Questions and Answers_Amendment 0002.pdf

Questions and Answers - Amendment 0002

# Questions Answer 1 Can you please explain the Standard Form LLL Disclosure of Lobbying

Activities Form? I am not familiar with this document.

This form to serves to disclose lobbying activities of Offerors pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1352. You may review this United States Code to learn more.

2 Is the award going to be a grant or a contract? This solicitation is for a contract. Please refer to Section B.2 of the solicitation.

3 Are the indirect costs in addition to the total price of the contract or should they be included in the total price of the contract?

Indirect costs are included in the Total Estimated Cost of the contract. Please review Sections B.4 and L.6.1 of the solicitation.

4 In the original Request for Information for Jal Jangal released in February 9, 2021, USAID included a results framework that included an “intermediate outcome” focused on conservation of flagship species. In the RFP and Statement of Objective released on October 18, 2021, it appears that USAID has not specifically identified conservation of flagship species as a priority action area and instead emphasizes a more landscape-scale, habitat conservation approach. Can USAID please clarify the extent to which flagship species should be a focal interest for Jal Jangal?

A broader, more holistic landscape-scale and habitat conservation approach encompasses many more components of the target ecosystems, and thus the Agency's biodiversity and conservation goals. That said, flagship species are certainly part of these landscapes and habitats and cannot be ignored from a conservation/habitat standpoint. Specific mention of keystone species, individual habitat characteristics, climate specifics, forests types, etc. were removed in order to give offerers the maximum amount of flexibility and free rein in their proposed conservation/landscape planning. USAID encourages offerors to include flagship species as much as possible.

5 Section B.4(a) of the RFP (p.9) and Section 6.5 of Attachment J.1 (p.11) states that while there is no minimum threshold to the grants under contract (GUC) component, it must not exceed $5 million of the total budget.

However, the chart under Section L.6.1.1 of the RFP includes Grants Under Contract as one of the line-item headings and indicates a plug figure of $5 million. Can USAID kindly clarify whether the $5 million is a plug figure or a maximum ceiling for the GUC component?

$5 million is not a plug figure; it is the maximum ceiling for the GUC component. Please see revisions to Section L.6.1.1 of the RFP.

6 Section F.2 of the RFP (p. 18) states “The period of performance for the base period is three years from the date of award with the option to extend a two-year option period, subject to the conditions set forth in Section H.31”, however H.31 relates to the prohibition on contracting for certain covered telecommunications and video surveillance services or equipment. Could USAID clarify this reference?

If the apparently successful offeror represents that it does use covered technology, then the conditions of H.31 apply to the period of performance.

Specifically, H.31(c) states "If the contractor continues to use covered technology as of March 31, 2022 and there is no applicable waiver in place, the contract period of performance will end on September 30, 2022, as the Contractor is no longer legally eligible for an award."

7 Section F.5.1.5 (p. 24-25) states that “The Contractor must submit quarterly progress reports to USAID, within 15 days after the end of the quarter being reported (April 30th, July 30th, and January 30th). Can USAID confirm that the quarterly reports are due April 15th, July 15th, and January 15th?

Yes, the correct dates to submit quarterly reports are April 15, July 15, October 15, and January 15 as per the table in F.5.1. Please note the narratives in Sections F.5.1 and F.5.2 of the RFP have been revised to remove all due dates that are already addressed in the tables.

8 Section F.5.1.3 details that “the Contractor must develop within three months of activity inception an Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP)”, however Section F.5.1 states that the EMMP is “Due 30 days after Year 1Work Plan”, which is due no later than 90 days after award. Can USAID confirm the EMMP should be submitted after the Year 1 Work Plan to ensure the EMMP addresses activities approved by USAID?

The EMMP must be submitted 30 days after the Year 1 Work Plan. Please note the narratives in Sections F.5.1 and F.5.2 of the RFP have been revised to remove all due dates that are already addressed in the tables.

9 The “number of people benefiting from adoption and implementation of measures to improve water resource management as a result of USG assistance” result has a minimum target of 500,000 in Attachment J.1 (p. 8), but is 5,000,000 in Section F.5.2 (p. 28). Could USAID please confirm that 500,000 is the expected minimum target?

It is confirmed that 500,000 is the expected minimum target. Section F.5.2. of the RFP has been updated accordingly.

10 The “Number of people using climate information or implementing risk reducing actions to improve resilience to climate change as a result of USG assistance.” result has a minimum target of 100,000 in Attachment J.1 (p.

8), but is 250,000 in Section F.5.2 (p. 28). Could USAID please confirm that 100,000 is the expected minimum target?

250,000 is the correct target as per Section F.5.2. Page 9 of the SOO has been revised accordingly.

11 Section L.4 (l)(7) of the RFP (p.114) states that the offeror must submit the cost proposal using the formats listed in Section L.7 of the RFP.

Additionally, Section L.6(i) Part 9 of the RFP (p.121-122) states that offerors must provide a separate budget for each proposed major subcontractor which details all proposed costs by summary cost categories using the budget line-item heading in Section L.7 (b) Part 2. However, the RFP does not include a Section L.7. Would USAID please clarify if these instructions are meant to refer to Sections L.6 and L.6.1 instead?

Yes, Section L.4(I)(7) of the RFP has been revised to reference Section L.6.

12 Would USAID consider including a list of acronyms and abbreviations in Section L.5 (p. 115) that does not count against the page limit for the technical proposal?

Section L.5 was revised to add a "List of acronyms and abbreviations" with a 3 page maximum limiation as Annex D.

13 Would USAID consider including the organogram required under L.5.2 (p.

117-118) as an annex to the technical proposal?

No, this organigram must be included as part of the 7 page limitation in the Staffing and Management Plan Section of the proposal.

14 Section L.6 (page 119) states that the Activity “anticipates funding a base period of three years and one 24-month option period for a total of five years, with the estimated budget range as indicated on the cover page and also to the terms and conditions as stated in section F.2 and the section H.

37 of this RFP.” However, there is no H.37 included in this RFP. Could USAID please clarify which sections this should refer to?

The correct reference is H.31. Section L.6 of the RFP has been updated accordingly.

15 Section L.6 Part 11 - Other Supporting Documentation - (b) AID Form 1420- 17 (pages 123-124) states: “If the form reflects only the highest salary of the most recent employer, the date when such salary went into effect must be indicated. Consulting fees must clearly specify the number of days for each consultancy.” However, this is inconsistent with the new Employee Biographical Data Sheets officially instituted on October 9, 2020 which removes salary history (Box 14) and rate history (Box 15). Would USAID consider removing the language referring to the individual’s salary and consulting rates from this section?

This section has been revised to remove reference to salaries. (Note, this Seciton is now L.6 Part 10.)

16 Section L.6.1.2.11 of the RFP (p.128) states that offerors and major subcontractors must propose indirect cost ceiling rates and makes reference to Section B.6. However, Section B.6 of the RFP (p.10-11) does not make reference to indirect cost rate ceilings and instead states that, pending establishment of revised provisional or final indirect cost rates, allowable indirect costs shall be reimbursed on the basis of negotiated provisional or predetermined rates. Can USAID please clarify whether the offeror and major subcontractors are required to propose indirect cost ceiling rates?

Yes, Offerors and major subcontractors are required to propose indirect cost ceilings. Section B.6 of the RFP has been revised to add information on indirect cost ceiling rates.

17 Given the complex Statement of Objectives provided in Attachment J.1 and the competitive nature of this procurement, would USAID consider adding additional detail to the evaluation criteria in Section M (p. 131-134), so offers have a clear understanding of USAID’s expectations of offerors?

Detailed instructions regarding USAID's expectations for the PWS can be found in Section L.5.1.

18 Does USAID have a preferred exchange rate for the cost proposal? The exchange rate for planning purpose is 110 Nepalese Rupees (NPR) to 1 U.S. Dollar.

19 We appreciate USAID sharing additional annexes to the Jal Jangal RFP, including additional project documents from Paani and Hariyo Ban II. Would USAID consider sharing the final report for the Hariyo Ban II project, which was not included in these documents?

The Hariyo Ban Program II final report has not yet been finalized; as such, it is not available at this time.

20 L.6.1.1 states the $5 million Grants under Contracts fund is a plug figure, while L.6.1.2.9 states the figure must not exceed $5 million. Can USAID clarify if offerors are allowed to budget for a Grants under Contracts figure less than $5 million, or should use a $5 million plug in the cost proposal?

$5 million is not a plug figure; it is the maximum ceiling for the GUC component. Please see revisions to Section L.6.1.1 of the RFP.

21 L.6 (i) Part 9 – Consolidated Budget states that proposals should include proposed costs for each major subcontractor by proposed cost category using the budget line-item headings in L.7(b) Part 2. However, Section L ends at L.6. Can you please confirm that offerors should be using the budget-line item headings found in section L.6.1.1.?

Section L.6.1.2.7 of the RFP has been revised to clarify that the offeror must provide separate budgets for each major subcontract that shows the same level of detail as the prime's budget. For clarity, the "Consolidated Budget" subsection in L.6 has been removed from the RFP.

22 Can USAID confirm separate budgets are only required for major subcontractors?

Separate budgets are required for only for proposed major subcontractors;

however, offerors must provide sufficient detail (i.e. in the cost narrative or as a separate budget) for USAID to be able to determine that costs of all proposed subcontractors are realistic. Section L..6.1.2.7 has been revised to clarify this point.

23 Since the Jal Jangal (Freshwater and Forests) Activity RFP is for a Cost- Plus-Fixed Fee (CPFF) type contract structured to incentivize the Contractor to meet certain targets while also maintaining flexibility to adapt implementation to achieve these targets, we respectfully request the addition of the following language to Section B.5 on page 10: “The contractor and USAID have the option to re-negotiate targets and the Fee Distribution Plan if there are mitigating external circumstances during the course of Contract implementation.” Adjusting the fee distribution plan with each annual work plan allows the Contractor to readjust and reallocate effort and resources as needed to achieve the most results attainable within the total estimated cost. Any unpaid fee due to the Contractor not achieving a certain result beyond its manageable control, such as the changing needs of local counterparts, can be reallocated amongst other or new deliverables in the work plan of the upcoming year.

Please note that this is a CPFF completion contract, and USAID is soliciting proposals from contractors to complete the stated results. Should there be extenuating circumstances as noted, both parties (USAID and the Contractor) may propose modifications to the award at any point during implementation per FAR Part 43; as such, at this time, USAID does not believe it adds value to include this language in the RFP/contract.

24 Section B.5 on page 10 states that no fee/profit can be received for Grants under Contract. This appears to be inconsistent with FAR 15.404-4 and ADS 302.3.6.9, which state, inter alia, that pre-negotiation fee objectives must be determined according to a structured approach that considers contractor effort, risk, and other special factors. Grants require significant effort to administer and carry risks for the contractor. Additionally, the statutory underpinnings of fixed fee at 10 USC 2306(d) and 41 USC 254(b) discuss fee definitions and limitations in terms of total estimated cost, which would include grants in this case. Given this, we respectfully request that USAID reconsider its agency prenegotiation fee objective of zero percent on grants and allow offerors to charge a fee that is reasonable and consistent with federal regulations.

Section B.5 has been revised to remove "Fee may not be taken on GUCs."

25 Per Section H.4 of the RFP, “there is a ceiling on the reimbursable salary and wage paid to personnel under the Contract based on the following thresholds… U.S. Embassy Kathmandu Local Compensation Plan (LCP) for Cooperating Country Nationals (CCNs) and Third Country Nationals (TCNs).” We respectfully request that the above-mentioned salary restriction be removed from the RFP as it appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007 Personnel Compensation, incorporated in the contract under Section H.3 (page 38), which stipulates that personnel compensation be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, with reimbursement subject only to the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold. The salary restriction above may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices, as required by AIDAR 752.7007.

Contractors must compensate personnel in accordance with their established policies, procedures, and practices; however, additional contractual restrictions are in place per AIDAR 722.710. Pursuant to AIDAR 722.170(b), “Compensation. Compensation, including merit or promotion increases paid to TCN's and CCN's may not, without the approval of the Mission Director or the Assistant Administrator having program responsibility for the project, exceed the prevailing compensation paid to personnel performing comparable work in the cooperating country as determined by the USAID Mission. Unless otherwise authorized by the Mission Director or the Assistant Administrator having program responsibility for the project, the compensation of such TCN and CCN employees shall be paid in the currency of the cooperating country." Section H.4 of the RFP has been revised to clarify that the LCP threshold applies unless prior Mission Director approval is granted.

26 In USAID’s update to ADS302.3.4.13 on July 22nd 2021, the value of a grant to a US organization was increased to the simplified acquisition threshold. Will USAID modify the language in section H.16 to incorporate this regulatory update?

Section H.16 was revised to update the threshold to $250,000, or the simplified acquisition threshold.

27 Section L, page 114, states: “The Offeror must submit the Technical Proposal using 12- point font size (can be 10-point font for charts, textboxes, graphics, and graphs) …” Could USAID please confirm whether 10-point font can be used for tables as well?

Yes, 10-point font may be used for tables. Section L.4 was updated to add "tables."

28 Section L.5.2, page 118, requests that the Offeror submit “One organogram of the staffing plan chart, which reflects proposed roles and responsibilities; the lines of authority and reporting within the Activity (including any subcontractors);

and the proposed physical location/duty station of key personnel and senior technical personnel.”

We kindly request that USAID allow the organogram to be submitted in an annex to the proposal and be excluded from the 7-page limit for the Staffing and Management Plan.

No, this organigram must be included as part of the 7 page limitation in the Staffing and Management Plan Section of the proposal.

29 On pg. 10, in Section B.5, the RFP states that no fee may be taken on GUCs. We respectfully request that USAID reconsider. Grants require a significant effort to administer, and therefore carry risk to the offeror. Will USAID allow offerors to apply a reduced fee on grants?

Section B.5 has been revised to remove "Fee may not be taken on GUCs."

30 On pg. 23 (Section F.5.1.2, last paragraph), the RFP states that the MEL plan must align with USAID/Nepal Global Food Security Strategy Country Plan. Can USAID provide further clarification regarding this expectation?

This reference was an error and it has been removed from Section F.5.1.2 of the RFP.

31 On pg. 32, in Section F.8.2.2 Other Key Personnel Qualifications, the RFP states “The Contractor must maintain its key personnel and demonstrate how they meet the requisite qualifications, including titles, roles and reporting relationships. Additionally, the Contractor must maintain the appropriate workforce size and skills mix necessary to achieve the required results.” To facilitate collaboration among consortium partners and project leadership positions, could USAID kindly clarify if subcontracting partners can hold Key Personnel positions?

Yes, subcontractors can hold Key Personnel positions, with exception to the Chief of Party. See Section F.8.1.

32 On pg. 51, Section H.16, Grants under Contract (GUC) specifies that subgrants to U.S. NGOs are limited to $100,000 total per recipient.

However, ADS 302.3.4.13(c) states that the $100,000 limit is per grant, not per recipient. Could USAID please revise this wording to align with the requirements of ADS 302.3.4.13(c)?

Section H.16 has been revised to update the threshold to $250,000, or the simplified acquisition threshold.

33 Attachment J.1-SOO, on page 4, states “The Contractor must consult, coordinate and cooperate with relevant Government of Nepal (GON) institutions throughout the implementation period to ensure that Jal Jangal meets the assistance priorities agreed upon by USAID and the GON in the natural resources management sector per their Development Objective Assistance Agreement.” Can USAID please share with bidders the Development Objective Assistance Agreement?

The latest version of the Development Objective Assistance Agreement is with the Ministry of Finance for editing, and thus not currently available to the public; however, the guiding document for the assistance agreement is the USAID Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS). We encourage offerers to review the CDCS as they prepare proposals. Reference to the Development Objective Assistance Agreement was removed from Section 3.4 of the SOO to avoid further confusion.

34 Can USAID please clarify discrepancies between Attachment J.1-SOO and the table in F.5.2 (pgs. 27-28) regarding results and targets:

Result 2.1 of the F.5.2 table (laws, policies, regulations, or standards biodiversity conservation and/or other environmental themes officially proposed, amended and/or adopted) has different wording from the same result in the SOO (laws, policies, or regulations that address biodiversity conservation and/or other environmental themes officially proposed, adopted, or implemented as a result of USG assistance) Result 2.3 of the F.5.2 table (people benefiting from adoption and implementation of measures to improve water resource management as a result of USG assistance) has a target of 5 million while the same result in the SOO has a target of 500,000 Result 3.1 of the F.5.2 table (people using climate information or implementing risk-reducing actions to improve resilience to climate change) has a target of 250,000 while the same result in the SOO has a target of 100,000

USAID has revised the Section F.5.2 table to align with the table contained in Section 4.3 of the SOO.

35 Please confirm that Attachment J.4 – QASP Template is due after award and is not required as part of the Condensed MEL Plan at the proposal phase.

It is confirmed that the QASP is due post award as part of the MEL Plan submission. Attachment J.4 provides the QASP Template for Offerors' awareness of post-award expectations.

36 On pg. 116, Section L.5 of the RFP states there are no page limitations for “Extraordinary Problem Statements,” yet part one of the Contractor Performance Information (CPI) Form (Attachment J.3) contains a field for “Extraordinary Problems” and there is a page limit for part one of the CPI form. Please clarify how space used for Problem statements within the CPI form will count against the page limit.

Attachment J.3 was revised to remove the "Extraordinary Problem" field.

37 On pg. 118 under Section L.5.2 Staffing and Management Approach, sub-section (2) Resumes, the RFP states “The Offeror must explain how the combined skills, interpersonal skills, experience, and education of the key personnel will help the Offeror implement the activities, accomplish the results, and meet the indicator targets proposed in the technical proposal.”

Could USAID please confirm that the explanation of how the Key Personnel’ s combined skills and experience should be explained in the Staffing and Management section rather than in Key Personnel Resumes?

It is the Offeror's responsibility to clearly explain how the combined skills, interpersonal skills, experience, and education of the key personnel will help the Offeror implement the activities, accomplish the results, and meet the indicator targets proposed in the technical proposal. Offerors may demonstrate this through both the resumes and Staffing and Management Section.

38 Would USAID please provide a current FSN scale for this solicitation? As stated in Section L.6.1.2.1 of the RFP, the ceiling on the reimbursable salary paid to CCNs and TCNs is 6,061,566 NPR. Offerors are expected to conduct their own market research and use their established policies to propose justified CCN salaries.

39 Would USAID please provide an exchange rate to use in the cost proposal? The exchange rate for planning purpose is 110 Nepalese Rupees (NPR) to 1 U.S. Dollar.

40 On pg. 119 under Section L.5.4, Contractor Performance Information, the RFP states “The offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information in Annex C for itself, the contractor teaming arrangements, if any, and each major subcontractor… in accordance with the following: (i.) Fill out the form contained in Attachment J-3 of the RFP and include it as Annex C of the proposal. Include up to five of the most recent (defined as performance within the past three years) and relevant contracts, task orders, grants, or cooperative agreements for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal.” Could USAID kindly clarify if up to five PPRs should be presented for the prime and up to 5 for each major subcontractor, or whether up to five PPRs should be submitted collectively for the team?

Five Contractor Performance Information forms should be submitted collectively for the entire team for a maximum page count of 15 pages for the Contractor Performance Information section. Section L.5.4 of the RFP has been revised to clarify this point.

41 Based on USAID’s response, and in reference to Section L.5 on pg. 116, please clarify if 15 pages for part one of the Contractor Performance Information (CPI) Form are allowed for the prime and each major subcontractor or 15 pages for the team combined?

Five Contractor Performance Information forms should be submitted collectively for the entire team for a maximum page count of 15 pages for the Contractor Performance Information section. Section L.5.4 of the RFP has been revised to clarify this point.

42 On pg. 119, under Section L.6(a), Part 1, the RFP states that the completed Standard Form 33 must include an original signature. Since proposals will be submitted electronically, could USAID please confirm that a scanned or electronic signature would be sufficient?

It is confirmed that a scanned or electronic signature is sufficient for the Standard Form 33. Section L.5 has been revised to clarify this point.

43 On pg. 125, in Section L.6.1.1, the budget template shows under Grants Under Contract “(Plug Figure of $5 million).” On pg. 9, Section B.4, an asterisk to the budget table states, “Offerors must set aside no more than $5 million of their budget for Grants Under Contract.” Could USAID please confirm whether the GUC figure is a plug or at the discretion of offerors up to a $5 million ceiling?

$5 million is not a plug figure; it is the maximum ceiling for the GUC component. Please see revisions to Section L.6.1.1 of the RFP.

44 On pgs. 123-124, under Section L.6(k), Part 11 (b), the RFP states, “If the form reflects only the highest salary of the most recent employer, the date when such salary went into effect must be indicated. Consulting fees must clearly specify the number of days for each consultancy.” Considering the latest version of the Contractor Biographical Data Sheet (USAID Form 1420-17) does not include salary or rate history as a required element, could USAID please confirm that offerors should use market data rather than salary/rate history in determining proposed salaries and rates for this activity and remove all language related to using salary/rate history to establish salaries and rates?

This section has been revised to remove reference to salaries.

45 Would USAID please confirm that final due dates for the deliverables and results will be determined at the time of award, as noted in section F.5.2?

Please review Section 5.1 of the RFP; specifically, the "Annex A" section, which details that Offerors must propose final due dates.

46 Would USAID please confirm whether the definitive table of minimum results for the Jal Jangal activity is the table on page 7 and 8 of J.1 (SOO) or the table found in Section F.5.2? There appear to be differences in the wording and targets of the tables.

The table found in Section F.5.2 has been revised to harmonize with the table contained in Section 4.3 of the SOO.

47 Would USAID please clarify if standard indicator EG.10.2-4 should be listed under Objective 1 in the table on page 7 and 8 of J.1?

While EG.10.2-4 would also work under Objective 1, USAID uses it in this RFP as a means to capture sustainable NRM & biodiversity conservation since they are equally important to climate resilience.

48 Would USAID please share the approved IEE for Jal Jangal? The Initial Environmental Examination will be shared with the successful offeror post-award, per the RFP Section F.5.1.3.

49 Would USAID clarify if the indicator “Number of people benefiting from adoption and implementation of measures to improve water resource management as a result of USG assistance” is standard indicator HL.8.5?

This is indeed the title of the 'Water Resources Productivity" indicator HL.8.5-

1. Please refer to https://www.usaid.gov/project-starter/program-cycle/cdcs/performance-monitoring-indicators/standard-indicators for more information about standard indicators.

50 Would USAID please provide a copy of the Local Compensation Plan for Cooperating Country Nationals (CCNs) and Third Country Nationals (TCNs)?

As stated in Section L.6.1.2.1 of the RFP, the ceiling on the reimbursable salary paid to CCNs and TCNs is 6,061,566 NPR. Offerors are expected to conduct their own market research and use their established policies to propose justified CCN salaries.

51 Would USAID please confirm the email addresses for submission of offers are rbertholon@usaid.gov and kathmanduoaaexchange@usaid.gov?

Yes, Section L.4(l) has also been revised to clarify that submissions must be sent to rbertholon@usaid.gov and kathmanduoaaexhange@usaid.gov.

52 Page 3 provides a link to the gsa.gov to download the SF-33. Would USAID please confirm we should use the blank SF-33 form on the GSA website without contract specific information?

Offerors are encouraged to fill out the SF-33 as much as possible.

53 On page 9 the RFP states that Offerors must set aside no more that $5 million of their budget for Grants under Contract. The budget table on page 125 of the RFP includes a plug figure of $5 million. Would USAID please confirm that no more than $5 million of the budget should be set aside for Grants under Contract?

Confirmed. $5 million is the maximum ceiling for the GUC component.

Please see revisions to Section L.6.1.1 of the RFP.

54 Page 121 (i) Part 9 – Consolidated Budget. “The Offeror must provide a separate budget for each proposed major subcontractor, which details all proposed costs by summary cost categories using the budget line-item headings in L.7(b)Part 2.” There is no section L.7(b)Part 2 in the RFP.

Would USAID please provide section L.7(b)Part 2?

Section L.6.1.2.7 of the RFP has been revised to clarify that the offeror must provide separate budgets for each major subcontract that shows the same level of detail as the prime's budget. For clarity, the "Consolidated Budget" subsection in L.6 has been removed from the RFP.

55 Page 128 – Ceilings on Indirect Costs. The RFP states “Offerors and major subcontractors, other than small business offerors/subcontractors, must propose indirect cost ceiling rates (See Section B.6).” On page 11, Section B.6 it states that “Pending establishment of revised provisional or final indirect cost rates, allowable indirect costs shall be reimbursed on the basis of the following negotiated provisional or predetermined rates and the appropriate bases” and “The Contractor is allowed to recover applicable indirect costs (i.e., overhead, G&A, etc.) on other direct costs (ODCs), if it is part of the Contractor’s usual accounting procedures, consistent with FAR Part 31 and Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA).” Would USAID please confirm that offerors and major subcontractors must propose indirect cost ceiling rates?

Yes, Offerors and major subcontractors are required to propose indirect cost ceilings. Section B.6 of the RFP has been revised to add information on indirect cost ceiling rates.