Amendment 1_QandA RFP 72036724R00001_FTF USAID Ag Transformation.pdf

Amendment 01

RFP 72036724R00001

Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on

Request For Proposal (RFP) No.: 72036724R00001 Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on

Issuance Date: October 22, 2023 Closing Date/Time for Ques�ons: November 1, 2023, 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time Closing Date/Time for Receipt of Proposals: November 22, 2023, 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time

General Ques�ons:

1. Could USAID please clarify if it intends to have the same personnel in the Technical Evalua�on Commi�ee (TEC) reviewing Phase One and Phase Two submissions?

USAID: The membership of the TEC is procurement sensi�ve.

Sec�on B Ques�ons:

2. Given the size of the project, a 30% withholding of the fixed fee might be quite high in terms of dollar amount. Is it a standard policy or could it be changed? .

USAID: Pursuant to FAR 16.306(d), a percentage (70%) of the payment of the fixed fee under this contract is �ed to the comple�on of the deliverables/results described in Sec�on C and F.6. Payment of the remaining (30%) of fixed fee may be made upon receipt of a proper invoice. Subject to FAR 52.216-8(b), the Contrac�ng Officer withholds a reserve not to exceed 15 percent of the total fixed fee or $100,000, whichever is less, to protect the Government’s interest.

3. Sec�on L.8(b)(3)(xi), p. 165, states “USAID may withhold a nego�ated amount of fee if the contractor does not meet the achievement threshold or comple�on of deliverables and acceptance by USAID.” A cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with these specifica�ons could result in the Contractor forfei�ng the fee associated with a deliverable that was not achieved in a certain �meframe, crea�ng a disincen�ve to devote addi�onal effort and resources to achieve that deliverable, thus inadvertently resul�ng in lowered results. To ensure the fee under this contract remains fixed and is only adjusted as a result of changes in the work to be performed, we request the following sentence be added to Sec�on B.7: “Any unpaid fee resul�ng from the Contractor not achieving a certain result beyond its manageable control can be reallocated among other or new deliverables in the work plan for the current or upcoming year.”

USAID: The contract’s minimum deliverables as stated in Sec�on F.6 will remain unchanged as these are the minimum deliverables required for this comple�on contract. Further, the Contractor must demonstrate flexibility and the ability to respond and adapt to uncertain�es as they arise. USAID has only �ed a por�on of the fixed fee (70% as opposed to 100%) to the achievement of these minimum deliverables in order to permit flexibility in achieving addi�onal or other results that are within the

Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on scope of the contract as they arise. As stated in Sec�on C, the contract sets out minimum expected outcomes, which permits USAID and the contractor to shi� to addi�onal priori�es that may arise during the course of implementa�on that fall within the Statement of Work. Furthermore, USAID will not entertain reprogramming unpaid fees from non-accepted deliverables, unless the Contractor can demonstrate an excusable delay, as this defeats the concept of paying fixed fee for successful comple�on of deliverables.

4. Could you kindly clarify whether the “grants under contract” line item of $8,460,000.00 acts as an upper limit for any individual subcontract, or for the combined total of all subcontracts, across the 5-year dura�on?

USAID: The full value of $8,460,000 is for the combined total of all grants under contract (GUC) over the 5-year period of performance of this contract. The GUC line item does not pertain to subcontracts.

Sec�on C Ques�ons:

5. Sec�on C of the RFP references in Figure 4. Results Framework and in subsequent sessions references minimum “outputs” to achieve the four (4) objec�ves. Would USAID be amenable to offerors revising these to be at outcome level given their nature, and include relevant outputs below?

USAID: No, offeror’s must not revise the SOW to change the “outputs” to “outcomes”. Please note that offerors may propose addi�onal “outcomes” or “results” in line with Sec�on L.7 of the RFP, which states: “USAID provided the minimum expected deliverables/results in Sec�on C.5 of the Statement of Work and Sec�on F.6, but Offerors may propose addi�onal results and targets and/or upwardly adjust the F.6 targets to align with their technical approach.”

6. Are contractors expected to implement programming in all the priority districts iden�fied on page 22 of the RFP, or propose implementa�on in a subset of these districts?

USAID: The selected Contractor must implement the award in each of the priority districts iden�fied in Sec�on C.4 of the RFP.

7. Under Sec�on C.4., the RFP says: “The Contractor must focus ini�al efforts on the fine rice, industrial maize, len�l, high-value vegetables, and goat value chains, while analyzing and adding commodi�es based on relevance to priori�es of local governments, market opportuni�es, and poten�al for growth, compe��veness, and income-genera�on for smallholder farmers”. Can USAID clarify whether addi�onal commodi�es need to be added at the proposal stage or post award? In other words, is the Ac�vity expected to focus “ini�ally” (in year 1) on the target five commodi�es and then add addi�onal commodi�es during implementa�on (post award) based on the criteria men�oned above? Or is the Contractor expected to propose a value chain

Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on selec�on at the proposal stage as part of Phase 2 that includes the five target VCs but may also include addi�onal value chains based on its current knowledge?

USAID: Offerors must address in the phase 2 proposal the five value chains (fine rice, industrial maize, len�l, high-value vegetables, and goat) contained in Sec�on C.4 of the revised RFP. However, Offerors may propose addi�onal value chains in phase 2 of the proposal stage that are well substan�ated and that meet the parameters outlined in the “Commodity selec�on” paragraph of Sec�on C.4 of the revised RFP. The request for addi�onal commodi�es, if well-substan�ated, was added to bullet 4 in Sec�on L.7.1 of the revised RFP. Note that addi�onal value chains may be added post-award, as outlined in the “Commodity selec�on” paragraph of Sec�on C.4 of the revised RFP.

8. On page 21, in sec�on C.4, USAID writes that “the contractor must focus ini�al efforts on the fine rice, industrial maize, len�l, high-value vegetables, and goat value chains, while analyzing and adding commodi�es based on relevance to priori�es of local governments...”

a. Can USAID please confirm that applicants should not be including any addi�onal commodi�es in its proposal, as adding commodi�es will be done in consulta�on with the local governments?

b. Can USAID confirm whether applicants should list out poten�al high-value vegetables by disaggregates in the standard indicator targets?

USAID:

a. Offerors must address in the phase 2 proposal the five value chains (fine rice, industrial maize, len�l, high-value vegetables, and goat) contained in Sec�on C.4 of the revised RFP. However, Offerors may propose addi�onal value chains in phase 2 of the proposal stage that are well substan�ated and that meet the parameters outlined in the “Commodity selec�on” paragraph of Sec�on C.4 of the revised RFP. The request for addi�onal commodi�es, if well-substan�ated, was added to bullet 4 in Sec�on L.7.1 of the revised RFP.

b. Offerors are not required to disaggregate targets for high-value vegetables in the Phase 2 proposal.

9. RFP p. 39 lists the following minimum result: “Strengthen enabling environment for the private sector par�cipa�on in NARC research system for at least targeted value chains.” How many or which targeted value chains are in scope?

USAID: Offerors must address in the phase 2 proposal the five value chains (fine rice, industrial maize, len�l, high-value vegetables, and goat) contained in Sec�on C.4 of the revised RFP. However, Offerors may propose addi�onal value chains in phase 2 of the proposal stage that are well substan�ated and that meet the parameters outlined in the “Commodity selec�on” paragraph of Sec�on C.4 of the revised RFP. The request for addi�onal commodi�es, if well-substan�ated, was added to bullet 4 in Sec�on L.7.1 of the revised RFP.

Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on

10. Water infrastructure plays a crucial role in enhancing agriculture produc�on and produc�vity.

The construc�on of hard infrastructure is not authorized for this Ag Transforma�on ac�vity;

however, is it possible to lead or collaborate with other donors, the GoN, and private sector stakeholders with a par�al contribu�on towards building such vital infrastructure?

USAID: The u�liza�on of USAID funds for construc�on (including par�al contribu�ons towards construc�on) is not authorized in the scope of this Ac�vity. However, the Contractor must coordinate or leverage with other donors, Government of Nepal, and private sector actors to promote investment in infrastructure in order to strengthen Nepal’s food security, as outlined in Sec�on C.3.1.1 of the RFP.

11. RFP page 40 states: “The Contractor must provide complementary technical assistance to USAID’s relevant G2G programs.” In order for the offeror to best propose technical assistance and ensure adequate budget, may USAID provide a list of the G2G programs?

USAID: USAID/Nepal’s Economic Growth Office only plans to implement one Government to Government (G2G) ac�vity that serves 11 different Government of Nepal en��es at the federal, province and municipality levels. The overall goal of the G2G ac�vity is to improve the Government of Nepal’s (GON) capacity to plan and execute agricultural ac�vi�es across the federal and sub-na�onal level to improve agricultural produc�on and food security by crea�ng an enabling environment; improving technical capacity; increasing access to improved agricultural technologies and market; and effec�ve and efficient agricultural extension services. This ac�vity is currently in the process of being finalized.

12. RFP Sec�on C.6.4 (p. 40) talks about a “Partnership and Innova�on Fund”, which is to include GUCs. Then page 41 refers to “Innova�on and Investment Fund”, which “must include a window for Gender Ac�on Planning (GAP) grants.” Is the “Partnership and Innova�on Fund” the same thing as the “Innova�on and Investment Fund”? If they are different, please provide more informa�on about the Innova�on and Investment Fund.

USAID: USAID revised its approach and only references Grants Under Contract in Sec�on C.6.4.

13. Can USAID please confirm which term USAID prefers us to use for the fund – Partnership and Innova�on Fund, or Innova�on and Investment Fund?

USAID: USAID revised its approach and only references Grants Under Contract in Sec�on C.6.4.

14. Page 40 of the RFP indicates that GUCs are one mechanism within the Partnership and Innova�on Fund that Contractors must establish. Could USAID clarify if that $8.46M is exclusively for GUCs or those funds can be used for other mechanisms under that Fund?

Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on

USAID: The $8.46 million plug-in figure referenced in Sec�on L.8 of the RFP is exclusively for GUCs.

See Sec�on C.6.4 and Sec�on L.8(b)(3)(viii) for more details.

15. “Gender Ac�on Planning (GAP) grants” are iden�fied on page 41 of the RFP. Can USAID please confirm if these grants are intended to be part of the $8,460,000 GUC plug figure iden�fied earlier in the RFP, or if these may be considered separately?

USAID: USAID confirms that Gender Ac�on Plan grants are the part of $8,460,000 GUC plug-in figure addressed in Sec�on C.6.4 and L.8 of the RFP.

16. RFP p. 45 states that “USAID may conduct program evalua�ons…If conducted, the performance evalua�on will be led by an external partner…” Should Contractor include costs for external performance evalua�on(s) in its cost proposal, or will USAID be covering the cost of the program evalua�ons separately?

USAID: USAID will cover the cost of the performance evalua�on; Offerors should not include this cost in the cost proposal required in Phase 2 of this RFP.

17. RFP p. 36 [Bullet 3, Minimum results under Objec�ve 3] lists the following minimum result:

“Diversify employment and business (self-employment) opportuni�es for 60 percent of the people reached by the ac�vity are women, youth, and other marginalized groups.” Could USAID please clarify this desired result, as the wording is unclear?

USAID: Bullet 5, Minimum results under Objec�ve 3 of Sec�on C.5.2 of the RFP was revised to clarify this point as follows: “To diversify employment and business (self-employment) opportuni�es, 60 percent of total people reached by the ac�vity must be women, youth, and other marginalized groups.”

18. RFP p. 36 lists the following minimum result: “Ini�ate or expand sales of goods and services for 90 percent of the people reached by the ac�vity are marginalized people.” Could USAID please clarify this desired result, as the wording is unclear?

USAID: Bullet 6, Minimum results under Objec�ve 3 of Sec�on C.5.2 of the RFP was revised to clarify this point as follows: “Ninety percent of the people who ini�ate or expand sales of goods and services as a result of this ac�vity must be from marginalized communi�es.”

19. On page 36, USAID describes one of the minimum results under Objec�ve 3 as “Ini�ate or expand sales of goods and services for 90 percent of the people reached by the ac�vity are marginalized people.” Could USAID clarify whether the 90% refers to the total amount of sales of goods and services, or 90% of the total number of households to be reached?

Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on

USAID: Bullet 6, Minimum results under Objec�ve 3 of Sec�on C.5.2 of the RFP was revised to clarify this point as follows: “Ninety percent of the people who ini�ate or expand sales of goods and services as a result of this ac�vity must be from marginalized communi�es.”

20. RFP p. 39 lists the following minimum result: “At least 50 percent of private sector actors partnered by the ac�vity are with the NARC and the private sector’s agriculture produc�on related research problems are addressed.” Could USAID please clarify this desired result, as the wording is unclear?

USAID: Bullet 4, Minimum results under Objec�ve 4 of Sec�on C.5.2 of the RFP was revised to clarify this point as follows: “At least 50 percent of all private sector partners supported by the ac�vity work in partnership with NARC to address agricultural produc�on related research challenges.”

21. Page 39 of the RFP, Minimum results under Objec�ve 4, bullet 4 states “At least 50 percent of private sector actors partnered by the ac�vity are with the NARC and the private sector’s agriculture produc�on related research problems are addressed.” Could USAID please clarify this sentence?

USAID: Bullet 4, Minimum results under Objec�ve 4 of Sec�on C.5.2 of the RFP was revised to clarify this point as follows: “At least 50 percent of all private sector partners supported by the ac�vity work in partnership with NARC to address agricultural produc�on related research challenges.”

22. When no�ng “crop insurance,” can USAID clarify if “crop insurance” refers to weather-based agricultural input insurance?

USAID: USAID confirms that crop insurance can refer to weather-based agricultural input insurance as well as other insurance schemes as appropriate.

23. Can USAID confirm that all publicly available current USAID Nepal project reports, assessments and evalua�ons are uploaded to the USG Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC)?

USAID: It is confirmed that it is an award requirement for Contractors/Implemen�ng Partners of contracts/coopera�ve agreements to upload ac�vity reports, assessments, and evalua�ons onto the

DEC.

24. Can USAID share any publicly available, and relevant documents that apply to U.S. Interna�onal Development Finance Corpora�on (DFC) pipeline of loans to small and medium enterprises in the agriculture sector in Nepal, as referred to on page 29?

USAID: USAID/Nepal encourages offerors to review this resource about DFC:

h�ps://np.usembassy.gov/dfc-invests-in-agriculture-and-boosts-small-businesses-in-nepal/ https://np.usembassy.gov/dfc-invests-in-agriculture-and-boosts-small-businesses-in-nepal/

Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on

25. On Page 29, USAID describes project engagement with the DFC. Can USAID clarify whether the DFC an�cipates providing financial guarantees for the warehouse receipt program that will be launched as part of this Ac�vity?

USAID: DFC supports and invests in catalyzing economic growth and development, including opportuni�es for investment in agriculture and SMEs. USAID an�cipates that the successful offeror may provide technical assistance to help generate poten�al new projects or support loan recipients.

26. Does USAID an�cipate there will be duplica�on of direct beneficiaries between the Agricultural Transforma�on and Agricultural Inputs, given the geographic overlap and target commodi�es?

USAID: Yes, there may be duplica�on of direct beneficiaries between Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on and Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Inputs.

27. On page 27, USAID refers to warehousing distribu�on systems. Can USAID please clarify the types of storage facili�es that are covered in warehousing distribu�on?

USAID: The type of warehouse storage facili�es referred to in the RFP is largely for cereal storage.

28. Can USAID clarify how the an�cipated USAID Nepali Women in Business project will overlap, complement, or compete with Output 3.2: Strengthened inclusive agribusiness that are produc�ve and profitable?

USAID: As stated in Sec�on C.3.5.1 Rela�onship to Other FTF Ac�vi�es, the Contractor will be expected to coordinate closely with (and thus compliment) all USAID FTF and related ac�vi�es opera�ng in Nepal.

29. On page 39, USAID refers to 50 private sector actors established formal partnership with NARC as a public private ini�a�ve for market-based research. Could USAID comment on whether these 50 private sector actors would overlap with exis�ng and new USAID projects such as seed companies that receive support from the CIMMYT NSAF project and the new Agricultural Inputs ac�vity?

USAID: These 50 total private sector actors that have established a formal partnership with NARC must not overlap with the exis�ng USAID ac�vi�es, including the Nepal Seed and Fer�lizer award implemented by CIMMYT.

30. On page 43, USAID refers to Market Planning Commi�ees (MPCs). Could USAID please explain who these are and where they are located and/or which project they align with?

USAID: Market Planning Commi�ees are ad hoc in many cases but in some cases registered at the local level and not necessarily available in each district in Nepal. USAID seeks that the Contractor

Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on iden�fies opportuni�es to foster partnerships with a wide range of relevant market actors detailed in Sec�on C.6.7 of the RFP, including Market Planning Commi�ees.

31. Page 179 of RPF in the IEE sec�on (page 2 of 20) refers to the project reaching 200,000 households, with an addi�onal 100,000 households, for an overall household target of 300,000 households. In Sec�on C.4 on page 23, USAID refers to a target of at least 400,000 households + 100,000 households outside of the area of focus for a minimum of 500,000 households. Could USAID confirm which is the target?

USAID: The Contractor must follow the targets as stated in Sec�on C.4 of the revised RFP. Any discrepancy with the RFP/contract will be revised in the IEE at a later date.

32. On page 41 in Sec�on C.6.4, USAID states, “Cost share – on the part of partners, recipients, and beneficiaries – as well as the poten�al to leverage private and government resources must be considered.” Can USAID please confirm that cost share is not required for GUCs and if cost share is included as leveraging resources, that it does not need to be tracked or reported and will not be part of the awarded contract total es�mated costs plus fixed fee?

USAID: USAID confirms that cost share and leverage (depending on the award type) will be highly encouraged from GUC Recipients. USAID an�cipates that the Contractor will report cost share and leverage values contained in GUCs in the Trimester Performance Reports. The values for cost share and leverage will not be a part of the Total Es�mated Cost of the Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on.

Sec�on F Ques�ons:

33. RFP p. 64 lists a minimum indicator #4 as, “Number of hectares under improved management prac�ces or technologies that promote improved climate risk reduc�on and/or natural resources management with USG assistance [IM-level] (CUSTOM)”. Is this the same as FTF Indicator EG.3.2-28? If it is “custom”, could USAID provide more informa�on about how this indicator relates to EG.3.2-25?

USAID:

a. EG.3.2-28 is the same as minimum indicator #4; however, please note that EG.3.2-28 has been archived and will be reported under a disaggregate of EG.3.2-25. Due to this archived indicator, USAID has indicated indicator 4 as “custom.”

b. EG.3.2-25 relates to measuring the number of hectares under improved management prac�ces or technologies with US assistance whereas your referenced custom indicator (#4 from Sec�on F.6 of the RFP) is related but goes beyond EG.3.2-25 by only coun�ng prac�ces or technologies that promote improved climate risk reduc�on and/or natural resources management.

Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on

34. RFP p. 64 lists a minimum indicator #9 as “Number of private public dialogues, events, and training for crea�ng be�er linkage between agriculture extension and research conducted.”

Could USAID kindly provide more informa�on about this custom indicator and their expecta�ons for which Objec�ve/Output it aligns with?

USAID: Public/private dialogue is a means to convene stakeholders (government and private sector actors) to discuss policy reform, building capacity and crea�ng awareness on the need of policy-based evidence genera�on. This custom indicator is aligned with achieving objec�ves 2 and 4.

35. Can USAID please clarify if baseline, midterm and endline assessments will be required deliverables from the contractor during the project phase? These do not appear on the list of reports in Sec�on F.5.1 star�ng on page 51.

USAID: USAID confirms that the Contractor is not required to deliver baseline, midterm and endline assessments for Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on.

36. On page 51 of the RFP, in sec�on F.5.1, USAID writes that quarterly financial reports will be due 15 days a�er the end of the quarter. Would USAID consider extending this �meframe to 30 days?

USAID: USAID uses the data contained in the Quarterly Financial Reports to meet internal repor�ng and planning deadlines, and as such, is unable to change this deadline.

37. On page 51 of the RFP, in sec�on F.5.1, USAID includes a final report deliverable but not a final financial report deliverable. Can USAID please clarify if a separate financial report is required.

Addi�onally, to allow sufficient �me for project close-out, will USAID consider submission of final reports 90 days a�er the project ends?

USAID: A separate final financial report is not required; only quarterly financial reports are requested and should the award end in the middle of the fiscal quarter, then the Contractor must report from the start of the last quarter un�l the last day of the contract. No repor�ng deliverables are due a�er the contract comple�on date.

38. On page 60, USAID refers to a Gender and Inclusive Development Ac�on Plan (GIDAP). Can USAID please confirm if this is the same as the Gender Ac�on Planning?

USAID: Per Sec�on C.6.4, “To galvanize the impact of the Partnership and Innova�on and Investment Fund on women and socially excluded groups, the fund must include a window for Gender Ac�on Planning (GAP) grants.” This is related but separate from the deliverable outlined in Sec�on F, which requires a Gender, Equity, and Social Inclusion (GESI) Ac�on Plan. Note that the GIDAP deliverable �tle was revised to now be called the GESI Ac�on Plan in Sec�on F of the RFP.

Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on

39. In Sec�on F.3 Authorized Workday Workweek (page 50), and Sec�on H.26 Addi�onal Requirements for Personnel Compensa�on (page 91), USAID writes, “The Contractor is expected to work five-day workweeks. No over�me or premium pay is authorized under this Contract. A six-day work week may be authorized on a case-by-case basis by the COR for STTA while in the field in Nepal with no premium pay,” and “No over�me or premium pay is authorized under this Contract. The Contractor is authorized up to a 5-day workweek for long-term staff in the field with no premium pay, and 6-day workweek for short-term advisors in the field with no premium pay.” In the rare occasion that eligible staff work over�me, and it is supported by local labor law, what does USAID recommend the contractor do?

USAID: In accordance with FAR 22.103-2, contractors shall perform all contracts, so far as prac�cable, without using over�me, par�cularly as a regular employment prac�ce, except when lower overall costs to the Government will result or when it is necessary to meet urgent program needs. The compensa�on for employees performing such services is normally fixed on a monthly or annual basis, and the contracts usually state minimum work week hours. It is not expected that these employees will receive addi�onal pay, over�me or shi� premiums, or compensatory �me off.

Sec�on H Ques�ons:

40. Sec�on H.13, p. 80. Would USAID kindly revise Sec�on H.13 to enable contractors with Approved Purchasing Systems (APSs) to use their APSs?

USAID: USAID noted that Offerors may have an approved purchasing system, and that FAR 52.244-2 Alt 1 is included in Sec�on I.9. The CO has elected to require the following in paragraph (d) of that clause:

"(d) If the Contractor has an approved purchasing system, the Contractor nevertheless shall obtain the Contrac�ng Officer’s wri�en consent before placing the following subcontracts:

(1) Any cost-reimbursement, �me-and-materials, or labor-hour type subcontracts; or

(2) Firm-fixed-price subcontracts that exceed the simplified acquisi�on threshold."

41. Sec�on H.26(a)(2), p. 90, states “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 Compensa�on Plan (LCP) for Coopera�ng Country Na�onals (CCNs).” This appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007 Personnel Compensa�on, incorporated in the contract under Sec�on I.3 (p. 97), which s�pulates that personnel compensa�on be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and prac�ces, with reimbursement subject only to the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold. The H.26 salary restric�on may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and prac�ces, as required in I.3. We respec�ully request that the above-men�oned salary restric�on be removed from the RFP.

USAID: Contractors must compensate personnel in accordance with their established policies, procedures, and prac�ces; however, addi�onal contractual restric�ons are in place per AIDAR

Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on

722.710. Pursuant to AIDAR 752.7007(b), “Compensa�on. Compensa�on, including merit or promo�on 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 ac�vity, exceed the prevailing compensa�on paid to personnel performing comparable work in the coopera�ng country as determined by the USAID Mission. Unless otherwise authorized by the Mission Director or the Assistant Administrator having program responsibility for the ac�vity, the compensa�on of such TCN and CCN employees shall be paid in the currency of the coopera�ng country." This is consistent with Sec�on H.26 of the RFP.

42. Can USAID provide the current Nepal LCP to ensure offerors maintain compliance with AIDAR

722.170 as outlined in H.26(2)?

USAID: As stated in Sec�on L.8.b.3.i. of the RFP, the ceiling on the reimbursable salary paid to CCNs and TCNs is 7,514,234 NPR. Offerors are expected to conduct their own market research and use their established policies to propose jus�fied CCN salaries.

43. RFP page 90 references U.S. Embassy Kathmandu Local Compensa�on Plan (LCP). Would USAID please provide a copy of said LCP plan?.

USAID: As stated in Sec�on L.8.b.3.i. of the RFP, the ceiling on the reimbursable salary paid to CCNs and TCNs is 7,514,234 NPR. Offerors are expected to conduct their own market research and use their established policies to propose jus�fied CCN salaries.

44. Can USAID please provide the current US Embassy Kathmandu Local Compensa�on Plan?

USAID: As stated in Sec�on L.8.b.3.i. of the RFP, the ceiling on the reimbursable salary paid to CCNs and TCNs is 7,514,234 NPR. Offerors are expected to conduct their own market research and use their established policies to propose jus�fied CCN salaries.

45. Is USAID able to share the U.S. Embassy Kathmandu Local Compensa�on Plan (LCP) for Coopera�ng Country Na�onals (CCNs) and Third Country Na�onals (TCNs) referenced on page 90 of the RFP?

USAID: As stated in Sec�on L.8.b.3.i. of the RFP, the ceiling on the reimbursable salary paid to CCNs and TCNs is 7,514,234 NPR. Offerors are expected to conduct their own market research and use their established policies to propose jus�fied CCN salaries.

46. RFP pages 25, 26, 155, and 157 state involvement of “interna�onal private sector”. However, the RFP geographic code for this RFP is 937, which excludes Europe. With several countries in Europe being important trade partners for Nepal, does USAID an�cipate providing a waiver to geographic code, so that offerors may provide funds to European private sector par�cipants?

Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on

USAID: The procurement of commodi�es and services financed by USAID with program funds shall meet the requirements of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA). USAID’s statutory procurement authority, Sec�on 604(a) of the FAA establishes a presump�ve USAID Principal Geographic Code, Code 937, for all USAID federally financed procurement of commodi�es and services unless otherwise specified. Waivers to permit procurement outside of Code 937 must be based on a case by case determina�on in accordance with 22 CFR 228.

47. RFP page 38 states: “The Contractor must organize interna�onal and in-country training and exposure visits for policy makers, scien�sts and technicians working in the na�onal research ins�tu�ons, private sector organiza�ons, and project staff to contribute to capacity development for ac�vity implementa�on.” However, the RFP geographic code for this RFP is 937, which excludes Europe. With important research ins�tu�on[s] being located in Europe, does USAID an�cipate providing a waiver to geographic code, so that offerors may provide funds to, and collaborate with, European research ins�tu�ons?

USAID: The procurement of commodi�es and services financed by USAID with program funds shall meet the requirements of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA). USAID’s statutory procurement authority, Sec�on 604(a) of the FAA establishes a presump�ve USAID Principal Geographic Code, Code 937, for all USAID federally financed procurement of commodi�es and services unless otherwise specified. Waivers to permit procurement outside of Code 937 must be based on a case by case determina�on in accordance with 22 CFR 228.

48. May the contractor issue coopera�ve agreements under this contract to sub organiza�ons?

USAID: No. As per Sec�on H.23(1) of the RFP, “The Contractor must not execute or administer Coopera�ve Agreements on USAID’s behalf.”

49. In Sec�on H.11 on page 80, USAID indicates, “this Contract may not be used to finance the travel, per diem, hotel expenses, meals, conference fees or other conference costs for any member of a foreign government’s delega�on to an interna�onal conference sponsored by a public interna�onal organiza�on et al....” Can USAID confirm that the G2G grants under [USAID] Agricultural Transforma�on can be used for Nepali government representa�ves to a�end interna�onal conferences, observa�onal study tours, workshops/seminars, etc. as described on pages 40 and 87?

USAID: No, the Contractor must not use G2G grants under the Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on for Nepali government representa�ves to a�end interna�onal conferences, observa�onal study tours, workshops/seminars hosted by a public interna�onal organiza�on. Please note that the restric�on regarding financing the travel of foreign government delega�ons is specific to a�ending an interna�onal conference sponsored by a public interna�onal organiza�on. This does not restrict financing of Nepali government representa�ves par�cipa�ng in observa�onal study tours, workshop/seminars, or interna�onal conferences that are NOT sponsored

Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on by a public interna�onal organiza�ons. It is important that the successful contractor liaise with the CO and COR on any such planned trips to ensure compliance with this requirement.

50. Page 162 of the RFP states that the Grants Under Contracts (GUC) pool “...must equal $8,460,000”. Can USAID please confirm if the $8,460,000 plug figure for Grants Under Contracts (GUC) iden�fied in the RFP is a fixed amount, a minimum, or a sugges�on? Can contractors include addi�onal funds in this grants pool, or should the iden�fied number be considered a ceiling?

USAID: USAID confirms that the $8,460,000 plug figure is the fixed value that offerors must use for the GUC budget line item. The full value of $8,460,000 is for the combined total of all grants under contract that must be issued over the 5-year period of performance of this contract.

51. Page 163 of the RFP iden�fies several allowable indirect charging methodologies. The De Minimis Rate is not included in this descrip�on. Can USAID please confirm or clarify if offerors or subcontractors are able to claim the De Minimis Rate for their indirect cost recovery?

USAID: 2 CFR 200 is only applicable to non-profit organiza�ons. For profit organiza�ons are governed by the Federal Acquisi�on Regula�on (FAR). The cost principles that an organiza�on must follow is not based on the type of instrument (ie. acquisi�on vs assistance.) It is based on the type of organiza�on (ie. non-profit vs for-profit.)

If your organiza�on or proposed subcontractor is a for-profit organiza�on, the organiza�on cannot elect to use the 10% de minimis rate because there are no provisions under the FAR to do so. Such organiza�ons have the op�on to directly charge the administra�ve costs or to propose an indirect rate(s) and provide the documenta�on listed in Sec�on L.8.3.x, Audited financial statements, balance sheets and profit and loss statements, to jus�fy the proposed rate. A non-profit organiza�on 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 un�l such �me as a non-Federal en�ty chooses to nego�ate for a rate, which the non-Federal en�ty may apply to do at any �me.”

Sec�on I Ques�ons:

52. Sec�on I.2, p. 94, incorporates FAR 52.237-9, Waiver of Limita�on on Severance Payments to Foreign Na�onals, by reference, whereas Sec�on K.1, p. 125, incorporates FAR 52.237-8, Restric�on on Severance Payments to Foreign Na�onals, by reference. These clauses are inherently contradictory. Would USAID please kindly confirm that FAR 52.237-8 is not applicable to this contract, and consider removing its reference from the RFP?

USAID: FAR 52.237-8 is a solicita�on provision that shall be included in all solicita�ons that meet the criteria in FAR 37.113-1(a). This solicita�on is for a contract to be performed in whole or in part

Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on outside the United States (37.113-1(a)(2)); as such, the aforemen�oned provision is therefore included to no�fy that FAR limits the cost allowability of severance payments to foreign na�onals employed under a service contract performed outside the U.S. unless the agency grants waiver before contract award. FAR 52.237-9 is a contract clause informing that a�er awarding this contract, the cost allowability limita�ons in FAR 31.205-6(g)(6) are waived.

53. On page 87, USAID writes, “GUCs to Partner Government En��es (for example, ministry, municipality, schools, etc.) to provide funds (as opposed to in-kind assistance) may be authorized if they meet the condi�ons, requirements, and approvals described in ADS 302.3.4.13 and ADS

220. CO authoriza�on must be provided before proceeding with GUCs to Partner Government En��es. If authorized, the total value of all GUCs that provide funds (as opposed to in-kind assistance) to a par�cular partner government en�ty (for example, ministry, municipality, district, etc.) must not exceed $300,000 for the dura�on of the prime contract.”

a. Can USAID please confirm that GUCS can be made to more than one government en�ty?

b. Can USAID confirm that there is not a ceiling for the total amount of GUCs to government en��es, as long as the ceiling for each individual GUC does not exceed $300,000?

c. Can USAID confirm whether private sector en��es, financial ins�tu�ons, and/or research ins�tu�ons can also be recipients of GUCs? If so, is there a ceiling for those GUCS?

USAID:

a. GUCs to partner government en��es may be issued to more than one government en�ty and may be authorized in excep�onal circumstances if they meet the condi�ons, requirements, and approvals defined in ADS 302.3.4.13(e). The Determina�on and Finding (D&F) would need to be compiled by USAID post-award and the Contractor would be expected to play an instrumental role in providing input for the various D&F requirements.

b. USAID policy does not determine specific ceiling for the total amount of GUCs to government en��es for the dura�on of a prime contract award, but if the cumula�ve amount of GUCs to partner government en��es exceeds $10 million for the dura�on of a prime contract award, the Mission must complete a Congressional No�ce with the pre-financing assessment results, in accordance with

ADS 220.

c. GUCs are a USAID-specific mechanism that authorizes contractors to provide assistance to non-governmental organiza�ons (this includes nonprofit organiza�ons, private sector en��es, research ins�tu�ons, etc.) on behalf of the Agency. The total value of an individual grant to a U.S.

NGO must not exceed the Simplified Acquisi�on Threshold (SAT), as defined in 48 CFR Sec�on 2.101.

This limita�on to SAT does not apply to grant awards to non-U.S. NGOs.

Sec�on J Ques�ons:

Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on

54. A�achment J.2, p. 196, is a link to the USAID past performance matrix that is set to Century Gothic 12/10. Would USAID please confirm Calibri 10 should be used?

USAID: Offerors can use the set font type and size of the Contractor Past Performance Informa�on Matrix (A�achment J.2) so long as the text is legible. Offerors may use legal 8 ½ x 14” size paper for the Contractor Past Performance Informa�on Matrix (A�achment J.2) to make the spreadsheet more reader-friendly as well.

55. Regarding the Phase Two requirement for the Contractor Past Performance Informa�on Matrix (A�achment J.2): Should offerors use the margins in the template, which are not 1”? Should offerors use the font in the template, which is not Calibri? Would USAID kindly consider allowing the paper size to be tabloid (11” x 17”) so that all of the columns can be presented on a single page?

USAID: Offerors can use the set font type and size of the Contractor Past Performance Informa�on Matrix (A�achment J.2) so long as the text is legible. Offerors may use legal 8 ½ x 14” size paper for the Contractor Past Performance Informa�on Matrix (A�achment J.2) to make the spreadsheet more reader-friendly as well.

56. The link to the PERSUAP noted on RFP page 183 as applicable is not a live link. Could USAID please provide an accessible link?

USAID: The new PERSUAP that covers Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on is currently being developed. USAID will share the final product with the Contractor once it is finalized.

57. Can USAID please share the current PERSUAP for the USAID/Nepal mission, or advise applicants on if they should use the KISAN II and NSAF PERSUAP from 2018? .

USAID: The new PERSUAP that covers Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on is currently being developed. USAID will share the final product with the Contractor once it is finalized.

58. On Page 181, USAID presents the IEE for this ac�vity. The provinces and districts men�oned in the IEE don’t fully align with the geography proposed in Sec�on C. Can USAID please clarify if the Offeror must only refer to the provinces and districts presented in Sec�on C for the purposes of developing an illustra�ve budget for the IEE?

USAID: USAID confirms that the Contractor must refer to the provinces and districts presented in Sec�on C of the RFP. USAID will share the amended IEE with the Contractor post-award once it is approved.

Sec�on L Ques�ons:

Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on

59. Could you kindly clarify whether you are expec�ng a single applica�on for the en�re envelope from a prime, or whether organiza�ons may apply for specific work packages within the overall

SOW?

USAID: In phase 2 of this procurement, USAID will seek proposals that respond to the full Statement of Work contained in Sec�on C of the RFP.

60. Could you kindly clarify the maximum total funding amount a prime or lead applicant may apply for?

USAID: As noted in the RFP cover le�er, the overall es�mated cost of this procurement is between $55.0 million and $60.0 million. Please note that Phase One proposals must follow the instruc�ons in Sec�on L.6 and respond to the technical scenario based on a $1.5 million budget.

61. Can USAID please clarify how long a�er submi�ng phase 1 applica�ons applicants should expect to receive their advisory le�ers?

USAID: The Phase One evalua�on is es�mated to be concluded on or around January 2024 and USAID will inform offerors shortly therea�er.

62. Does USAID expect the invita�on for Phase Two to be sent in the remainder of the 2023 calendar year? Can USAID comment on the expected �ming of the invita�on of phase two, so that applicants can prepare? .

USAID: The Phase One evalua�on is es�mated to be concluded on or around January 2024 and USAID will inform offerors shortly therea�er.

63. Will USAID consider a Q&A period for Phase II?

USAID: No. The RFP presents informa�on regarding USAID’s requirements and instruc�ons for the prepara�on of proposals for both phases. The Advisory No�fica�on is the only no�ce USAID will provide from Phase One and debriefings will not occur at the end of Phase One. Offerors will have at least 45 calendar days from the no�fica�on to prepare and submit Phase Two proposals.

64. Would USAID consider adding a second Q&A period for Phase Two?

USAID: No. The RFP presents informa�on regarding USAID’s requirements and instruc�ons for the prepara�on of proposals for both phases. The Advisory No�fica�on is the only no�ce USAID will provide from Phase One and debriefings will not occur at the end of Phase One. Offerors will have at least 45 calendar days from the no�fica�on to prepare and submit Phase Two proposals.

65. Would USAID kindly consider another Ques�on-and-Answer phase when Phase II becomes live?

Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on

USAID: No. The RFP presents informa�on regarding USAID’s requirements and instruc�ons for the prepara�on of proposals for both phases. The Advisory No�fica�on is the only no�ce USAID will provide from Phase One and debriefings will not occur at the end of Phase One. Offerors will have at least 45 calendar days from the no�fica�on to prepare and submit Phase Two proposals.

66. On Page 149, USAID writes that “USAID/Nepal’s Phase One response no�fica�ons will include a deadline for the submission of Phase Two proposals, which will be a minimum of 45 days from the date of no�fica�on.” Can USAID please confirm if that is 45 workdays or 45 calendar days?

USAID: Day means calendar day. Sec�on L.4 of the RFP was revised to clarify this point.

67. On page 175, USAID states that Phase One is one of the Phase Two evalua�on criteria. Can USAID please confirm how the Offeror is to incorporate Phase One into the Phase Two submission, such as an Annex, to ensure the Technical Evalua�on Commi�ee (TEC) reviews it alongside the phase 2 full submission?

USAID: Sec�on M.5 states “Evalua�on of Phase One will be carried over to Phase Two to be included in the overall evalua�on of proposals.” USAID/Nepal will evaluate all Phase One proposals per the Phase One evalua�on criteria in Sec�on M. Those offerors whose submission is rated very good or excep�onal for the Phase One factor will receive an Advisory No�fica�on indica�ng that the proposal is compe��ve and be invited to par�cipate in Phase Two. Offerors that elect to submit a Phase 2 proposal must follow the instruc�ons for the Phase Two Technical Proposal in Sec�on L.7, which does not require any incorpora�on of the Phase One proposal into the Phase Two submission.

USAID will carry over the evalua�on ra�ng of Phase One into Phase Two to be included in the overall evalua�on of proposals.

68. L.5(d), p. 151, instructs offerors to reference a solicita�on number (72036723R00003) in submission subject lines that does not match the solicita�on number on the cover sheets and subsequent page headers (72036724R00001). Can USAID please confirm the correct solicita�on number?

USAID: The correct solicita�on number is 72036724R00001. Please see the revised RFP.

69. Could USAID please clarify the RFP number to use in emails to USAID contacts? The Cover le�er men�ons (RFP) No. 72036724R00001, but point (d) on RFP p. 151 states “All emails containing proposal files should in the address line state solicita�on #: 72036723R00003, Technical or Cost Proposal, email no. “X”.”

USAID: The correct solicita�on number is 72036724R00001. Please see the revised RFP.

Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on

70. L.6, p.152, instructs offerors to use no font smaller than Calibri 12 in the Phase 1 submission, and L.7(a), p. 153, allows font size 10 for charts, tables, graphs, and textboxes in the Phase 2 submission. Would USAID kindly confirm that font size 10 for charts, tables, graphs, and textboxes is allowed for Phase 1 as well?

USAID: Offerors may use font size 10 for text in graphs, graphics, footnotes, charts, tables, and text boxes, so long as the text is legible. Sec�on L.6 Instruc�ons for the Prepara�on of the Phase One Proposal is revised. Please see the revised RFP.

71. For phase 1, may the Offeror use font size 10 for text in graphs, tables, charts, and boxes?

USAID: Offerors may use font size 10 for text in graphs, graphics, footnotes, charts, tables, and text boxes, so long as the text is legible. Sec�on L.6 Instruc�ons for the Prepara�on of the Phase One Proposal is revised. Please see the revised RFP.

72. For both phase 1 and phase 2, may the Offeror use size 10 font in footnotes?

USAID: Offerors may use font size 10 for footnotes for phase 1 and phase 2. Please see the revised

RFP.

73. Regarding the Phase Two Technical Proposal, as in Phase One, may Offerors present text in graphs, charts, tables, and textboxes in font size 10?

USAID: According to Sec�on L.7(a), Offerors may use font size 10 for text in graphs, graphics, footnotes, charts, tables, and text boxes, so long as the text is legible.

74. USAID notes in sec�on L.7.a on page 153 that “Offerors may use font size 10 for text in graphs, charts, tables, and text boxes, so long as the text is legible.” Can USAID please confirm that this applies to graphics as well?.

USAID: Yes, sec�ons L.7(a) and L.6 were updated to include graphics.

75. For both phase 1 and 2, will USAID reviewers be able to view embedded links (understanding that not all reviewers will have �me to access them)?

USAID: No. According to Sec�on L.5.i. Proposal Clarity, proposals should be specific, complete, and concise. Offerors are urged to examine this solicita�on in its en�rety and to assure that the proposal contains all the necessary informa�on, provides all required documenta�on, and is complete in all respects since evalua�on of the proposal will be based on the actual material presented and not on the basis of what is implied.

Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on

76. Is the first phase of the six-page proposal only about the response to the hypothe�cal scenario provided at the RFP? I mean the proposal should describe how the Offeror will effec�vely manage or address the given scenario.

USAID: Yes, your understanding is accurate; please review Sec�on L.6, which instructs offerors how to respond to the technical scenario for phase one of this procurement.

77. On page 152, sec�on L.6, the RFP states that “The Offeror must propose a full yet concise approach.” Does USAID intend that the offeror’s response to the scenario will cover only ac�vi�es that will fall within the scope of the Agricultural Transforma�on project or that this should be designed as a standalone ac�vity that may include interven�ons that would otherwise fall within the scope of the Agricultural Inputs project?

USAID: USAID requests that phase one responses align with the scope of Feed the Future Nepal USAID Agricultural Transforma�on and adhere to the instruc�ons contained in Sec�on L.6 of the revised RFP. This point was clarified in Sec�on L.6.

78. Under Sec�on L.6, Response…