SF30 RFP 72036722R00005 Amendment 03_QandA.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER

03 See Block 16C

To: All Offerors RFP 72036722R00005

X

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The purpose of this Amendment No.03 is to:

1. Provide answers to questions received in response to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 72036722R00005, USAID Agricultural Inputs;

2. Extend the deadline to submit proposals from May 31, 2022, 9.00 a.m. Eastern Time to June 13, 2022, 9.00 a.m. Eastern Time; and

3. Revise Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 72036722R00005. All changes made to the revised RFP are highlighted in yellow. All other terms of the RFP remain unchanged.

Maria Televantos, Contracting Officer

Office of Acquisition and Assistance USAID/Nepal U.S. Embassy, Maharajgunj Kathmandu, Nepal

05/19/2022

March 24, 2022

X

Amendment 03

RFP 72036722R00005

USAID Agricultural Inputs

Request For Proposal (RFP) No.: 72036722R00005 USAID Agricultural Inputs

Issuance Date: March 24, 2022 Closing Date/Time for Questions: March 31, 2022, 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time Closing Date/Time for Receipt of Proposals: June 13, 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time

Section B Questions:

1. Can USAID please clarify the language under Section B.4 (b)? This contract is CPFF completion, and we are required to complete the deliverables stated under Sections C and F. The output for the contract is the deliverables. As described in FAR 16.301-1, contractors are only held to an overall ceiling price that they may not exceed. Further, FAR 16.301-2(a)(2) states that “uncertainties involved in contract performance [of a CPFF contract] do not permit costs to be estimated with sufficient accuracy.” Therefore, as the budget is an estimate to complete the deliverables, contractors should not be held to line items.

USAID: The language in Section B.4(b) is stating that the inclusion of the budget in B.4 does not obviate the need for prior approval that may be required by specific contract clauses, regulations or policies. For example, if the budget includes restricted goods, approval is still required prior to purchase in accordance with AIDAR 752.225-70.

2. Section B.2 states that offerors are to provide the deliverables described under Section F, but Section B.7 states that fixed fee is tied to the completion of deliverables under Sections C and F.

Can USAID please confirm that Section B.2 should state that the contractor must provide the deliverables or outputs described under Section C as well as Section F?

USAID: The Contractor must provide the deliverables or outputs described in Section C and Section F. Section B.2 of the RFP is revised.

3. Section B.7 indicates that the Offeror must propose a fee distribution schedule, identifying at the minimum the deliverables and target levels from Section F.6 that align with the proposed technical approaches and that will be linked to payment of a portion of the fixed fee as proposed by the Offeror. Do USAID allow offeror to add additional deliverables to the ones listed in Section F.6?

USAID: As described in Section L.6.1 of the RFP, USAID provided the minimum expected deliverables/results in Section C.11 of the Statement of Work and Section F.6, but the Offeror may propose additional results and targets and/or upwardly adjust these targets to align with their technical approach. Offerors must submit as Annex A to the Technical Proposal the Minimum Deliverables or Results Matrix. As per Section L.7 of the RFP, the Detailed Budget of the Cost/Business Proposal must include a tab with the Fixed Fee Table found in Section B.7 that corresponds with Annex A of the Technical Proposal.

USAID Agricultural Inputs

4. B.4 Budget (Page 9 of 158) has called for the allocation of $3 million towards Grants under Contract? Is there scope for an increase in the amount given the nature/type of interventions proposed in the RFP and can the contractor propose a different amount?

USAID: No, as stated in Section L.7.b.3.viii - “This must be a plug figure of $3,000,000 as provided in the summary budget. Offerors must propose annual allocations in accordance with their proposed technical approach, and the total over five years must equal $3,000,000.” This $3,000,000 value is what USAID determined is most appropriate for this intervention.

Section C Questions:

5. Required indicator no. 1 in the Minimum Expected Results Table for USAID Agricultural Inputs includes a target of 33 MT/ha for vegetables. Since different vegetables have different yield potential, can the selected offeror work with USAID to agree on targets for specific vegetables after award?

USAID: Yes, proposed vegetables and specific targets for those vegetables can be discussed and agreed upon with USAID during MEL plan development post award. The Contractor must identify potential vegetables (a mix of summer, winter, and rainy season vegetables such as tomato, cauliflower, cabbage, bitter gourd, eggplant, potato, green bean, chili pepper, etc.) based on the market size, growth potential, supply and demand, export and/or import substitution potential, farmers preference, and agro-climatic suitability in the proposed ZOI, among others. The minimum expected result of 33 Mt/ha is the average productivity that all proposed vegetables will be measured against.

6. Required indicator no.13 in the Minimum Expected Results Table for USAID Agricultural Inputs states “Transaction costs and time in agricultural input related businesses and services due to use of ICT technologies.” Could USAID clarify if this should be “reduced” transaction costs and time?

USAID: Yes, it means reduced transaction costs by 15% and reduced time of agricultural input service by 15%. Please see the revised RFP.

7. The Nepal Seed and Fertilizer activity referenced on page 13 of the RFP does not appear to have any reports since 2019 available on the DEC. Can USAID please share reports from after 2019?

USAID: All reports may be found on the DEC. Please find them below as well:

NEPAL SEED AND FERTILIZER PROJECT ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT YEAR 4 1 OCTOBER 2019 – 30 SEPTEMBER 2020 :

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00Z95H.pdf NEPAL SEED AND FERTILIZER PROJECT ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT YEAR 5 1 OCTOBER 2020 – 30 SEPTEMBER 2021:

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00Z95G.pdf NEPAL SEED AND FERTILIZER PROJECT ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT YEAR 3 1 OCTOBER 2018 – 30 SEPTEMBER 2019:

https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/search/FusionSearchResults.aspx?q=NSAF https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00Z95H.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00Z95G.pdf https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/search/FusionSearchResults.aspx?q=NSAF

USAID Agricultural Inputs

8. Section C.10 refers to USAID’s Digital Agricultural Ecosystem in Nepal and indicates, “The Contractor must refer to this report to design interventions related to digital technologies in the agricultural input market system.” Wouldn’t this potentially confine us to the innovations in this report’s recommendations only, given that a lot more of the innovative technological solutions could emerge from other tech startups that address market system issues? Section 4.1.2 of the said report seems to realize this limitation and recommends that “USAID explore additional solution areas to support the inputs. More scope for private sector leadership may be found in market system where the GON plays a less central role- organic fertilizer, machinery, and small-scale irrigation.”

USAID: This report is provided as a reference with regards to digital technologies in Nepal. USAID recommends that the Contractor refer to this report as reference material in developing their digital technologies interventions, but USAID strongly encourages the Contractor to identify their own innovative solutions as well. The RFP has been revised for clarity.

9. Can USAID share recent quarterly (and/or final reports) of the following projects: NSAF, KISAN II and CSISA III projects?

USAID: All reports may be found on the DEC. Please find them below as well:

NSAF

NEPAL SEED AND FERTILIZER PROJECT ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT YEAR 4 1 OCTOBER 2019 – 30 SEPTEMBER 2020 :

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00Z95H.pdf NEPAL SEED AND FERTILIZER PROJECT ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT YEAR 5 1 OCTOBER 2020 – 30 SEPTEMBER 2021:

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00Z95G.pdf NEPAL SEED AND FERTILIZER PROJECT ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT YEAR 3 1 OCTOBER 2018 – 30 SEPTEMBER 2019:

https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/search/FusionSearchResults.aspx?q=NSAF

KISAN II

Year 4 annual report: https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00XSW8.pdf

CSISA:

Cereal Systems Initiative for South Asia Phase III Annual Report October 2018 https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00TG35.pdf

10. Who is the key counterpart in the GoN for the implementation of this initiative especially given the broader policy related matters that will need to be addressed as part of the proposed interventions under this Agriculture Inputs Activity.

USAID: USAID’s key Government of Nepal counterparts include the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development (MOALD), as well as provincial and local municipal governments within the

ZOI.

11. Table 2: Minimum Expected Results for USAID Agricultural Inputs: Item 3, EG 3.2-25 and Item 7: EG.3.2-28: there appears to be an overlap between these two indicators/targets as both results include hectares of land “under improved management practices or technologies,” The latter is different in that the improved management practices and technologies are linked to improved https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00Z95H.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00Z95G.pdf https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/search/FusionSearchResults.aspx?q=NSAF https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00XSW8.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00TG35.pdf

USAID Agricultural Inputs climate risk reduction and/or natural resource management. Does USAID agree with this understanding? In other words, some farms lands receiving management improvement support could be included under both indicators. Alternatively, will USAID clarify the difference between the two?

USAID: The indicator EG 3.2-25 mainly deals with hectares of land under improved management practices and technologies. The indicator EG 3.2-28 focuses on hectares of land with improved management and technology that reduces climate induced risk and promotes better management of natural resources. While there may potentially be some overlap between the two, EG 3.2-28 provides important information on USAID’s support for climate resilience and natural resources management.

The offeror should clearly mention which specific improved management practices they will promote under EG 3.2-25 and which specific technologies and practices they will cover under EG 3.2-28.

Adjustment and changes may be possible during MEL plan preparation after award based on the discussion with the USAID team. Some farm lands may repeat for both indicators.

12. What are the main targeted lentils and vegetables in the program? This information is pertinent especially since Objective 1 has the intervention of Increasing the availability of climate resilient and improved crop varieties, Improving access to and use of climate resilient and improved seed varieties, so we need to limit the intervention to selective focus crops. Secondly, Table 2:

Minimum Expected Results for USAID Agricultural Inputs (page 25/26)- EG.3-10- Yield of targeted agricultural commodities among program participants with USG assistance- Lentil: 1.5 Mt/ha; Vegetable: 33 Mt/ha. For evaluation purpose also, selective number of lentil and vegetable crops need to selected.

USAID: Red lentil (Nepali name: Musuro) is the targeted lentil for this activity. Proposed vegetables and specific targets for those vegetables can be discussed and agreed upon with USAID during MEL plan development post award. The Contractor must identify potential vegetables based on the market size, growth potential, supply and demand, export and/or import substitution potential, farmers preference, and agro-climatic suitability in the proposed ZOI, among others.

13. Are lentils and vegetables not part of the intervention Objective 2- (c) Enhancing fertilizer use efficiency (p 20)? It is mentioned that the Contractor must facilitate GON revisions to the outdated fertilizer recommendations for major cereal crops and promote a balanced soil fertility management system.

USAID: All the targeted crops (rice. maize, lentil, and vegetables) are part of the interventions under Objective 2 (Soil fertility management and fertilizer distribution system improved).

The Government of Nepal has officially recommended fertilizer (organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) for various crops that include rice and maize as referenced in this document (in Nepali):

https://aitc.gov.np/downloadfile/agriculture%20diary%202078%20for%20web_1619513804.pdf As such, under Objective 2, the offeror should propose interventions to assist the Government of Nepal to revise and/or propose location and crop-specific fertilizer recommendations for all four targeted crops.

https://aitc.gov.np/downloadfile/agriculture%20diary%202078%20for%20web_1619513804.pdf

USAID Agricultural Inputs

14. Can soil testing be included under Objective 2- (c) Enhancing fertilizer use efficiency (p20)?

USAID: Yes, it can be included.

15. What would be the split of targeted farmers amongst different focus crop categories? EG.3.2-24 (in the Results table, p 25/26) mentions Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USG assistance- 150,000 farmers.

USAID: The minimum expected result of 150,000 farmers applies to all four targeted crop categories.

USAID is not specifying a breakdown at this time because it will depend on the Offeror’s approach, and because many farmers grow more than one crop. However, such a breakdown will be determined during MEL plan development.

16. For Objective 3: Climate adaptive and sustainable irrigation management system improved- (a) Improving access to irrigation for commercially oriented agriculture (p 21), besides public and private sector investment, does the project also expect farmers to invest in irrigation infrastructure, if required and/or will the project provide fund for the same? Likewise, for Objective 4: Agricultural mechanization enhanced (a) Increasing uptake of modern agricultural equipment in primary production and post-harvest operation (p22), will the project fund the relevant infrastructure required at farmer level or any common facilities?

USAID: Yes, the activity expects farmers to invest in irrigation and agricultural equipment. It is up to the offeror to propose a strategy and approach for farmers to become more capable of accessing finance. In the case of agricultural equipment and irrigation, the project may fund some of the new technology demonstrations/testing at the farmers level by utilizing the Grants Under Contract component, but no construction is anticipated under this contract.

17. While the contractor would carry out all the trainings/capacity building activities under the four project outputs (preparing training material, imparting trainings, documenting feedback and impact), we would like to understand if the project would bear the logistics/ boarding & lodging cost incurred for the trainees in all such activities?

USAID: Yes, the project would bear the logistics/boarding and lodging cost for the capacity building/training though note that lodging costs should not be applied if the training center is located in the same location as the trainees.

18. C.10 CROSS-CUTTING COMPONENTS- Digital Technologies (p 23)- Is the contractor supposed to provide only functional support or technical support as well (i.e., building the overall digital infra)?

USAID: The contractor is expected to strengthen the needed capacity of key stakeholders that may include technical support, business management support, linkage and networking support, product innovation and its promotion, and access to finance.

USAID Agricultural Inputs

19. Section C.3, page 13 and Section C.11, page 25 show the current and expected yields for rice and maize. Can USAID please provide any analysis that informs the proposed minimum yield targets of 6.3Mt/Ha for rice and 5.1 Mt/Ha for maize?

USAID: The minimum expected results for yields are based on achievement so far through USAID experience and results in past and current Feed the Future activities, including KISAN II, NSAF, and CSISA work in the ZOI.

20. Section C.14, page 28, cites an “Analysis undertaken by USAID/Nepal” relates to GESI. Can USAID let us know if this analysis is publicly available?

USAID: This report may now be found on the DEC and is also linked below:

Nepal Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Analysis, 2020:

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00Z96G.pdf

21. Section C.14, page 30, refers to a “USAID’s upcoming government to government (G2G) program that will support the GON in strengthening agricultural input services.” Can USAID provide more details on this program?

USAID: Nepal has a federal governance system with three tiers of government: local, provincial, and federal). USAID’s proposed G2G program intends to work directly with the Government of Nepal, potentially to implement agricultural input related activities (in seed, fertilizer, irrigation and equipment) that complement this contract. While it is in the inception phase of development, USAID requires the contractor to provide technical assistance to support the Government of Nepal and coordinate closely with USAID to effectively execute the G2G agricultural program. Technical assistance may include support for human resources, program planning, budgeting, policy development, and coordination with other tiers of government, in addition to others.

Section F Questions:

22. F.6. Minimum Deliverables or Results Matrix (pg 47) Overall Result Item #1. Would USAID please identify which vegetable it is using to establish a minimum expected result of 33 Mt/ha?

USAID: Proposed vegetables and specific targets for those vegetables can be discussed and agreed upon with USAID during the MEL plan development post award. The Contractor must identify potential vegetables based on the market size, growth potential, supply and demand, export and/or import substitution potential, farmers preference, and agro-climatic suitability in the proposed ZOI, and covering different seasons (winter, summer, and rainy) among others. The minimum expected result of 33 Mt/ha is the average productivity that all proposed vegetables will be measured against.

23. F.6. Minimum Deliverables or Results Matrix (pg 49) Overall Result Item #13. Would USAID https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00Z96G.pdf

USAID Agricultural Inputs please clarify if the minimum expected result is intended to read a 15% Reduction in transaction costs and time?

USAID: Yes, the minimum expected result is intended to reduce transaction cost by 15% and time of service delivery by 15%. Please see the revised RFP.

Section H Questions:

24. Can USAID please clarify Section H. 30 (e)? It appears to refer to a time-and-materials type contract. Consultants are paid based on their current consulting rate, and compared to the market rate, they are not paid by a pay scale with a level of expertise. Further, categorizing consultants by level of expertise is contrary to Section L.7 3.iii. Consultants, where it states, “…Unit costs for each proposed position, must be expressed in an amount per work day with the corresponding level of effort required for the position (number of work days) and then calculated to a total cost for each cost period where the salary would be applicable. The Offeror must adequately justify the proposed rates based on personnel policies, prevailing market rates, and other relevant information.”

USAID: USAID expects contractors to have policies in place to ensure fair, reasonable, and consistent rates in line with market value are provided to consultants. The language in H.30(e) has been revised to remove reference to maintaining a Pay Scale in relation to consultants.

25. Sections C.12 and H.27(1) indicate that the contractor is authorized to issue grants only to non-governmental organizations, which contradicts Section H.27(3) of the RFP and ADS 302.

Would USAID kindly confirm that solely in-kind grants to government entities will be allowed under this contract, pursuant to ADS 302.3.4.13, as well as grants that provide funds to government entities when the conditions, requirements, and approvals described in Section H.27(3) are met?.

USAID: At this time, USAID/Nepal does not anticipate cash grants to partner government entities.

In-kind grants to partner government entities may be utilized if they are adequately justified. Should cash grants be considered by USAID in the future, their use will require a separate approval. A Determination and Finding (D&F) memo would be produced by USAID to document the requirements of ADS 302.3.4.13(e). The Contractor would be expected to play an instrumental role in providing input for the various D&F requirements.

26. On page 79 USAID states that Grants must not include construction, infrastructure, renovation, or rehabilitation projects. Can USAID confirm whether this applies to the entire activity or only to the Grants Under Contract portion of the activity?

USAID: As per Section H.27, Grants must not include construction, infrastructure, renovation, or rehabilitation projects. In addition, this contract does not authorize construction, infrastructure, renovation, or rehabilitation.

27. Can USAID share the U.S. Embassy Kathmandu Local Compensation Plan (LCP) for Cooperating Country Nationals (CCNs) and Third Country Nationals (TCNs)?

USAID Agricultural Inputs

USAID: As stated in Section L.7.b.3.i. 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.

28. Can USAID advise if the Disclosure of Lobbying Form is required from all subcontractors?

USAID: The Offeror and each proposed subcontractor must complete Section K, "Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors.”

29. Section H.30, page 80, states that “(1) Salary ranges for all professional positions in this Contract must be (i) established based on the market value, (ii) based on duties and responsibilities of the position, and locality of Contract performance, and (iii) based upon the Contractor’s established pay scale.” And Section L.7.3i, page 138 states “In accordance with Section H.30, the ceiling on the reimbursable salary paid to CCNs and TCNs is currently 6,061,566 NPR.”

a. Can USAID please clarify if offerors can use their established salary scales in excess of the

CCN/TCN salary maximum rate above?

b. Can USAID please share the mission's FSN scale for Nepal if possible?

USAID:

a. If an offeror should use their establish salary scales in excess of the CCN/TCN salary maximum rate above, they must adhere to what is stated in Section H.30(a)(2) and obtain advance approval by the USAID/Nepal Mission Director in adherence to AIDAR 722.170.

b. Offerors are expected to conduct their own market research and use their established policies to propose justified CCN salaries.

30. For consistency across all offers, can USAID please provide USD-NPR exchange rate?

USAID: The exchange rate for planning purposes is 115 Nepalese Rupees (NPR) to 1 U.S. Dollar.

31. Pursuant to section H.17 of the RFP, Conflicts of Interest, we have concerns related to prospective offerors’ plan to submit a proposal for this opportunity. It is our position that one or more prospective offerors has had unequal access to information regarding this RFP, and potentially has a disqualifying bias conflict arising from its performance of the USAID-funded Digital Frontiers Project. This project was awarded a contract to perform an assessment of Nepal’s agricultural input market systems and subsidies. The findings of that assessment were intended to design a future project, and we assert the statement of work from the current Nepal Agricultural Inputs RFP (C.9 pg. 18-24) is substantially similar to the assessment report. Additionally, we believe the project implementer has had extended (unequal) access to this information to inform their work on this RFP as the assessment was not released in the public domain until shortly before the release of the RFP.

Is it USAID’s intention to allow the authors of the assessment report to participate as bidders on the current RFP? If yes, what controls will be put into place to ensure a fair competition and mitigation of real or potential conflicts in accordance with Provision H.17?

USAID Agricultural Inputs

USAID: As stated on the cover page of this RFP, USAID invites all interested and responsible organizations to submit offers in accordance with the requirements of this solicitation. This procurement is a full and open competition in accordance with FAR 6.1. USAID has added Section L.7(m) to this RFP, which requests all offerors to confirm that no Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) exists in relation to their submission of a proposal in response to this RFP in accordance with FAR 9.5. Any OCI identified will be reviewed and addressed in accordance with FAR 9.5.

In addition, please note that Section H.17 is in relation to conflicts of interest that take place post-award during contract implementation.

Section J Questions:

32. Attachment J2 Past Performance Matrix: providing a readable document using this excel sheet with 13 columns will be a challenge. Will USAID be open to revising the sheet to include information under columns G to L in one Cell under Column A to allow more space for other cells designed to include narrative description?

USAID: Offerors may adjust the matrix as long as it clearly contains all requested information. As stated in Section L.6(a), Offerors may use legal 8 ½ x 14” size paper for the Past Performance Matrix to make the spreadsheet more reader-friendly.

Section K Questions:

33. As contractors are required to pay severance according to local law, we request that FAR 52.237-9 be included under Section K.1.

USAID: FAR 52.237-9 is a contract clause, not a solicitation provision, as prescribed in FAR 37.113-2(b). It has already been incorporated by reference in Section I.2 of the RFP.

Section L Questions:

34. On Page 131, Section e. of the RFP, the final section states: “Technical Prop”. Can USAID please confirm if there is an additional part to this sentence?.

USAID: There is no additional part to this sentence. The “Technical Prop” text was deleted. Please see the revised RFP.

35. Would USAID consider extending the five-day period to submit the key personnel candidate(s)?

A longer timeframe would help the awardee to negotiate compensation and get signed Letters of Commitment.

USAID Agricultural Inputs

USAID: Offerors are expected to line up potential key personnel candidates during the solicitation phase and be ready to provide their resumes five days after award. No letters of commitment are required.

36. Would USAID reconsider the inclusion of Annexes A & B in the Technical Proposal’s 50-page limit?

USAID: USAID determined that the 50-page limitation is sufficient for all aspects of the technical proposal. As per Section L.6, the required aspects of the technical proposal, including the required annexes A and B, are included in the page limit. Note that Annex C is excluded from the 50-page limit.

37. Can USAID confirm whether the page limitations in the statement that "The Technical Proposal is limited to 50 pages and must be written in plain English. This page limitation includes all required documents for the technical proposal." is inclusive of the Annexes (A. Minimum Deliverables or Results Matrix; B. Other Key Personnel Roles, Responsibilities and Qualifications)?

USAID: As per Section L.6 (b), the required aspects of the technical proposal, including the required annexes A and B, are included in the page limit. Note that Annex C is excluded from the 50-page limit.

38. Section L.6 Page 132 of 158: In terms of the total page limit of 50 pages, can USAID provide some added clarity on the minimum number of pages it would like to see for “Technical Understanding and Approach” and “Management Approach and Staffing Plan”.

USAID: It is the Offeror’s discretion to determine the length of the “Technical Understanding and Approach” and “Management Approach and Staffing Plan” sections as long as the offeror remains within the 50 page limit for the Technical Proposal, as stated in Section L.6(a).

39. Can USAID please confirm that we do not need to submit bio data sheets with the proposal?

USAID: Confirmed. USAID has removed the biographical data sheet submission requirement from Section L.7.b.3.i. Please see the revised RFP.

40. RFP states "If the Offeror does not have a NICRA or a cognizant Government Audit Agency, the Offeror must direct charge all costs or the proposal must include: Audited financial statements, balance sheets and profit and loss statements, for the last two complete years, and the current year-to-date financial statements (or such lesser period of time if the Offeror is a newly formed organization)."

Can USAID please confirm that partners which do not have an approved NICRA can charge 10% de minimis rate in accordance with 2 CFR 200.414(f)?

Additionally, if partners can charge the 10% de minimis rate can USAID please clarify if these partners should still submit audited financial statements, balance sheets and profit and loss statements?

USAID Agricultural Inputs

USAID: 2 CFR 200 is only applicable to non-profit organizations. For profit organizations are governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The cost principles that an organization must follow is not based on the type of instrument (ie. acquisition vs assistance.) It is based on the type of organization (ie. non-profit vs for-profit.)

If your organization is for-profit, the organization cannot elect to use the 10% de minimis rate because there are no provisions under the FAR to do so. The only options are to directly charge the administrative costs or to propose an indirect rate(s) and provide documentation listed in Section L.7.b.3.x, Audited financial statements, balance sheets and profit and loss statements, to justify the proposed rate. A non-profit organization can propose to charge the de minimis rate of 10% of modified total direct costs (MTDC) so long as the requirements in 2 CFR 200.414(f) are followed.

Specifically, “If chosen, this methodology once elected must be used consistently for all Federal awards until such time as a non-Federal entity chooses to negotiate for a rate, which the non-Federal entity may apply to do at any time.” .

41. Is USAID expecting Offerors to provide an abbreviated Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning as part of the Technical Understanding and Approach? If not in the Technical Understand and Approach, should Offerors provide this as part of Annex A. Minimum Deliverables or Results Matrix?

USAID: USAID/Nepal does not expect Offerors to provide an abbreviated Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan as part of the Technical Understanding and Approach section of the technical proposal. However, the offerors must address monitoring, adapting and how the offeror will achieve the contract objectives and results in their technical approach. Offerors may propose increased targets or additions to the minimum key deliverables or results to align with their technical approach and provide descriptions as required for Annex A-Minimum Deliverables or Results Matrix.

42. Can USAID clarify how many key personnel are required and allowed to be proposed? Page 49 mentions between three to five key personnel, while page 135 states up to four.

USAID: At least three but no more than five key personnel positions are required. One of these positions must be a Chief of Party. Offerors are thus permitted to propose up to four key personnel positions in addition to the Chief of Party.

43. Page 132 states that offerors must use “font size 11-12.” So that all offerors use a uniform size and space, can USAID please specify whether the font size 11 should be used or instead the font size 12?

USAID: For consistency, Offerors must use Times New Roman font size 11. Please see the revised

RFP.

44. Page 132 states that offerors must use “8.5 inch by 11 inch (210 mm by 297 mm) paper.”

However, 8.5 inch by 11 inch measures 215 mm by 279 mm. Please clarify whether offerors should use 8.5 inch by 11 inch paper or instead use A4 paper.

USAID: Offerors must use 8.5 inch by 11 inch, Letter size paper. Please see the revised RFP.

USAID Agricultural Inputs

45. Can USAID please confirm that Annex C, described in Section L.6.3, Item 3 (page 136), is not included in the 50-page limit?

USAID: The past performance matrix must be included as part of the technical proposal within the 50 page limit under the Contractor Past Performance Information section. However, the additional information requested in Annex C is not included in the 50-page limit. See revised RFP.

46. L.6.1 Technical Understanding and Approach (pg 134), with regards to Annex A, the RFP states, “the Offeror may propose additional results and targets and/or upwardly adjust these targets to align with their technical approach.” Would USAID please consider remove the work “upwardly’?

USAID: The use of “upwardly” was intentional because the results/targets contained in this RFP are the minimum expected results. The RFP has been revised for clarity.

47. L.6.3 Contractor Past Performance Information (pg 135) states, “The offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself and major subcontractors (defined as subcontractors expected to perform at least 10% or a prominent part of the technical effort)…” Would USAID please clarify what is meant by a prominent part of the technical effort?

USAID: Major subcontractors are those that will perform at least 10% of the effort (based on the total budget). USAID is also giving offerors the flexibility to identify subcontractors as major subcontractors if they are contributing to a significant portion of the technical effort even if it is not 10% of the total budget. It is up to offerors to determine and identify if a subcontractor will be performing a prominent part of the technical effort.

48. L.6.(a) May offerors use a different font type and size for graphics, charts, tables, and textboxes?

USAID: As stated in Section L.6(a), offerors may use font size 10 for text in graphs, charts, tables, and text boxes, so long as the text is legible.

49. L.6.3(a)3. Please confirm that Annex C, copies of completed CPARS reports, will not be included in the 50-page limit.

USAID: Item 3 under Section L.6.3 (a) was revised to include an Annex C, which includes the copies of completed CPARS reports, and it is not counted in the 50 page limitation.

50. L.6.2 Annex B notes “the offeror must not propose individuals to fill any key personnel positions including the COP” however L.7 3.i notes “completed biographical data sheets, Form AID 1420- 17 must be provided for all proposed key personnel expected to perform on the contract”. Would USAID please confirm that we do not need to submit EBDs of proposed Chief of Party and other key personnel positions expected to perform on the contract?

USAID Agricultural Inputs

USAID: It is confirmed that offerors must not provide names of key personnel; therefore, biographical data sheets are not required. USAID removes bio data sheet submission requirement from Section L.7.b.3.i. Please see the revised RFP.

51. Section L.7.3(i), Page 138 states “...completed biodata sheets must be provided for all proposed key personnel,” however, Section L.6.2, page 135 of the RFP, states “...The Offeror must not propose individuals to fill any key personnel position, including the COP,...” Can USAID please clarify if naming individuals in forms 1420 is allowed.

USAID: It is confirmed that offerors must not provide names of key personnel; therefore, biographical data sheets are not required. USAID removes biographical data sheet submission requirement from Section L.7.b.3.i. Please see the revised RFP.

52. Would USAID please confirm that offerors should not name any of the key personnel in the cost proposal, in either the budget line items or the supporting narrative?

USAID: It is confirmed that offerors must not provide names of key personnel in the cost proposal;

only position titles should be used.

53. Would USAID please confirm if offerors should name any of the non-key personnel in the cost proposal, in either the budget line items or the supporting narrative? Should the Offeror submit EBDs for non-key personnel?

USAID: It is confirmed that offerors should not include non-key personnel names in the cost proposal; only position titles should be used.

54. L.7.3.xi. Fixed Fee pages 142-143, states that, “USAID may withhold a negotiated amount of fee if the contractor does not meet the achievement threshold or completion of deliverables and acceptance by USAID.” Would USAID please indicate if the withholding amounts will be negotiated following award and before contract entry into effect? If not so negotiated, would USAID provide reference to the procurement regulations or USAID/Nepal established procedures that will guide negotiations for the potential withholding amounts after the contract enters effect.

USAID: USAID has tied a portion of the fixed fee (60%) to the achievement of the minimum deliverables/results specified in Section F.6 of the contract. Offerors have been requested to propose a fixed fee schedule that is tied to the deliverables as per Section L.7 of the RFP. Therefore, the fixed fee amounts will be proposed by the offeror and included in the resulting contract. If the Contractor does not meet certain results tied to fixed fee, the amount of fixed fee tied to that particular result will be withheld.

55. Key Personnel Pg. 50 states “Upon award, the Contractor must submit names and resumes of all Key Personnel no later than five days after award.” Would USAID please clarify what is meant by “award” in this sentence? Is this the date the Offeror is notified of award or is it the “award date” as specified in F.2 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE (ie. the beginning of the contract’s period of performance which may be a later date).

USAID Agricultural Inputs

USAID: This references the “award date” as specified in Section F.2 Period of Performance.

56. Would USAID please confirm the requested order and placement of technical chapters and annexes?

USAID: The requested order and placement of the technical chapters and annexes is addressed in Section L.6(b) of the RFP.

57. Section L.6.2, page 135 states that the Offeror must “Detail the role and business agreement of each subcontractor (if any) proposed…” Can USAID confirm that “business agreement” refers to the subcontracting mechanism the Offeror intends to utilize?

USAID: USAID revised bullet 4, Section L.6.2 of the RFP to clarify that offerors must provide the agreed-upon roles, responsibilities, type and professional level of personnel, and proposed integration and oversight of each subcontractor proposed.

58. Section L.6.3.a(3), page 136 states: “For all awards listed in Annex that have a confirmed CPARS records, please include a copy of the most recent past three years of CPARS records in Annex C, if available. Can USAID confirm that this Annex C will not be included in the 50 page limitations?

USAID: Item 3 under Section L.6.3 (a) was revised to include an Annex C that is not counted in the 50 page limitation. This Annex C should include the copies of the CPARS records.

59. In Section L.6.3, can USAID confirm that descriptions of extraordinary problems for past performance information are not included in the page limitations (Page 132 says “nothing is excluded from the page limitations” but page 136 suggest otherwise)?

USAID: Section L.6.3(b) was revised to include an Annex C that is not counted in the 50 page limitation and the extraordinary problems for past performance should be included in this Annex C.

60. Can USAID clarify if in Section L.6.3, page 136, “Quality Awards and Certification” and “performance in Using Small Business Concerns” sections are included in the page limitations?

USAID: Section L.6.3 (c) is revised to read “(c) Describe briefly in Annex C any quality awards or certifications that indicate exceptional capacity to provide the service or product described in the statement of work. This information is not included in the page limitation.”

Section L.6.3 (d) is not applicable to offers from small business concerns. All Offerors who are not small business concerns must follow the requirements in L.6.3(d).3. This information is not included in the page limitation. Please see the revised RFP.

Section M Questions:

61. Section M.2.2 MANAGEMENT APPROACH AND STAFFING PLAN, Page 151 of 158. Given that the USAID has explicitly asked that the COP and other key personnel not be named at the

USAID Agricultural Inputs time of submission of proposal. How does USAID intend to evaluate this particular criteria given the credentials and qualifications of the persons required to fill such roles and deliver on the objectives outlined in the SOW will not be assessed.

USAID: USAID intends on evaluating the Management and Staffing Plan holistically in accordance with Section M.2.2. In reference to the key personnel aspect of the M.2.2 evaluation factor, USAID has requested the following information in Section L.6.2 Annex B,: “The Offeror must identify up to four key personnel positions in addition to the Chief of Party and the minimum qualifications and roles and responsibilities for each “Other Key Personnel” position. The Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel titles, roles, responsibilities, and list of desired or required qualifications will be incorporated in Section F of the resulting contract.” USAID will evaluate the proposed key personnel positions, roles and responsibilities based on this requested information.

(End of Questions and Answers) (End of Amendment 03 of RFP 72036722R00005)