. 131, please clarify if the Branding, Implementation, and Marking Plan should be included as an annex to the technical proposal.

USAID Response: The branding implementation plan and marking plan are due after the award has been made. This has been clarified in Amendment 2 to the RFP.

52. In reference to Section L.13.8 Annexes on p.131, please clarify if the Draft Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (MEL Plan) should be included as a separate annex to the proposal or be included within the technical proposal.

USAID Response: Refer to the response for Question #9.

53. In reference to Section L.13.8 Annexes on p.131, please clarify if there is a preferred format/template for the PWS Annex – Technical Performance Deliverables, e.g., work plan, Gantt chart, etc.

USAID Response: There is no preferred format or template.

54. Section L.12.1 on p.123 of the RFP states that proposals must use 12-point Times New Roman and that "type may be 10-point font in charts and graphs." Could USAID confirm that 10-point Times New Roman may also be used in textboxes, footnotes, and tables, and larger font for titles and/or cover page text?

USAID Response: This is confirmed, and the RFP has been amended to reflect this.

55. Section L.13.5 Technical Approach – Performance Work Statement on p.127 of the RFP states that

"in Annex F, the Offeror must propose a table of deliverables." Could USAID clarify whether this refers to the PWS Annex listed as Annex D in Sections L.12.2 and L.13.8?

USAID Response: This requirement has been updated. Refer to the response to Questions # 12.

Annex requirements and numbering have been updated in Amendment 2.

56. On p.135 of Section L.15, the RFP states that “Use of Biographical Data Sheets which are more than three months old is not acceptable.” Can USAID please reconsider requesting fully executed biodatas at the time of proposal submission and instead request them at time of award? As the time from proposal to submission to award is often uncertain and may be extended, biodata information may no longer be current, necessitating that contractors re-execute this information at that time anyway.

USAID Response: USAID requests that the biographical data sheets be signed no more than three months before the date of submission of the proposal. The information in the biographical data sheets will be used to determine the reasonableness of the proposed salaries.

57. Please clarify whether the IQO (Option 2) costs need to be presented in a separate detailed budget in addition to showing the costs by category in the summary budget?

USAID Response: Correct. The IQO costs must be presented in a separate detailed budget in addition to showing the costs by category in the summary budget.

58. Please clarify whether IQO (Option 2) costs should be budgeted at exactly $10 million?

USAID Response: It should be budgeted up to $10 million and the amount depends on the technical approach of the Offeror. The intention of the IQO is to provide USAID the ability to exercise the option during the period of performance of the contract to scale up activities within scope of the PWS should additional resources become available and there is a need.

59. Please confirm that IQO (Option 2) costs are included in the contract amount range of

$30,000,000 to $45,000,000.

USAID Response: Confirmed.

60. Please confirm that base award fee should be presented as a percentage of total costs (excluding fee)? Similarly, should the non-base award fee (up to the maximum award fee) be presented as a percentage of total costs (excluding fee)?

61. Regarding Section L.15 Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal on p. 141, Annex 7: Compensation Plan, and Page 45, H.6.(a), Personnel Approvals, reference is made to the Lebanon Local Compensation Plan. Please clarify if the reference to the Lebanon Compensation Plan is in error, and/or which compensation plan should be used as reference for the “Offeror’s Compensation Plan” cost volume annex? Can USAID please include the local compensation plan to which offerors must adhere, and if possible a preferred template for this annex?

USAID Response: See response to Question # 24.

62. Regarding Section L.15 Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal on p. 141, please confirm that Annexes 1, 2, and 3 are not required for organizations with previous USAID experience, but all other Annexes are required for non-small business offerors.

USAID Response: This is confirmed.

63. On page 129, USAID refers to "an annex to the technical proposal up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to work in the subject proposal" but also provides instructions for it as part of the contents of the PWS and does not then list it as a separate annex.

Can USAID please clarify exactly how it would like to see past performance detailed in the submission?

64. On page 124, L.13.1, USAID asks that offerors include in the cover letter "the names and UEIs of all proposed subcontracts." Additionally, it states that "(M)ajor subcontractors for the purposes of this RFP are those that are anticipated to receive at least 20% of the total estimated cost of the resulting award.” Can USAID clarify if offerors should include all subcontractors in the cover letter, or only major subcontractors?

USAID Response: Offerors must include the names and UEIs of all subcontractors on the cover letter.

65. To improve readability, may an alternate font (e.g., Arial or Calibri) be applied when 10-point font is used in charts and graphs? [re L.12.1, page 123] USAID Response: See response to Question # 54.

66. Can USAID provide any further clarity on what it would like to see included in the standalone PWS annex as opposed to in the PWS section of the technical application? We note that L.13.5 (p.125) calls for "proposed technical/performance deliverables (Annex F)." We also note that L.13.5 (p.

127) calls for offerors to provide "a table of deliverables that aligns with the targets proposed in Section B.7." We appreciate any added clarity and detail that USAID can provide with respect to the requested content of this annex.

USAID Response: Refer to the response for Question # 12.

67. With regard to the "Illustrative Indicators and Targets" outlined on page 151, is it USAID’s expectation of the implementer that these are unique targets per year?

USAID Response: Refer to Question # 39.

68. We respectfully ask that USAID clarify these related statements from Section L.13.5 on pages 125 and 127:

a. On page 125, the RFP states that ""The PWS must outline the proposed approach, methodologies, and interventions ... with proposed technical/performance deliverables (Annex F)..."" Kindly confirm that this should instead reference Annex D.

USAID Response: Refer to the response for Question # 12. Annex and reference numbering has been updated in Amendment 2.

b. On page 127, the RFP states the following: ""In Annex F, propose a table of deliverables that aligns with the targets proposed in Section B.7."" We suggest that this may have been

[intended] to refer to Annex D: PWS Annex: Technical/Performance Deliverables, rather than Annex F, and to B.6, rather than B.7."

USAID Response: Refer to the response for Question # 12. Annex and reference numbering has been updated in Amendment 2.

69. H.18 (p.50) states that the contractor will ensure compliance with “applicable international environmental obligations of Lebanon.” Can USAID kindly confirm that “Lebanon” should be replaced with “Syria”?

USAID Response: See response to Question # 23.

70. Can USAID please confirm if there is a page limit for the Past Performance annex requested as part of the following instructions: "1) List in an annex to the technical proposal up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal. The most relevant indicators of performance are contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity."?

71. In Section L.13.5 (p. 125-126), the RFP states that "The PWS must...3) Clearly describe the deliverables associated with each Objective, along with the deadline for completion and method of verification." Please confirm that this information can be provided in Annex D and does not need to be included in full in the body of the Technical Approach: PWS.

USAID Response: Confirmed. Please refer to the response for Question # 12 for additional information.

72. L.13.6.A (p. 128) alternately refers to the Draft Staffing Plan and Organizational Chart as Annex A or Annex B. Kindly confirm that the list of annexes provided in L.12.2 (p. 124) and repeated in L.13.8 (p. 131) is correct. Similarly, on page 128, the RFP refers to F.8 for information related to key personnel; please confirm that the correct reference is F.7.

USAID Response: Annex and reference listed has been updated in Amendment 2.

73. On page 124, USAID requests we submit Annex B: Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP), though on page 28, instructions say "The Contractor must submit the initial draft of the QASP to the COR by no later than 60 days after the effective date of the Contract" Can USAID please confirm whether we submit a QASP as part of the Technical Application or if we wait to submit that initial draft after the contract has been awarded?

USAID Response: The QASP will be submitted after the award has been made per Section F.5. The RFP has been updated accordingly.

74. Attachment J.1 shows the Summary Budget template for GROW but does not include a separate line item for Equipment and Supplies. Can USAID confirm Equipment and Supplies should be presented under Other Direct Costs on the Summary tab?

USAID Response: Please use the updated budget template included with Amendment 2.

75. Can USAID please confirm if it can provide approval for applicants to use TCN salaries and benefits to be based on the organization's Country Office pay scale and compensation package (in response to AIDAR 722.170 on page 42)?

USAID Response: USAID respectfully will not provide approval for this at this time.

76. Can USAID please confirm if applicants can use our internal pay scales if they are established as in line with national standards in place for the General Grade Level Guides listed on page 70 of the

RFP?

USAID Response: Offerors may use their internal pay scales. This guide is provided where no classification exists.

77. Is it possible for applicants to use Geographic Code 935 instead of 937 to allow for increased flexibility to procure items that could be challenging to source?

78. Can USAID please provide details around the relevant benefit structure in order to benchmark benefits as noted in the RFP?

USAID Response: Benefits for employees must be provided in accordance with an organization’s internal policies and in line with local labor law.

79. Can USAID please confirm that [Company] does not need to submit an Organizational Conflict of

Interest Mitigation Plan if no OCI has been identified?

USAID Response: The determination of whether an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan is required to be submitted is to be decided by the Offeror as required under FAR

9.505. However, if the offeror has decided that OCI is not identified, then they do not need to submit the Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan.

80. Regarding vetting, can USAID please confirm which document will guide vetting requirements?

The RFP states "the Contractor is responsible for complying with the USAID/Syria Vetting Mission Order," but we have not been able to locate such a Mission Order for Syria.

USAID Response: Vetting guidance is available under Sections H.19, H.20, L.16. Per Section H.21, the Mission Order will be shared with the apparently successful Offeror.

81. Regarding vetting, can USAID please confirm whether or not any vetting of beneficiaries, including training participants, may be required based on the Mission Order?

USAID Response: Vetting guidance is available under Sections H.19, H.20, L.16. Per Section H.21, the Mission Order will be shared with the apparently successful Offeror.

82. If an applicant is new to contracting with USAID, can USAID please advise how best to fulfill the listed requirements in L.13.7. Past Performance (d) Performance in Using Small Business (SB) Concerns on page 130?

USAID Response: USAID does not have any additional guidance other than that provided in the instructions.

83. Regarding the KP position of Deputy Chief of Party, under Education Requirements, bullet #3 cites

Lebanon or other fragile and conflict affected country. Does USAID intend to revise this to Syria and are there other illustrative countries?

84. Regarding the KP position of Deputy Chief of Party, under Education Requirements, bullet #4 lists

"competency in negotiation.” Can USAID please provide any more specifics around the type of negotiation experience required? (e.g. around contracting, ADR, etc...)

USAID Response: Desired competency in negotiation refers to the skill needed to handle the complex and various interests of USAID, the contractor, the and other stakeholders in non-regime held areas of Syria. This may include skills such as active listening, strong written and oral communication, decision making ability, emotional intelligence, interpersonal skills, adaptability, and strategic thinking.

85. Per Section B.4(b), a Grants Under Contract line is to be included within the IQO CLIN (page 8).

However, Section L.13.5 (page 127) states, “The Offeror must propose a Grants under Contract component to its Technical Approach not to exceed $15,000,000.00 in value,” which, per B.4(b), is the Grants under Contract allocation for the Base Period + Option 1. Can USAID please confirm that offerors may propose grants within the IQO?

USAID Response: Yes, Offerors may propose grants within the IQO.

86. Section B.7(b) requires that offerors propose the maximum award fee to be earned for each evaluation period (page 10). The initial award fee evaluation period will cover the start of the award to the end of fiscal year 2023. Without a start date, it is not possible to accurately estimate the award fee to propose for this initial period. Can USAID please clarify the estimated award start date?

USAID Response: USAID anticipates making an award by June 2023.

87. Per section F.4, the place of performance is listed as non-regime-controlled areas of Syria (page

17). Recognizing that the primary work to be performed under this contract will be in Syria, can USAID please provide additional detail regarding expectations for contractor presence both within Syria and the region? Should implementing partners propose to operate, in part, out of a remote office outside of Syria, does USAID have a preferred location?

USAID Response: USAID does not have a preferred location and this is a determination to be made and proposed by the offeror. The location of the offeror’s staff must ensure that the project is successfully implemented to achieve the results intended.

88. Per Section H.7, the geographic code for this contract is 937 (page 45). Given the scarcity of certain items to be procured in Syria and the challenges this geographic code would present, would USAID consider geographic code 935 instead to allow for streamlined procurement from regional sources?

89. Per Section H.27(a), individual grants to U.S. organizations must not exceed $100,000.00 (page

55). However, per USAID’s update to ADS302.3.4.13 on July 22, 2021, the value of a grant to a U.S.

organization was increased to the simplified acquisition threshold. Will USAID modify the language in Section H.27 to incorporate this regulatory update?

USAID Response: See response to Question # 30.

90. Section L.12.1 (page 123) states that technical proposals should be “...typed using 12-point font size Times New Roman (type may be 10-point font in charts and graphs)...” Can USAID confirm that 10-point font may also be used in text boxes?

91. Section L.12.2, Organization of the Technical Proposal, lists the Executive Summary as part of the technical approach page limits (page 123). Would USAID consider allowing the two-page summary to not count toward technical proposal page limits?

USAID Response: USAID respectfully will not agree to this request.

92. In Section L.12.2, Organization of the Technical Proposal, the Personnel, Management, and

Monitoring Approach section includes both the Management Approach Summary and the Draft Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan, which is also Annex F as specified in section L.13.6.B (page 129). Given the critical role that MEL will play in this activity, would USAID kindly consider including the MEL Plan narrative in the technical volume page limits, while allowing Annex F to sit outside tech volume page limits to offset the space required for the results framework and indicator tables to be placed in Annex F?

USAID Response: Refer to the response for Question # 9.

93. Can USAID confirm that the Small Business Concerns narrative specified under Section L.13.7(d)

(page 129) may be included in the same annex as the five recent and relevant contracts requested under Section L.13.7(a)(1), and that no past performance information will be included in or subject to the page limit of the technical volume?

USAID Response:

a. An additional Annex has been added to L.13.8 under which Offerors must describe their utilization of small businesses.

b. See response to Question # 10.

94. In Section L.13.5, Technical Approach – Performance Work Statement (page 125), the requirements for the Results and Goals section of the PWS state that “specific deliverables, indicators, and tasks should not, however, be included here. They will be presented in the

Services/Tasks Required section later in the document. For all the stated results, Offerors must propose performance standards and deliverables, which are measurable and structured to permit an assessment of the Contractor’s performance.” Can USAID confirm that proposed performance standards (targets) should be included under Services/Tasks Required in the PWS and deliverables in Annex D, rather than under Results and Goals?

USAID Response: Refer to the response for Question # 12.

95. Section L.13.5, Technical Approach – Performance Work Statement (page 125), notes that

“Offerors may not propose replacing any of the results but may expand on them.” Can USAID clarify that the results referred to are those listed in the SOO under “Illustrative Indicators and Targets” (page 151)? Further, may offerors expand on the expected targets, not results?

USAID Response:

a. Yes, that’s correct, the results referred to are those listed in the SOO under “Illustrative

Indicators and Targets.”

b. Yes, offerors may expand on the expected targets.

96. Section L.13.5, Technical Approach – Performance Work Statement (page 125), notes that

“...offerors must propose additional results for the Increased Quantity Option up to the total estimated ceiling of the IQO.” However, the SOO (page 151) notes that “The offeror is to propose additional numerical targets for the Increased Quantity Option...” Can USAID confirm that offerors are expected to propose additional IQO performance targets only under the given results, per the SOO, rather than additional, unique expected IQO results and targets?

97. Section L.13.5, Technical Approach – Performance Work Statement (page 125), specifies that offerors must define clear criteria and objectives for small grant awards that would require the grants to “have financial cost-sharing from recipients.” We agree with the need for partner buy-in;

however, given the management demands that cost share places on the grantee, we kindly request that USAID remove this requirement. ADS 303.3.10.1 states: “When used, its [cost share’s] application should be flexible, case-specific, and used to support or contribute to the achievement of results. USAID should use cost sharing after considering whether it is appropriate for the recipient organization in the particular circumstances, in particular, the programmatic and technical context... A specific program may be risky and discourages potential recipients from providing meaningful contributions.” Additionally, as per 2 CFR 200.201, “...a fixed amount award cannot be used in programs which require mandatory cost sharing.” The use of mandatory cost sharing in the grants fund may unfairly limit competition, as well as limit the type of mechanism that the successful implementing partner may utilize; the administrative burden of submitting receipts and backup documentation could discourage some organizations from applying. Given these factors, would USAID kindly remove the language requiring financial cost sharing from recipients?