BRICC_Amendment_No._1_-_Q&A.pdf

August 8, 2019

Subject: Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 72027819R00006 Building Resilient and Inclusive Communities in Conflict (BRICC) Activity Amendment #1

The purpose of this Amendment is:

A. The RFP is amended as follows: All amendments to the RFP are highlighted in yellow in the RFP Amendment 1 document on fbo.gov. Any highlighted strikethrough (i.e., strikethrough)text has been removed from the RFP. Changes to the RFP are noted below in the responses to questions.

B. Answers to Question received from various offerors via email:

Question No. 1: Can USAID confirm if the first RFTOP will be directed to all IDIQ successful offerors, and not only Small Business holders?

Answer No. 1: USAID intends to issue two RFTOPs shortly following award of the

IDIQ. One will be for all holders and one specifically for Small Business holders.

Question No. 2: Would you please consider extending the closing date for receipt of questions by one week in order to thoroughly examine the details of the (RFP) document?

Answer No. 2: We will not be extending the submission deadline given that the draft

SOW was shared with the Request for Information on March 12, 2019 and we are only requesting a proposal for the IDIQ portion at this time.

Question No. 3: Could USAID please consider extending the submission deadline through August 28, 2019, as originally posted on FBO on July 24, 2019? The current 30-day response time is significantly shorter than the average 65 days USAID has allowed for other multi-award IDIQs in the last year. In addition, planned staff TDY travel and annual leave—scheduled to align with the original USAID forecast release and submission dates for the procurement of June 24 and August 5, 2019 respectively—and the current shorter timeline limit the ability of offerors to provide the highest quality proposals in response to

USAID.

Answer No. 3: Please see response No. 2

Question No. 4: Would you please consider extending the closing date of submission by 3 weeks in order to have sufficient time examine the details of the (RFP) document and respond according submission requirements?

Answer No. 4: Please see response No. 2

Question No. 5: The RFP requests offerors to validate their proposals for 240 days, however the turnaround of 30 calendar days provides very little time for offerors to prepare their proposal, and especially the cost/pricing information that they will be held to throughout the life of the IDIQ.

We also note that the Eid holidays, which affect local partners in Syria, Jordan, and Turkey from on/about August 9 through 16, will also affect local partner availability to respond to the RFP over that timeframe. Would USAID please revisit and consider extending the due date of the RFP?

Answer No. 5: Please see response No. 2

Question No. 6: Two covering letters were issued for this solicitation, one sets the closing date of the proposal submission on August 28. Another one sets the closing date of the proposal submission on August 23. Please confirm the date of proposal submission.

Answer No. 6: August 23, 2019

Question No. 7: Could USAID please clarify the due date of the RFP? The original announcement stated August 28th while the letter states August 23rd.

We respectfully request that the due date for Proposals be extended to August 28, 2019, as per the original posting of the RFP on July 24, 2019.

Answer No. 7: Please see response No. 6.

Question No. 8: In page (1) it is mentioned that the location of the implementation of the Contract is Southern Syria. In page (22) it is mentioned that "…BRICC program efforts will initially launch in areas outside of regime control in Northeast Syria…" Would you please confirm the location of the implementation of the works under this contracts, is it Northern Syria or Southern Syria or any other neighbor country?

Answer No. 8: Per Page 22, BRICC program efforts will initially launch in areas outside of Regime control in northeast Syria. The USAID Operating Unit managing BRICC is the Southern Syria Assistance Platform which is stated on Page 1.

Question No. 9: Since the contract is IDIQ which needs to be further discussed and clarified; we believe that there is a need to conduct a Pre-bid meeting for this project. Please consider, and inform us where and when?

Answer No. 9: A co-creation co-design workshop was held in Washington, DC on

April 4, 2019. The invitation to the workshop was posted on FBO.gov on March 21, 2019. The workshop presentation and notes were included as Attachment J.1 of the subject RFP.

Question No. 10: Section B.5(d) (page 5): Please confirm that the fee ceiling applies only if a LOC is not issued by USAID for GUCs.

Answer No. 10: As stated in Section B.5(d), this section applies a separate Fee Ceiling when a Letter of Credit has been issued to the Contractor for GUC expenditures only.

Question No. 11: Section B.6.1 (page 7) – Please confirm that offerors may modify

“Table 1. Labor Categories” to indicate the proposed annual escalation rate for each labor category per B.6.1.(f) on page 6.

Answer No. 11: Table 1 sets forth the rates for Year 1; section B.6.1.(f) establishes the escalation rate. There is no need to modify the table to include out year labor category rates.

Question No. 12: Section B.6.1.f, Unburdened Ceiling Daily Rates, page 6, require that

Offerors propose an escalation rate % per year for the CDRs. Will USAID allow Offerors to propose different annual escalation rates for different labor categories or for the different seniority levels within labor categories?

Answer No. 12: Yes, USAID will allow Offerors to propose different annual escalation rates; however, varying rates will result in an increased administrative burden for the Contractor and for USAID in monitoring contract compliance.

Question No. 13: Could USAID please provide the LCP for Jordan?

Answer No. 13: Please reference Attachment J.10 for Jordan; Syria does not have a local compensation plan. Offerors will need to conduct market research to determine an appropriate rate for local Syrian staff.

Question No. 14: Can USAID please provide copies of referenced CCN/FSNs Pay Scales for (all relevant) “place of performance”?

Answer No. 14: Please see response No. 13.

Question No. 15: Page 7, Section B.6.1, “Table 1 – Labor Categories”, please confirm if offerors can propose separate CDR ceilings for headquarters-based staff, CCNs, TCNs and Expats, etc.; i.e, based on hiring/employment location?

Answer No. 15: Offerors may propose separate CDR ceilings for each category.

Question No. 16: Can USAID please confirm that “CCNs” will refer to any local national employees of the country in which their respective office is physically based (e.g. whether Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, etc.)?

Answer No. 16: That is correct.

Question No. 17: Section B.6.1 (i), Locally-Hired National personnel or other Non-Us

Expatriate Rates, page 11, indicates that salaries for locally-hired personnel and other non-US expatriates will be in accordance with AIDAR 752.7007, and should be based upon a number of factors including the prevailing compensation paid to personnel performing comparable work in the cooperating country as determined by USAID. Would USAID please provide the most recent FSN Salary Scales or Local Compensation Plans for Syria and Jordan?

Answer No. 17: Please see response No. 13.

Question No. 18: Page 6, Section B.6.1.iv, makes reference to a Local Compensation

Plan “as provided in Section I.13”. However Section I.13 makes no reference to the Local Compensation Plan. Could USAID please provide this document/plan?

Answer No. 18: Please see response No. 13. See Amendment to the RFP.

Question No. 19: Can USAID please confirm that TCNs, if any, who may be hired in

Syria do not need any related waivers (salary, currency, allowances, etc.)?

Answer No. 19: All TCNs, regardless of the hiring location, would require requests for waivers for salary, currency, allowances, or other circumstances, that deviates from policy.

Question No. 20: Page 11, Section B.6 .2 Minimum Qualifications for Labor

Categories. Would USAID consider accepting educational qualifications (i.e. PhD or advanced degree) as a substitution for years of experience?

Answer No. 20: Relevant work experience is a minimum requirement and education in lieu of the minimum experience will not be considered.

Question No. 21: With regard to Section B.6.3 Subcontractor Labor Rates, could

USAID please clarify if this requirement will flow down to all subcontractors regardless of size and scope and inclusive of procurements for any commercial services that a program may need in the course of implementation?

Answer No. 21: This applies to all cost-reimbursement type subcontracts, regardless of size and scope.

Question No. 22: Section B.6.4, "The labor rates are fixed for all contract years;

however, the Contractor may submit a proposal reducing the labor rates and/or indirect rates at any time during the life of this contract.

The Government will review these proposals and determine if the revised rates are realistic and in the best interests of the Government.

If the rates are accepted, the Government will modify the contract by incorporating the new rates into the contract." Please confirm if USAID meant reducing or increasing. Reducing only does not make a lot of sense in this context.

Answer No. 22: USAID confirms “reducing.” Once rates are established in the contract, USAID will not consider requests for increases. Proposals to reduce rates are welcome.

Question No. 23: Section B.7(d), INDIRECT COSTS, (page 13) states: “USAID will reimburse the Contractor for indirect costs at the final negotiated rates, but not in excess of the ceiling rates specified in Table 3.”

Would you confirm that this is meant to refer to Table 4, on page 13?

Answer No. 23: Correct, it refers to Table 4. See amendment to the RFP.

Question No. 24: Section F.3 (page 28) – USAID states that the ‘Performance of this contract and orders issued hereunder must be in Jordan and Syria’.

Can USAID please confirm that Iraq may also allowed as a place of performance (depending on task order requirements), per Section C.4.2?

Answer No. 24: As stated in Section C.4.2, Iraq may serve as a place of “operational support” depending on the task order requirements.

Question No. 25: Section F.3, This Section States that: “Performance of this contract and task orders issued hereunder must be in Jordan and Syria.” As some of the work might activities/meetings in Germany, Turkey, Iraq and offeror’s HQ country, we suggest expanding the country list to include the country mentioned above.

Answer No. 25: This is foremost an activity to support Syria, with the head office in

Jordan. Location is to specify where program interventions and beneficiaries are located. Meeting locations that might occur, or vary from time to time, need not be specified. The need for additional locations, as noted in C.4.2 may however be necessary. As noted in the solicitation, all locations require approval of the USAID TO Contracting Officer.

Question No. 26: The IDIQ Manager position does not appear under Illustrative Labor

Categories table, although USAID does specify that their proposed level of seniority must align with the Section B.6.2 table. Can USAID please clarify under which labor category from Page 7, Table 1, that the IDIQ Manager’s FDR should be proposed?

Answer No. 26: The IDIQ Manager is envisioned as a Manager/Supervisor/Team

Leader. Offerors are encouraged to make the case for the best candidate for this position.

Question No. 27: On page 29, Section F.5, Key Personnel states the requirements for the IDIQ Manager and Section L.7.2.5.2.(i). Requires that the IDIQ Manager “has the relevant experience and capability to fulfill the responsibilities detailed in Section C and minimum qualifications included in Section F, to provide management, supervision, and quality control over all IDIQ activities undertaken by the Contractor.

Section M2, Factor 2(i) (p.125) indicates that the proposed IDIQ Manager will be evaluated according to the degree to which s/he “has successfully managed an activity of relevant scope.” Could USAID please clarify to what extent it views prior IDIQ management experience as critical versus directly relevant experience managing an activity of relevant scope?

Answer No. 27: Offerors are encouraged to make the case for the best candidates for their proposed personnel.

Question No. 28: Section F.5 (page 30) – The RFP states that qualifications for the individual proposed as IDIQ Manager must be in accordance with the Experience levels specified in Section B.6.2. However, IDIQ Manager does not appear as a labor category (or an illustrative example of a position under one of the Director, Advisor/Expert, Manager/Supervisor/Team Leader, Officer, or Assistant labor categories). Will USAID please clarify this reference to required qualifications for the IDIQ Manager?

Answer No. 28: Please see response No. 26

Question No. 29: Page 39, Section F.7.1 (b) – Fair Opportunity Exceptions, USAID requires that all task orders issued under this IDIQ greater than $3,500 but less than or equal to $10,000,000 must be competed first with small business contract holders. Given that many small businesses have proven their ability to manage large complex awards, would USAID consider raising the range for Small Business Set Aside task orders from $10,000,000 to $15,000,000?

Answer No. 29: Small Business Set Aside Task Orders thresholds are not changed.

Please note that Small Businesses have the option of competing for Task Orders over $10,000,000.

Question No. 30: On page 39, Section F.7.1.(b)(6) includes the statement that, “all Task

Orders issued under this IDIQ greater than $3,500 but less than or equal to $10,000,000 must be competed first with any category of small or small disadvantaged business contract holders.” This threshold is quite high and USAID generally sets this threshold at $5,000,000. Would USAID please consider reducing the threshold to $5,000,000? Alternatively, would USAID consider requiring RFTOP proposals include specific small business requirements on Task Orders up to $10,000,000 to meet small business objectives?

Answer No. 30: Please see response No. 29.

Question No. 31: Section H.2.1 states, “Annual salary increases…of 3 percent ceiling of the current labor pool may be granted once a year.” We respectfully request that USAID remove the restriction on salary increases from the RFP. This restriction appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007, Personnel Compensation, which is incorporated into the contract under Section I.1. The limitation on salary increases may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices; in this respect, the limitation conflicts with AIDAR 752.7007.

Answer No. 31: The annual increase ceiling is unchanged. Any increase in excess of

3% will require CO approval.

Question No. 32: Section H.2.1 (page 53) – Additional Requirements for Personnel

Compensation, USAID states that ‘If during contract performance, the contractor proposes salary or wages for a new individual(s) that exceeds 3% 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 here (3) years, the Cognizant Contracting Officer’s approval is required’. Acknowledging the challenges of recruiting qualified talent in Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, would USAID consider raising the escalation approval threshold to 5%?

Answer No. 32: Please see response No. 31.

Question No. 33: Section H.17, This Section States that (b) “The Contractor must ensure that its employees and consultants possess the appropriate level of skill in written and spoken English and local language proficiency, including but not limited to Arabic as needed, to perform the contract requirements” and (c) “Contractor key personnel and/or consultants must have English and local language proficiency as needed, to perform contract requirements”. Can USAID please clarify if they intended to state that all employees must have Arabic proficiency? For example, does the IDIQ manager or COP need to have Arabic language skills?

Answer No. 33: It is the Contractor’s responsibility to ensure that personnel have the appropriate language skills as needed to implement the program that is responsive to the contract requirements.

Question No. 34: Section H.22, This section States that “(b) In addition, the contractor/recipient must comply with host country environmental regulations unless otherwise directed in writing by USAID. In case of conflict between host country and USAID regulations, the latter will govern.” Is Host country considered Jordan or Syria? And if it is Syria, what regulation should the contractor follow when we are not working in Syrian Government Regime areas?

Answer No. 34: Syria is the host country and Contractors will follow USAID environmental regulations.

Question No. 35: Section H.23 notes that the contractor must submit 0 percent value added tax (VAT) invoices for any payments. However, under FAR 31.205-41 (a)(1), VAT is an allowable cost until such time that the contractor receives exemption. We kindly request that USAID revise this section to read, “USAID will provide the contractor correspondence to assist the contractor in obtaining this exemption from the government of Jordan. VAT costs incurred under any task order before receiving exemption may be submitted for reimbursement in accordance with FAR 31.205-41.”

Answer No. 35: USAID declines the request to revise H.23. As noted, USAID will provide the Contractor correspondence to assist in obtaining appropriate tax and duty exemptions from the Government of Jordan.

This is standard practice in USAID/Jordan.

Additionally, failure to obtain tax exemptions may serve as the basis for a decision to allow certain Contractor costs, but only with the prior written approval of the Contracting Officer, following reasonable efforts by the Contractor to obtain the relevant tax exemptions.

Question No. 36: Can USAID please confirm if FAR Clauses 52.222-48 and 52.222-52 are incorporated by reference and are applicable to this RFP?

Answer No. 36: FAR Clauses 52.222-48 and 52.222-52 are included by reference in

Section K.1

Question No. 37: Please confirm that the “Request for Waiver from the Application of the USAID Construction Policy to Permit Construction/Rehabilitation through Grants Under Contract by the Building Resilient and Inclusive Communities in Conflict (BRICC) Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract and Subsequent Task Orders (TOs)” is not an additional document in the form of an attachment under Section J. Could USAID please provide a copy, if it is a separate attachment that offerors should review and consider in responding to the RFP?

Answer No. 37: The approved “Request for Waiver from the Application of the

USAID Construction Policy….” is hereby included as Attachment J.9, Section J. See amendment to the RFP.

Question No. 38: Section J, List of Attachments includes Attachment J.3, p. 92, Self-

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, which links to the ADS Chapter 303 Certifications, Assurances, Representations, and Other Statements, while Section L provides no instructions for the submission of a self-disclosure of lobbying activities form. Could USAID please confirm: the self-disclosure of lobbying activities form as well as the ADS Chapter 303 Certifications, Assurances, Representations, and Other Statements are not required for submission in response to this RFP; and a completed Section K provided in the solicitation contains all representations, certifications, and other statements required for submission?

Answer No. 38: The ADS303 certifications would be a requirement of any grant recipient under this activity. This reference in Section J is intended to assist as part of flowdown requirements. No ADS303 certifications are required as part of the submission by offerors in response to this

RFP.

Question No. 39: On page 92, the description of Attachment J.2 is: “PROPOSAL PREPARATION CHECKLIST (SAMPLE ONLY/Mainly a tool for both the CO and small business and local solutions. Not required for the offeror’s submission)”. We respectfully request that this description be revised, as Attachment J.2 does not include a checklist but the Cost/Pricing Evaluation Matrix.

Answer No. 39: The description of the Attachment is revised to read “Cost/Pricing

Evaluation Matrix”. See amendment to the RFP.

Question No. 40: Page 132, Attachment J.2 Proposal Preparation Checklist, A. Labor, lists illustrative LOE days for two of the labor categories for the purposes of USAID’s evaluation. However, USAID does not provide LOE totals or illustrative figures for any of the other labor categories.

Can USAID please provide these figures, or if the Offeror is meant to propose labor days/LOE, additional guidance/parameters on USAID’s expectations for the number of proposed or illustrative LOE days?

Answer No. 40: Note that offerors should propose labor days/LOE for all categories, senior, mid-level and junior. This attachment is only provided as a sample to follow.

Question No. 41: Attachment J.2 (pages 131-135) – The sample Cost/Price Evaluation

Matrix provided in Attachment J.2 appears to be missing several plug figures, including person-days by labor category, the FSN pay scale mid-level pay rate, and fringe benefit percentage on local hires. Will USAID please provide this information in an amendment to the RFP, and consider including an Excel template for the Cost/Price Evaluation Matrix for offerors to use?

Answer No. 41: The Cost/Price Matrix has been modified to reflect this solicitations requirements. See Attachment J.

Question No. 42: The instructions in Attachment J.2, Cost/Price Matrix Instructions, (page 131) state in Note 1: “The figures that are in quotes below are USAID plug figures and must be used by all Offerors for evaluation purposes.” Also, the instructions in Section L.8, Part 2, Proposed Costs/Price on page 117 state: “The cost/price matrix reflects all labor categories and levels as well as the average level of effort expected on a task order.” However, in the Cost/Price Matrix on pages 133- 134, the figures in quotes for Level of Effort for each Labor Category are left blank. Would USAID provide a revised matrix with the LOE figures added?

Answer No. 42: The attachment has been revised. No plug figures are provided by

USAID. See Attachment J.2 in the amendment to the RFP.

Question No. 43: Attachment J.2, the matrix on pages 133-134 includes lines for

Category 1 (Senior and Mid), Category 2 (Senior and Mid), etc., for six labor categories. However, the labor categories specified in Section B.6.1., on page 7, are only for five, and have no numbers but only titles. Would USAID please revise the matrix to specify the exact labor category number and titles?

Answer No. 43: See response No. 42.

Question No. 44: The instructions in Attachment J.2, Cost/Price Matrix Instructions, (page 131) state in Note 4: “For the fixed fee percentage on item K (Sub grants) below, Offerors must use the proposed fixed fee percentage for grants under contract if NOT issued a letter of credit (per Section B.5.d). However, Section B.5.d, requires a separate fixed fee ceiling If a Letter of Credit has been issued to the Contractor for GUC Expenditures only. Would USAID clarify which option (with or without Letter of Credit) is being requested for Section B.5.d and the Cost/Price Evaluation Matrix?

Answer No. 44: Offerors are requested to propose a separate fixed fee ceiling if a letter of credit is requested for use for GUC expenditures. See Section B.5.d.

Question No. 45: The instructions in Attachment J.2.A., Labor, Cost/Price Matrix

Instructions, (page 131) state: “The Offeror will multiply the proposed CDR (use the rate proposed in the last year of the contract) with the USAID provided level of effort in person days.” Section F.2, Performance Period (page 28), subsection c, indicates that a task order may continue for up to 2 years beyond the ordering period of 5 years. Will USAID please confirm that it is requesting CDRs for seven (7) years, and that the proposed CDRs for Year 7 must be used in the Cost/Price Evaluation Matrix?

Answer No. 45: This is to confirm that the CDRs need to be proposed for 7 years.

Question No. 46: Attachment J.2, Cost/Price Matrix appears to be incomplete. Can

USAID please provide an updated matrix with the specific ceiling daily rate categories and associated level of effort that would allow offerors to complete the matrix?

Answer No. 46: Please see response No. 42.

Question No. 47: Section J.2, In this attachment, it is stated that “The offeror will multiply the proposed CDR (use the rate proposed in the last year of the contract) with the USAID provided level of effort in person-days”. 1. Could USAID provide the Level of effort for each of the 6 categories? 2. Attachment J.2 indicates the presence of 6 categories while the tables in Section B.6 include only 5 categories. Could USAID either provide eliminate Category 6 from Attachment J.2 or provide the definition of Category 6 in Section B.

Answer No. 47: Please see response No. 42.

Question No. 48: Would USAID accept a font size smaller than 11 for graphics, text boxes, and tables?

Answer No. 48: A font size of 9 is acceptable for graphics, text boxes and tables. See amendment to the RFP.

Question No. 49: Section L.7.1 (page 113) – May offerors use a font smaller than 11 point for tables, textboxes, and graphics?

Answer No. 49: Please see response No. 48.

Question No. 50: On page 113, L.7.1 Organization of the Technical Proposal requires that offerors “do not use at type smaller than 11 font.” Would USAID consider allowing Offerors to use a font size smaller than 11, but still legible, for graphs, tables, textboxes and figures?

Answer No. 50: Please see response No. 48.

Question No. 51: Page 113, Section L.7.1 – Organization of Technical Proposal, USAID requests that Offerors do not use a type smaller than 11 font throughout the proposal. Would USAID be open to Offerors using size 9 font in tables and figures?

Answer No. 51: Please see response No. 48.

Question No. 52: Can USAID confirm that font sizes smaller than size 11 may be used in tables, charts, graphs, text boxes, etc.,as long as they remain easily legible?

Answer No. 52: Please see response No. 48.

Question No. 53: L.7.1, Please confirm Offerors may submit narrative content as a PDF file.

Answer No. 53: This is to confirm that offerors may submit narrative content as a

PDF file.

Question No. 54: Section L.7.1, Can Offerors provide additional CVs for non-key personnel as part of our explanation for IDIQ Team Composition in the Technical Proposal? Please confirm that these CVs will be counted towards the 24-page limit of the Technical and Management Proposal.

Answer No. 54: USAID confirms Offerors may provide additional CVs for non-key personnel that will be counted toward the 24-page limit of the Technical and Management Proposal.

Question No. 55: Section L.7.1 (page 113) – There is an incomplete sentence ending with “(as” on the second to last line of the page. Will USAID please complete this sentence to ensure that offerors can respond fully to USAID’s technical proposal organization instructions.

Answer No. 55: The missing word is “appropriate”. See amendment to the RFP.

Question No. 56: Page 117, Section L. Part 2, “Proposed Cost Prices”, can USAID please provide further clarity on the phrase: “the cost/price matrix reflects all labor categories and levels as well as the average level of effort expected on a task order”?

Answer No. 56: Since a task order is not included, we have deleted the following: “as well as the average level of effort expected on a task order.” See amendment to the RFP.

Question No. 57: Could USAID please consider excluding the cover page, table of contents, and acronyms list from the 40-page count of the Technical Proposal volume to allow offerors adequately to present their expertise and experience with specific examples across all five Intermediate Results, given the breadth of tasks that the IDIQ intends to cover?

Answer No. 57: See response No. 58. See amendment to the RFP.

Question No. 58: On page 114, Section L.7.2.3 Acronym List states that “an acronym must first be spelled out in full the first time it appears in the proposal.” On page 113, Section L.7.1 Organization of the Technical Proposal states that the Acronym List must not exceed 1 page.

Because offerors need to define every acronym, would USAID consider increasing the acronym page limit to 2 pages and correspondingly the overall page limit by one page?

Answer No. 58: USAID agrees to this request. See amendment to the RFP.

Question No. 59: Section L.7.2.5.2.i, Please confirm the Government is expecting an overarching summary of relevant experience of the proposed IDIQ Contract Manager.

Answer No. 59: Please see response No. 26.

Question No. 60: Section L.7.2.5.1.ii (page 115) – There is an incomplete sentence ending with “; and” on the fifth line of the page. Will USAID please complete this sentence to ensure that offerors can respond fully to USAID’s instructions for the IDIQ Team Composition section of the technical proposal.

Answer No. 60: The “and” has been deleted. See amendment to the RFP.

Question No. 61: On page 115, Section L.7.2.5.1 IDIQ Team Composition, the RFP states: “This section must detail the extent to which the Offeror forms a team that:” followed by roman numerals i and ii. Roman numeral ii ends with the word “and”— would USAID clarify if there is a missing roman numeral iii, with further instructions?

Answer No. 61: Please see response No. 60. See amendment to the RFP.

Question No. 62: Section L.7.2.5.2, Does USAID have a standard template that they would like used for the IDIQ Contract Manager? Is there a page limit on the CV length? And is the CV length included in the overall 40 page limit for the Technical Proposal?

Answer No. 62: There is no standard template. The CV length is included in the overall page limit for the Technical Proposal.

Question No. 63: Can USAID please confirm that any resumes, including the proposed

IDIQ Manager, must be included within the 24-page limit of the Technical and Management Approach, or may they be included as an annex?

Answer No. 63: All submitted pages are counted against the Amended page limit unless otherwise stated. USAID is not accepting annexes with responses to this solicitation.

Question No. 64: Section L.7.2.5.3 states, “The Offeror must provide Past Performance

Information in the standardized format provided in Attachment J.6.”

Would USAID permit the submission of this file as an Excel document?

Answer No. 64: See response to No. 65.

Question No. 65: Page 115, Section L.7.2.5.3, IDIQ: Offeror Past Performance states that offerors must submit past performance in the format of attachment J.6. The matrix in attachment J.6 includes very little space for offeror and partner performance information and does not align to the categories listed on Page. 126, Factor 3: Past Performance, Quality, Cost Control, Schedule, Management, etc. The latter seems to conform more with Past Performance Short Forms (PPR) or narrative descriptions. Can USAID please confirm if the 10-page limit for this section is meant to encompass just this Matrix, or some combination of narrative information and/or Past Performance Short Forms (PPRs) may be included? Can the Matrix in Attachment J.6 be included as an Annex that does not count towards the 10-page limit for this section?

Answer No. 65: USAID has revised the Past Performance section, including replacing the Past Performance Matrix (J.6) with a Modified Past Performance Short Form; reduced the number of references required to three (3) per contractor/team member/major subcontractor(s); and reduced the number of prime/team members/major subcontractor(s) that will be reviewed for past performance during the IDIQ solicitation phase (limited to 5). See amendment the RFP, Section L.

Question No. 66: Page 115, Section L.7.2.5.3 – IDIQ: Offeror Past Performance, USAID requires that Offerors list up to five of the most recent and relevant “contracts*” for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal. Can USAID please confirm that Offerors can submit past performance information for both Acquisition and Assistance instruments?

Answer No. 66: Offerors may submit both Acquisition and Assistance past performance information. See amendment to the RFP.

Question No. 67: Section L.7.2.5.3 - What do the asterisks (two instances) signify in this section?

Answer No. 67: The asterisks have been removed. See amendment to the RFP.

Question No. 68: Page 115, Section L.7.2.5.3 – IDIQ: Offeror Past Performance, USAID requires that Offerors must provide past performance information in the standardized format provided in Attachment J.6.

Can USAID please confirm that Offerors should submit the 10-page past performance information in Microsoft Excel?

Answer No. 68: Please see response No. 65.

Question No. 69: Could USAID please consider allowing some of the required content e.g. past performance to be included as an annex to the Technical Proposal, outside of the 40-page limit?

Answer No. 69: See response to No. 65.

Question No. 70: Will USAID allow the submission of charts/tables/graphs, etc. as annexes?

Answer No. 70: No.

Question No. 71: Section L.7.2.5.3.(a) (page 115) – Considering the width of the required Past Performance Information template (Attachment J.6), will USAID allow offerors to use 11x17 size paper when using this standardized format for detailing past performance information?

Answer No. 71: See response to No. 65.

Question No. 72: Page 115, Section L.7.2.5.3(1), IDIQ Offeror Past Performance. The

RFP states “List up to give of the most recent and relevant contracts*”, but provides no clarification or detail on what the asterisk denotes. Can USAID confirm if Past Performance that counts towards the (5) limit can also be for a Cooperative Agreement or similar assistance or other mechanism?

Answer No. 72: Please see response No. 66 and No. 65.

Question No. 73: Section L.7.2.5.3.(c) (page 116) – Please confirm that quality awards and certifications information is not subject to the page limitation.

Answer No. 73: Section L.7.2.5.3(c) is hereby deleted. See amendment to the RFP.

Question No. 74: Section L.7.2.5.3.(d) (page 116) – Please confirm that Performance in

Using Small Business (SB) Concerns information is not subject to the page limitation.

Answer No. 74: Yes it is subject to the page limitation. See response No. 81.

Question No. 75: Section L.7.2.5.3.(a).1 (page 115) – The RFP requires offerors list up to five of their most recent and relevant contracts to demonstrate past performance. The RFP also specifies that offerors must provide performance information for itself and each major subcontractor.

Please confirm that offerors with major subcontractors should provide a total of up to five past performance references in the Offeror Past Performance section of the technical proposal.

Answer No. 75: See response to No. 65.

Question No. 76: Section L.7.2.5.3, p. 115 instructs offerors to provide performance information for itself and major subcontractors and “list up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts* for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal.” Could USAID please confirm that offerors may also list projects for similar work funded through instruments other than contracts? The requirement for performance for similar efforts only under contracts limits the pool of offerors that may furnish this information.

Answer No. 76: Yes, offerors may list projects through instruments other than contracts.

Question No. 77: Section L.7.2.5.3.a, Does the Government wish to see up to five past performance citations from each team member, or does the Government wish to see up to five past performances citations from across the entire team?

Answer No. 77: Please see response No 65.

Question No. 78: Section L.7.2.5.3.a.1, Can the Government please provide the specific information it wishes to see for the five most recent and relevant contracts required?

Answer No. 78: Please see response No. 65.

Question No. 79: Sections L.7.2.5.3 and L.7.2.5.3.2, Please confirm the Offeror does not need to include the information listed in L.7.2.5.3.2 if a CPARS exists for the project.

Answer No. 79: This is to confirm that offerors do not need to include the information listed in L.7.2.5.3.(a)2. if the contract is in CPARS.

Question No. 80: Section L.7.2.5.3.2.d, Given the tight page count for the proposal and the fact the requirements in the cited section only apply to Other than Small Businesses, would the Government exempt the "Performance in Using Small Business Concerns" requirements from the page count?

Answer No. 80: Please see response No. 74.

Question No. 81: On page 116, Section L.7.2.5.3(d)(1) Performance in Using Small

Business (SB) Concerns, the RFP states that offerors must: provide a narrative summary of small business concerns over the past three years; to supplement the narrative summary, a list of the three most recent and relevant contracts submitted to eSRS; and the names and addresses of three SB concerns for USAID to contact for their assessment of the offeror’s performance in using SB concerns over the past five years. Given that this information totals 2-3 pages, we respectfully request that USAID increase the past performance page limit (and correspondingly the overall page limit by at least 2 pages).

Answer No. 81: USAID will allow one page, Section VI., for Utilization of Small

Business. This one additional page is only for Other than Small Businesses -- in response to Section L.7.2.5.3 (d). For a total of 11 pages for “other than small business” and 10 pages for Small Business. See amendment to the RFP.

Question No. 82: Page 115, Section L.7.2.5.3 notes that offerors must “provide past performance information for itself, the contractor teaming arrangements, if any, and each major subcontractor...”. Can USAID please confirm that “contractor teaming arrangements” includes partners who may not be major subcontractors?

Answer No. 82: USAID Confirms that teaming arrangements may not be major subcontractors since utilization of a subcontractor and the extent of their involvement is dependent upon the work and role in subsequent task orders.

Question No. 83: Section L.8 Part 2 Labor Costs (3) refers to a “Prime and Major

Subcontractor Percentage of Labor Overview Chart” in Attachment J.5. Attachment J.5 is labeled as “Prime and Major Subcontractor Percentage of Work Overview,” and the template requires the offeror to provide an estimate percentage of technical work to be assigned among the prime and subcontractors. Could USAID please confirm “Labor” in Section L.8 refers to the overall work anticipated for a [sub]contractor and not the personnel labor category of the contractor/subcontractor budget? If the proposed overall budget for a given program is estimated at $10,000,000 of which we intend to subcontract out $4,000,000 to Subcontractor X and $2,000,000 to Subcontractor Y, would we then represent the % breakdown in Attachment J as: i. Prime Contractor: 40%; ii. Subcontractor; X: 40%;

iii. Subcontractor Y: 20%

Answer No. 83: Yes.

Question No. 84: Section L.8, Part 2, p. 117 instructs offerors to propose unburdened ceiling daily rates for all labor categories/groupings set forth in Section B.6 using the template set forth in Attachment J.2. Section B.6.1, Table 1, p. 7, asks for CDRs for senior, mid, and junior staff, while the form in Attachment J.2 includes only senior and mid staff.

Could USAID please confirm if offerors should provide CDRs for senior, mid, and junior-level staff per Section B or for senior and mid only per the format in Attachment J.2?

Answer No. 84: Please see Response No. 42 and 43.

Question No. 85: Can USAID please confirm if FDRs should only include base salary, with no other benefits, severance, bonus, etc.?

Answer No. 85: This is to confirm that FDRs should only include base salary.

Question No. 86: Section L.8, This section states that “[Note: Pursuant to FAR 52.219-

14, Limitations on Subcontracting, small business prime Offerors proposing for a set-aside award are reminded that at least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel must be expended for employees of the small business prime Offeror. As such, the Labor Distribution Chart must reflect that the small business prime Offeror is performing at least 50% of the effort.]” Could the government please clarify if it meant to state that 50% of all cost should be performed by the small business or is 50% of the labor cost or Labor level of effort should be performed by the small business?

Answer No. 86: Small business prime offerors submitting for a small business set-aside must ensure that at least 50% of the level of effort is performed by the small business prime offeror.

Question No. 87: Can USAID confirm if Offerors may use a cost/price matrix format that more closely aligns with their accounting and financial policies and systems and that will not adversely affect USAID’s cost/price comparison? E.g. if the Offeror’s Indirect categorizations and structure do not exactly align with the Indirect line items that USAID included on Page 135, “Cost Price Matrix”?

Answer No. 87: Please see response No. 42 and 43.

Question No. 88: Section L.8, Cost/Price Matrix Instructions, (page 121) states: “A local mid-level salary and local indirect rates are provided to the Offerors to calculate fringe benefits for local staff for the purposes of the cost/price matrix (see attachment J.2). Offerors must use this local compensation plan only for the purposes of calculation.” However, in the Cost/Price Matrix on page 134, the Local Hired Personnel Labor person-days and daily rate are left empty. Would USAID please provide guidance on the person days and rate to be used for the Local Hired Personnel Labor?

Answer No. 88: Please see response No. 42.

Question No. 89: Section L.8 (page 118) – Please confirm that offerors may use historical biodata forms used within the past five years to justify the labor rates for each labor category proposed.

Answer No. 89: Offerors may use historical biodata forms for this purpose if the offeror is of the opinion that this is the best approach to validate its proposed rates. Point of information: USAID is moving away from using biodata forms.

Question No. 90: Section L.8 (page 118) – Please confirm that offerors should include the prime and major subcontractors only in the Prime and Major Subcontractor Percentage of Labor Overview Chart.

Answer No. 90: USAID confirms inclusion of the prime and each major subcontractor.

Question No. 91: Section L.8 (page 118) – Please confirm that offerors must propose fixed fee percentage ceilings for both 1) Grants Under Contract without Letter of Credit and 2) Direct Costs. Does USAID have a preferred Fee Matrix template that offerors should use for the cost/business proposal?

Answer No. 91: This is to confirm that offerors must propose fixed fee percentage ceilings for both 1) Grants Under Contract without Letter of Credit and 2) Direct Costs. If a Letter of Credit is requested for GUC’s Offerors must propose a fee ceiling. See B.5 (d) and response to No.

10.

Question No. 92: Could USAID kindly confirm whether a letter of credit ceiling for grants under contract is required as part of the cost proposal?

Answer No. 92: As noted in Section B.5 and response No. 10, this is required.

Question No. 93: Section L.8 (page 118) – The RFP states that “Indirect rates proposed cannot be higher than the rates established in their [the offeror’s] NICRA.” Please confirm that this statement is in error, and that offerors may propose overhead and G&A ceiling rates above the rates established in current NICRAs.

Answer No. 93: The statement is correct. The sentence applies to the proposed indirect rates and does not apply to the proposed ceiling rates.

Offerors cannot propose indirect rates higher than their NICRA, however, they can propose ceiling rates above the rates established in current NICRAs.

Question No. 94: Section L.8 (page 123) – Please confirm that Letters of Commitment are required from major subcontractors only.

Answer No. 94: This is to confirm that Letters of Commitment are required from major subcontractors only.

Question No. 95: Section L.8, Part 12, Security Plan (page 124) requires a budget for a security plan. However, in the absence of a specific Task Order, the profile and scope of the security plan is undetermined. We respectfully request that this requirement be removed as there is insufficient information at the IDIQ stage to inform a security budget, such as locations, numbers of staff, anticipated movements, etc.

Answer No. 95: This is to confirm that this budget will be included at the Task Order level and not for the IDIQ submission. See amendment to the RFP.

Question No. 96: In Section L.8, Part 12 states, “The Offeror shall budget for its

Security Plan.” However, no budget or narrative security plan is asked for elsewhere in the RFP. Can USAID confirm that security plans and associated costs should only be included at the task order stage?

Answer No. 96: Please see response No. 95.

Question No. 97: Section L.8 (page 124) – The RFP requires offerors to provide a budget for a Security Plan as Part 12 of the cost/business proposal.

Security Plan requirements will vary from task order to task order depending on the specific technical and geographic scope and requirements. Will USAID consider removing this requirement from the IDIQ RFP and instead include a request for a Security Plan budget in any subsequent RFTOPs?

Answer No. 97: Please see response No. 95.

Question No. 98: Section L.8, Part 12, p. 124 instructs offerors to budget for a security plan, asking that “security budget be complete and include comprehensive budget notes.” Could USAID please confirm that a security plan and/or budget is not a required element for RFP responses at this stage and instead will be requested at the time of individual task orders’ release? If USAID is requesting a security budget at this stage, could you please provide guidance as to the parameters, or assumptions, offerors should make to construct an illustrative security budget, as security requirements will be tied to implementation plans for each task order?

Answer No. 98: Please see response No. 95.

Question No. 99: Page 124, Part 12 – “Security Plan” requests Offerors to provide a detailed security budget with a comprehensive set of budget notes.

However there is no included Task Order with specific activities, geographies, or other parameters that would could be budgeted against and inform a tailored “Security Plan” and associates costs.

Can USAID please confirm that this budget item will be included at the Task Order level, and not for the IDIQ submission?

Answer No. 99: Please see response No. 95.

Question No.

100:

Section M.2 (page 127) – Factor 3 evaluation criteria include a category for “Other: Experience implementing similar activities in non-permissive environments; prior successful working relationships with local authorities, CSOs, or others that led to concrete achievements in building stability and self-reliance.” Considering that offerors a) must provide Past Performance Information in the standardized format provided in RFP Attachment J.8 and b) this “Other” category is not captured in CPARS, please confirm that USAID will allow offerors to include a short narrative in Column E of the Past Performance Matrix addressing this evaluation sub-factor.

Answer No. 100: See Amendment to the RFP and the BRICC modified Past

Performance Short-form.