72038324R00003 Amendment 1.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (IF OTHER THAN ITEM 6) CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State, and Zip Code) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

CODE: FACILITY CODE: 10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

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.

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 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram 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 telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If Required)

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

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO., AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14

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

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, 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)

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

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

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.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE

SIGNED

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE

SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Previous Edition Unusable Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

01 07/15/2024

USAID SRI LANKA AND MALDIVES,

210 GALLE ROAD

COLOMBO 03, SRI LANKA

NA

X 72038324R00003

The purpose of this amendment is to respond to questions received from interested parties and make resulting changes throughout the solicitation.

Specific changes are provided below

Answers to questions received are provided in Annex 1. An amended solicitation, highlighting all all changes is provided as a reference in Annex 2

1 168

06/12/2024

RFTOP 72038324R00003 Amendment #1

Questi on # Question/Concerns

USAID Responses #

The Special Note applies the indirect rate table listed in the clause to both the prime contractor and major subcontractors. Would USAID consider removing this language? Indirect costs are generally considered proprietary and cannot be compared from one company to the next, thus indirect rates would not be the same for the prime and major subcontractors. In the event that a major subcontractor has an approved rate agreement this can be retained on file with the Government directly and submitted through a sealed package to protect sensitive information.

Major subcontractor rates should be included in the table in Section B.7, reflecting their current approved indirect cost rates along with those of the prime contractor.

For Contractors with an approved purchasing system, would USAID consider advance notification, consistent with

FAR 52.244-2 Alt 1?

Yes.

Section L.1 includes FAR 52.222-46 Evaluation of

Compensation for Professional Employees. Please confirm that this requirement will be satisfied by providing the information specified in RFP Section L.8, paragraphs ‘Direct

Labor Salary and Wages’ and ‘Fringe Benefits.’

providing the information specified in RFP Section L.8, under 'Direct

Labor Salary and Wages' and 'Fringe

Benefits', would satisfy the requirements of FAR 52.222-46 for evaluating compensation for professional employees.

In the required order for the technical proposal, two annexes are listed as 7.b and 7.c under the Management

Approach. When ordering the proposal contents, should those come directly after the Management Approach narrative section (7.a) or after the Past Performance

Information (part 8)? As they are not part of the page count, we respectfully request the two annexes come at the end of the proposal, after Past Performance

Information.

Refer to the Annexes in the narrative section under the Management

Approach but attach the Annexes at the end of the proposal .

Could USAID please confirm that the Major Subcontractor threshold applies to the initial Task Order 1? Can USAID please confirm the 20% threshold for major subcontractors applies to Level of Effort?

Section L.8 Part 2 (i) page 94 "Major

Subcontractors" Language is revised.

Can USAID clarify if the Chief of Party position is just for TO

1 or if it is for the whole IDIQ? Having a single Chief of

Party who would oversee TO 1 and all subsequent TOs would allow USAID a single project leader to oversee and provide accountability across the IDIQ technical work, with

Task Order teams reporting up through the COP.

The offeror should propose the management structure it determines best able to complete the terms of the IDIQ and subsequent TOs.

Can USAID clarify if the Organizational Chart should be applicable to only TO 1 or the whole IDIQ? As noted, the

COP and potentially other staff members such as finance and administration staff may be most efficiently utilized if shared across multiple TOs.

Both - IDIQ and TO1.

Could USAID please confirm the threshold for major subcontractor status refers to 15% of Task Order 1 cost?

Section L.8 Part 2 (i) page 94 "Major

Subcontractors" Language is revised.

Should the Management Approach focus solely on management of the TO or speak to how the team will scale management to additional TOs as they are released?

Both.

Can USAID confirm that Offerors are not providing names and CVs of proposed key personnel or other staff members? If so, can USAID confirm that the evaluation

Factor on Management Approach is evaluating the Key

Personnel position descriptions and not individuals? If

USAID is not requiring named personnel, please clarify if

Biodata forms are needed at the proposal phase for key personnel and/or other personnel.

Refer to Question#141.

Can USAID clarify if the five relevant contracts are for the prime offeror only, or if the five relevant contracts include those from any major subcontractors? If the five contracts are for the prime offeror only, how many contracts should be submitted for any major subcontractor?

Refer to L.7.3. Past Performance (a)

Page 92 '(a) The Offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself and major subcontractors...'

Can USAID clarify if Attachment J.3 should be within the

Past Performance section or included as “Annex 1”? And if so, can USAID clarify what Annex the Organizational Chart and Key Personnel Position Descriptions should be?

“Past Performance Matrix” attached to this RFP (Attachment J.3) as

Annex 3 under Past Performance

Information.

Due to the Excel format of Attachment J.3, would USAID permit offerors to submit this as a separate attachment rather than try to fit it into Volume I? Alternatively, would

USAID permit offerors to provide all requested information from Attachment J.3 in a table which fits better into

Volume I page format?

Offerors shall Submit Attachment J.3 as a separate attachment rather than integrating it into Volume I, to maintain its original format and ensure readability.

Could USAID please clarify if the offer should present a cost proposal that includes costs for the entire IDIQ in MS Excel and attachment J.5, or just for TO 1? If just for TO 1, we request that USAID remove the $7.5M plug in attachment

J.5 and replace it with $650,000 as indicated in Attachment

J.1 Section B4.

Attachment J.5 format could be used for both IDIQ budget and the task order. Please use 650,000 as the plug-in figure for GUCs for the task order.

Can USAID please confirm that major subcontractor designation is 20% of LOE, 15% of cost, or performance of critical activity? The definition of major subcontractor on p

94 appears to contradict the definition on p. 91.

Section L.8 Part 2 (i) page 94 "Major

Subcontractors" Language is revised.

This section states “The Offerors are also requested to include the ceiling indirect cost rates in the format presented in B.7” Indirect rates, as approved by cognizant

USG agencies, do change periodically, and indirect ceilings may prohibit companies from recuperating legitimate approved indirect costs. We request USAID remove reference to “ceiling rates” in this section, noting that ceiling rates are not referenced in Section B.7, and permit the successful offeror to utilize actual indirect rates during implementation, providing justification to USAID should they need adjustment periodically.

Please view questions #105.

Could USAID offer more details on the inclusion of the

Security Costs as this language has not been typically found in similar procurements for USAID/Sri Lanka? What types of security costs does USAID foresee needed to deliver this

Activity?

Proposed security costs should be based on the Offeror's understanding of the needs related to the technical approach it provides.

In Section B.2 (p. 9), the RFP states that “[t]he Government will issue task orders that are either Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee

(CPFF) (term or completion), Cost-Plus- Award-Fee (CPAF) or Fixed- Priced type.” However, Section B.5 (p. 9) states that “[f]ees for CPIF or CPAF task order types will be negotiated by the TOCO at the time of task order award.”

Could USAID please confirm the types of task order contracts that will be issued under the IDIQ?

Section B.2 is amended in the RFP amendment #1.

The type of the award will be identified in the RFTOP for each task order.

Per Section H.2 (p. 37), can USAID confirm whether

Offerors should budget costs inclusive of VAT?

Refer to Question#50.

Section H.6 (p. 42) states that the authorized geographic code under this contract is 937. Would USAID consider changing the authorized geographic code to 935 in order to allow for more efficient use of regional resources (India, Thailand, Singapore, etc.)?

No.

Section J (p. 67) of the RFP states that Attachment J.2 should include the Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) for this solicitation; however, it appears to be missing.

Could USAID please share the IEE?

Please refer the attachments under

RFP amendment #01.

Section L.7 (p. 89) states “each page and paragraph numbered consecutively.” Can USAID confirm that only pages need to be numbered consecutively?

Only pages.

Section L.7 (p. 90), can USAID please confirm that UEI in lieu of DUNS number is required for the prime offeror and major subcontractors?

A Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) is required in lieu of the DUNS number.

Please refer to the RFP

Amendment#1 highlighted sections.

Section L.7.1 (p. 91) states that “[t]he Offeror must clearly demonstrate its experience and organizational capability to successfully implement activities of similar nature, size, and complexity in comparable environments to those described in Section C.” Can USAID please clarify which

Section C (RFP or Attachment J.1) is USAID referring to?

Both - IDIQ and TO1.

Section L.7.1 and L.7.2 (p. 91) are formatted as sub-headings to Technical Approach for Task Order 1. Can

USAID confirm whether its intent is that Offerors should discuss institutional experience and capabilities and management approach in relation to TO 1 only, rather than the overall IDIQ?

Offerors should discuss approaches for both the IDIQ and TO. Technical

Approach for Task Order 1 should have a subheading (L7.1) and the rest of subheadings to be adjusted accordingly.

Section L.7.1 (p. 91) and Section L.8, Part 2 (p. 94) include different definitions of a major subcontractor. Could USAID kindly confirm that Offerors should use the definition in L.8

Part 2, in which a major subcontractor is “one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the Offeror’s total proposed cost or performs a critical activity”?

Section L.8 Part 2 (i) page 94 "Major

Subcontractors" Language is revised.

In Section L.7.3 (p. 92), Offerors are instructed to provide the “Past Performance Matrix” as “Annex 1” to the technical proposal, however, this annex is not listed in L.7, Required Order of the Technical Proposal where Annex 1 is

Org Chart (p. 89-90). Can USAID please confirm that the

Past Performance Matrix should be listed as Annex 3?

The Past Performance Matrix should be listed as "Annex 3".

Section L.7.3 (p. 92), Considering that the narrative on

Performance in Using Small Business (SB) Concerns is not applicable to offers from small business Offerors, can

USAID confirm that this section is non-page counting, to ensure equity among all potential Offerors?

Yes, Section L.7.3, which pertains to the narrative on performance in using small business concerns, should be designated as non-page counting for small business offerors.

T

Section L.7.3 (p. 92) states that Offeror can provide up to five (5) relevant “contracts” in the Past Performance

Matrix. However, many non-contract assistance mechanisms can also demonstrate relevance in terms of size, technical scope, complexity, and recency. Will USAID confirm that it will also accept non-contract assistance mechanisms, such as Cooperative Agreements, Grants, or other assistance awards in this section?

Refer to Question #68

Would USAID kindly confirm that apart from the budget, which will be submitted in MS Excel per Section L.8, Part 2

(p. 94), the other documentation requested for the cost volume can be submitted in PDF format?

Detailed budget information should be in an editable spreadsheet format

(like Excel) for ease of review, while other supporting documents can be provided in PDF format.

Section L.8, Part 2 (p. 94) of the RFP states that “[t]he fixed fee percentage used to arrive at the Offeror’s fixed fee amount under Task Order 1 will constitute the Offeror’s fee ceiling for the IDIQ Contract and all task orders.”

Background: The current requirement encourages Offerors to provide a fixed fee for TO 1 that reflects the effort and risk associated with all potential work under the IDIQ, not just TO 1. Among the profit analysis factors cited in FAR

15.404-4 are contractor effort and contractor cost risk, both of which can be reasonably expected to differ between TO 1 and other task orders under the IDIQ. As fee is meant to be assessed based on the characteristics of a specific contract, establishing a fee ceiling through the fixed fee on TO 1 would not be in line with the function of profit nor be in USG’s interest. For example, as TO 1 will only use at most $650,000 of the up to $7.5 million potentially allocable to the GUC, it is likely that future task orders will have a substantially different mix of technical assistance and grants, and significantly different profile when assessed using the fee analysis factors in FAR

15.404-4. Similarly, some future task orders may be CPAF, which incentivize contractors with greater fees but also generate higher risk than non-award fee mechanisms. Both are factors Offerors must take into account when proposing a fee on a given TO. Per the current instructions, Offerors would need to factor the potential for award fee considerations under future CPAF contracts into the proposed fixed fee for the CPFF TO 1, which we do not believe generates value for USG. Given that the profile of future tasks orders will likely differ from that of TO 1, allowing Offerors to propose a separate fee ceiling will permit them to provide a competitive fixed fee for TO 1 and IDIQ fee ceiling that provide best value to USG.

Question: Considering the different factors that go into fee calculation, we respectfully request that USAID allow

Offerors to propose a fee ceiling for the IDIQ that is separate from the fixed fee proposed for TO 1. Allowing for a separate fee ceiling will permit Offerors to price TO 1

This requirement has been changed with RFP Amendment #1 . (page 97) most competitively and in a manner that reflects the risk and effort required to deliver this TO scope of work, without needing to hedge against the potential risk and effort associated with future TBD work under the IDIQ. This will almost certainly result in better value for the USG.

Section L.8, Part 3 (p. 99) of the RFP states that “[t]he

Offeror and each proposed TO subcontractor must complete Section K…” However, some local Sri Lankan organizations may find Section K challenging, costly, and significantly time intensive to complete. In order to encourage the inclusion of local Sri Lankan organizations in

Offerors’ consortia, reduce costs, and increase efficiencies in proposal preparation, we respectfully request that

USAID require the submission of Section K only for the prime and major subcontractors.

Certifications are only required of the prime and major subcontractors.

Section L.8, Part 5 (p. 99) states that “the Offeror must include the following information for their own and all proposed TO subcontractors.” Would USAID consider reducing this to only major subcontractors?

Information sufficient to determine the reasonableness of the cost/price of each specific subcontract should be included for each proposed subcontract.

Per Section L.8, Part 9 (p. 100), could USAID clarify if it requires an IDIQ-level subcontracting plan or an individual subcontracting plan for TO 1?

Subcontracting plan is required at the IDIQ level, outlining the Offeror's overall strategy for subcontracting opportunities across all task orders

(TOs) that may be issued under the

IDIQ contract.

Per Section M.2 (p. 103-104), could USAID please clarify if

Factor 2 and Factor 3 will be evaluating the Offeror’s institutional experience and capability and management approach in relation to TO 1 proposal only or IDIQ overall, as well? If both, how much relative weight will be given to each?

Both.

In Attachment J.1, Section C.4 (p. 8), “[n]number of private sector enterprises with increased access to finance due to

USG assistance” is listed as an illustrative indicator under

Objective 2. However, Attachment J.1, Section C.5 (p.8) includes “[e]enhancing access to finance and resources” as

All listed indicators are illustrative but not exhaustive. The Offeror must determine the appropriate indicators to measure success and propose them after award.

a task under Objective 1. Does USAID expect O1 activities to also contribute to increased access to financing?

Attachment J.1, Section C.6 (p. 13) states that “[t]he total estimated amount of grants made under this provision will not exceed $650,000.” Considering the task order parameters included in Attachment J.1 Section C (PSE, community participation, sustainability and localization, etc.), would USAID consider removing the $650,000 ceiling on GUCs to allow Offerors the flexibility to propose mechanisms that align with their technical approach?

Adhere to the RFP.

Per Attachment J.1, Section F.1 (p. 17), can USAID provide an estimated start date for TO 1 budgeting purposes?

Within the 4th quarter of 2024 calendar year.

Attachment J.1, Section F.3 (p. 19) states that the Final

Program Report is due 90 days after the contract’s completion, however FAR 31.201-2 prohibits contractors from supporting contracts after the end date. Can USAID please clarify this discrepancy?

While the Final Program Report is due 90 days after contract completion, no costs or activities should be incurred or supported after the contract’s end date as per

FAR regulations.

Attachment J.1, Section F.4 (p. 25) states that “[a]ll key personnel must be based in Colombo, Sri Lanka.” Would

USAID consider allowing key personnel to be based in Sri

Lanka but outside of Colombo, if it aligns with the technical and management approach?

Yes.

Can USAID allow offerors to only number each page and not each paragraph of the Technical Proposal?

Yes. Offerors can number the pages of the Technical Proposal without numbering each paragraph.

Would USAID please confirm that offerors should provide

UEI numbers, not DUNS numbers, on the furnished cover pages?

USAID confirms that offerors should provide UEI numbers. Please refer the highlighted sections in the RFP

Amendment #1.

Could USAID exclude the results framework from the ten page limit of the Technical Approach for Task Order 1 section (referenced in section L.7 on page 90)?

Adhere to the RFP.

Could USAID allow offerors up to 3 additional pages within the Technical Approach for Task Order 1 section?

No change is made to this requirement.

Can USAID confirm that activities of similar nature, size and complexity refers to those of the Task Order not the whole

IDIQ?

Refers to IDIQ. Refers to both.

Managing an IDIQ demonstrates capability not shared with managing a task order. Offerors are requested to show capability to manage both aspects of this award.

Can USAID allow the capability and experience of non-major subcontractors in the Institutional Experience and Capability section?

No - Offeror must describe its capability and experience and any major subcontractors (those expected to perform at least 20% or a prominent part of the technical effort, and/or whose proposed cost exceeds 15% of the total estimated contract cost)

Please refer RFP amendment #1 for revised language.

Can USAID confirm Key Personnel roles, responsibilities and required qualifications are required as part of the Position

Descriptions in Annex B and not in the Management

Approach in the main body of the technical proposal?

As an Annex 2: Key Personnel position descriptions (Maximum 1 page per position. Does not count against page limit).

Can USAID please confirm that per Section L.7.3 that the information provided in Attachments J3 and J4 should be included as Annex 3 and not part of the 5 page limit mentioned on page 90?

Attachments J3 and J4 should be included as Annex 3 under Past

Performance. Past Performance

Information (Pages). Annex 3 does not count against page limit.

Can USAID please confirm that “Part 9 – Biographical Data” should be included as Part 11 of the Cost Proposal? If so, would USAID allow offerors to only submit Biographical

Data for proposed Key Personnel?

This requirement has been removed from the RDP Amendment #1.

Is VAT in Sri Lanka a billable cost or will USAID provide a protocol for exemption or refunds?

If no exemptions are available post award, VAT will be a billable cost.

Can offerors move some of USAID’s illustrative indicators from Section C.4 across objectives to align with their respective objectives?

Yes - they are only cited as illustrative indicators but they are not exhaustive.

Section B.6 Labor and B.7 Indirect Rates, p.10. USAID states

“Contractors will not be authorized to build USAID directly for IDIQ management costs under this IDIQ or under task orders. Contractors must propose a centralized management structure that allows for recovery of IDIQ management costs as part of its indirect costs.” Per our

NICRA/cost structure, we directly bill some home office costs, including home office management labor. A

"centralized management structure...as part of its indirects” as described in B.6 would cause unequal treatment of like costs (FAR Part 31 allocability principle at

31.201-4a) in our case. Would USAID amend the B.6. Labor language as follows: “Contractors will not be authorized to bill USAID directly for IDIQ management costs under this

IDIQ or under task orders, but may bill USAID directly for home office management costs under task orders if that is in accordance with the contractor’s usual accounting procedures (per B.7. Indirect Rates).”

Contractors will not be authorized to bill USAID directly for IDIQ management costs under this IDIQ or under task orders, but may bill

USAID directly for home office management costs under task orders if that is in accordance with the contractor’s usual accounting procedures (per B.7. Indirect Rates).

Section L.8 Part 2 – Proposed Costs/Prices, p.93. USAID states “Offerors are requested to present cost/price information for IDIQ and Task Order 1...(i) An evaluation of the Fixed Fee and Indirect Costs is required for the budget of the IDIQ. The agency will only evaluate the Fixed Fee and Indirect Costs for the IDIQ...The Offeror must organize and provide cost detail information and cost broken-down by years.” We have the following questions, given that:

The IDIQ-level assumptions provided in L.8 Part 2, para 2 only include the total estimated costs for the IDIQ ($40M) and the total amount allocated for grants under contract in the IDIQ (7.5M); Section B.3, p.9 Minimum Obligated

Amount. USAID states “The initial obligation of funds under

Task Order No. 1 constitutes the minimum obligation amount for the IDIQ,” and no information has been provided yet about funds, if any, to be obligated at the

IDIQ-level; No information is available yet on the scope of work/budget requirements for subsequent task orders; and

The RFP is requesting only a Technical Approach for TO 1:

Offerors must submit detailed budgets for the accomplishment of the interventions required to implement the agriculture Task

Order 1.

Could USAID confirm that what is being requested for the

IDIQ budget is only the Offeror’s proposed indirect rates and how these are applied, along with the Offeror’s proposed fixed fee percentage (as presented in the TO 1 budget) with any cap proposed by the Offeror? If USAID requires a more detailed IDIQ budget, could USAID please provide further instructions and clarification, including specific assumptions and/or plug figures all Offerors should use to build the IDIQ budget?

USAID confirms that what is being requested for the IDIQ budget is only the Offeror’s proposed indirect rates and how these are applied, along with the Offeror’s proposed fixed fee percentage (as presented in the TO 1 budget) with any cap proposed by the Offeror.

Could USAID confirm that a detailed budget is only required for TO 1?

Yes. A detailed budget is only required for TO 1.

Could USAID confirm that no IDIQ personnel positions need to be presented as part of the IDIQ cost proposal?

No. It's not required.

Could USAID confirm that formal subcontracting packages/budgets for major subcontractors (as defined in

L.7.1 and L.7.3) should only be submitted for Task Order 1?

Yes.

Section L.7.2. Management Approach, p.91. USAID states

“The offeror must present a staffing plan that includes the

Chief of Party as one key personnel position as noted in task order Section F.4 of Task Order 1. The Offeror must also propose up to four additional key personnel positions…” There is no mention of IDIQ personnel to be presented.

Offerors should propose staffing that demonstrates capability to meet requirements of the IDIQ and TO and designate key personnel positions accordingly.

Section M.2. Evaluation Factor 3: Management Approach, p.104. USAID states “The Offeror’s management approach will be evaluated on the quality and appropriateness of the proposed management approach, including the degree the

Offeror’s organizational structure, proposed partnerships, and Key Personnel...”Could USAID confirm no IDIQ personnel (positions or candidates) need to be presented as part of the technical proposal? Could USAID confirm that only Task Order 1 Key Personnel position descriptions (for the COP plus up to 4 additional positions) should be submitted, and that USAID does not require candidates

(individuals) to be proposed/named in the technical or cost proposals?

This requirement has been removed from the RDP Amendment #1.

Section L.8 Part 2 (iv), p.94 and Part 9-Biographical Data, p.101. If candidates (individuals) are not to be named, it is our understanding that biodata would not be required, and that other supporting information/assumptions could be used to justify rates: Could USAID confirm or clarify?

This requirement has been removed from the RDP Amendment #1.

Section L.8, p.101. We respectfully request USAID update the RFP to correct the duplicate numbering for Part 9 to

Part 11–Biographical Data.

Biographical data section has been removed in the Amendment #1

Section L.7, p.89. Letters of Commitment (LOCs) for subcontractors/partners are not specified as a required annex.

LOC is not required.

Could USAID confirm if it would like Offerors to include

Task Order 1 LOCs for its “major subcontractors” (as defined in the RFP in L.7.1, L.7.3.a, and L.8. Part 2i) or not?

Yes.

If Task Order 1 major subcontractor LOCs are required, would USAID like this information included in the technical proposal as an annex or as part of the cost proposal package?

LOC information should be a part of the cost proposal.

Section L.7 Technical Approach for Task Order 1, p.90.

USAID states “The proposed technical approach must demonstrate a clear understanding of the intent of Task

Order 1...” Section L.7.2. Management Approach, p.91.

USAID states “The Offeror must present an appropriate management approach that aligns with the proposed technical approach.” Given that Offerors are requested to prepare a “Technical Approach for Task Order 1”, it is logical that references to “technical approach” and

“activity” in section L.7.2. Management Approach refers to

Task Order 1. Would USAID confirm that, indeed, “technical approach” and “activity” refer to Task Order 1? Section

L.7.2. Management Approach, p.91. USAID makes references to “management and staffing plan,” “activity team,” “organizational chart” (Annex 2), “a mix of short-and long-term expertise”, “roles and responsibilities of

Home/Country Office, field staff, and subcontractors.” Can

USAID confirm that all these terms refer to Task Order 1?

Section L and M should be read together. Technical Approach for

Task Order 1; Institutional

Experience and Capability (IDIQ

&TO1); Management Approach

(IDIQ&TO1).

Section L.7.3 Past Performance Information, p.92. Given

Annex 1: Organizational Chart and Annex 2: Key Personnel

Position Descriptions are already listed and requested to be numbered as Annex 1 and Annex 2 respectively per L.7.

item 8, we respectively request USAID update the RFP for

Past Performance Annex to be numbered Annex 3.

RFP for Past Performance Annex to be numbered Annex 3.

Section L.7. Instructions for the Preparation of the

Technical Proposal, p.90. Item 8 is listed as “Past

Performance Information (5 pages).” Could USAID clarify whether this refers to the 5 (five) Past Performance

Information Forms (Attachment J.6) which should be presented in the Past Performance Annex OR does USAID want bidders to also present a 5-page narrative Past

Performance Information section as part of its technical proposal in addition to the Past Performance Annex (Matrix and Information Forms)?

Include Past Performance Narrative

(5 pages) and include attachments J3 and J4 as annexes.

Section L.7.3 Past Performance Information, (a)1 and (a)2, p.92. Could USAID confirm that the Past Performance

Annex should include the following and confirm/clarify page count limitations? Past Performance Matrix as a summary table (does not count against page limit) Up to five (5) Past Performance Information Forms (up to 5 pages, one-page maximum each form)? As many offerors have recent and relevant past performance implementing cooperative agreements or other types of projects, would

USAID expand the requirements in L.7.3. (a)1 and (a)2 such that Offerors may submit relevant “contracts, cooperative agreements, or other types of projects?”

Offerors may submit relevant contracts, cooperative agreements, or other types of awards.

Section L.7. item 1. Cover Page, p.90. We respectfully request that USAID replace “DUNS” with “UEI number” to reflect the federal government’s April 2022 change from

DUNS to UEI numbers. In addition, would USAID also like

Offerors to include this information for major subcontractors?

Please provide UEI (Unique Entity

Identifier) numbers and major sub-contractors are required to provide similar information as prime contractors.

Section B.2 Contract Type and Services, p.9. USAID states

“The Government will issue task orders that are either

Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) (term or completion), Cost-Plus-

Award-Fee (CPAF) or Fixed- Priced type.” We respectfully request “Hybrid Fixed Price/Cost Reimbursement” be added to this section for consistency with Section F.6.6

Award Types. Alternatively, if hybrid type task orders were included inadvertently, we kindly request their deletion.

Section B.2 is amended in the RFP amendment #1.

Section B.5 Fixed Fee Ceiling, p.9. Section B.5.(a), p.9.

USAID states “Fees for CPIF or CPAF task order types will be negotiated by the TOCO at the time of task order award.” Is

CPIF stated in error since it is not listed as a possible task order type at Section B.2 Contract Type and Services?

Section B.5(c) Fixed Fee Payment, p.10. USAID states “For any Task Order issued under this Contract…” Would USAID consider stating this as “for cost reimbursable task orders…,” removing the “any” to clarify that this does not apply to fixed price task orders?

Section B.2 is amended in the RFP amendment #1.

Section H.1 (1) and (2) Grants Under Contract, p.35. USAID states “(1) The Contractor is authorized to develop a grants program and execute grants, not cooperative agreements, to non-governmental organizations (non-profits or for profits)” and (2) Any Grants provided to partner government entities will be solely in-kind grants, technical assistance, and other activities provided to or on behalf of the partner government entity; no funds to partner government entities will be provided.” Could USAID please clarify if quasi-governmental organizations such as public colleges and universities will be eligible to receive grant funds?

Quasi-governmental entities can be eligible for GUC under specific conditions as outlined in ADS

302.3.3

Section H.1 (13) Grants Under Contract, p.36. USAID states

“(13) The grant provides that payment of any interest, fees, program income and other refunds generated by grant recipients…” Would USAID consider replacing “fees” with

“service fees” to make clear that fee (profit) is unallowable under grants under contract?

Section H.1 (13) Grants Under

Contract, p.36. replaced “fees” with

“service fees”.

Section I Contract Clauses, p.52. We respectfully request that AIDAR 752.216-70 Award Fee be added to Section I as relates to CPAF task orders awarded under the IDIQ.

This clause has been added to

Section I.1 of the solicitation.

Section L.2 Type of Contract, p.85. If hybrid task orders will be awarded as indicated at Section F.6.6 Award Types p.28, we request hybrid fixed price/cost reimbursable task orders be added to Section L.2. Type of Contract.

Please refer to the revised language in section L.2 in the RFP amendment.

Section L.8 Instructions for the Preparation of the

Cost/Business Proposal, Part 2 (iv), p.94. USAID states “(iv)

Offeror must provide a narrative justifying the rates for each cost category proposed with supporting information such as historical biodata forms used, Defense Contract

Audit Agency (DCAA) forward pricing agreements, other federal Contract rates, market research support, and payroll records…” Could USAID please confirm that the supporting justification examples listed above are examples only, i.e., that payroll records are not required to substantiate salaries of existing offeror personnel, and that it would be allowable and appropriate to provide justification based on market analysis?

It is allowable and appropriate to provide justification based on market analysis.

Section L.8 Instructions for the Preparation of the

Cost/Business Proposal, Part 2 (v)(5), p.95. USAID states

“Subcontracts: ...The cost and pricing proposal must describe all potential subcontracting arrangements.

Information sufficient to determine the reasonableness of the cost of each specific subcontract expected to be hired must be included. Similar information must be provided for all consultants provided under the category for personnel.”

Could USAID please clarify if the information required to determine reasonableness etc. for subcontracts includes all proposed subcontracts or only major subcontracts?

Information is required to determine the reasonableness of costs for subcontracts applied to all proposed subcontracts, not just major subcontracts.

Considering that AIDAR 732.401 and ADS 636 provide authority and guidance, respectively, for advances to contractors where a contract includes a GUC program, can

USAID confirm that it will allow Offerors with Letters of

Credit (LOC) to use and make drawdowns from LOCs for disbursements to grantees?

It is reasonable to anticipate that

USAID would permit Offerors with

LOCs to make drawdowns for disbursements to grantees.

In reference to FAR Part 16.401(e)(3) and possible

Cost-Plus-Award Fee (CPAF) tasks orders under the IDIQ, does USAID intend to include an award fee plan in the RFP or will it be included only in the resulting contract to the successful offeror?

It will be included only in the resulting contract to the successful offeror if CPAF type task order is anticipated .

Regarding the illustrative indicator provided in Section C.4 on page 13, are Offerors required to propose illustrative targets within the technical approach?

Yes.

Section H.1(10), page 36, indicates the contractor is not authorized to issue grants under contract (GUC) to governmental organizations; however, ADS 302 and Section

H.1(2), page 35, allow the contractor to execute solely in-kind grants to government entities. Would USAID confirm that solely in-kind grants to government entities are allowed under this IDIQ and all its task orders, pursuant to ADS 302.3.4.13, and if so, kindly adjust the RFP language accordingly?

Solely in-kind grants to government entities are permissible under this

IDIQ and all its task orders, pursuant to ADS 302.3.4.13.

“We respectfully request that USAID remove the following sentence from Section H.1(15), page 37: “Copies of all reports received from grantees will be promptly forwarded to the COR,” given that there is no requirement for the COR to receive grantee reports in the GUC authorizing language for ADS 302. We also respectfully request that USAID remove the following sentence from the same section: “At the conclusion of the contract, the Contractor shall consult with the Contracting Officer for direction as to which records shall be transferred to USAID.” While USAID retains the rights to visitation and inspection for three years after the grant completion date, all records under this contract are considered property of the contractor and must be retained in accordance with the contractor’s records retention policies that originate from audit requirements.”

Removed the sentence: "Copies of all reports received from grantees will be promptly forwarded to the

COR." Removed the sentence: "At the conclusion of the contract, the

Contractor shall consult with the

Contracting Officer for direction as to which records shall be transferred to USAID."

Section L.6(b), page 88, states that offerors must submit the technical proposal in a format that is “compatible with

Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, etc.) in a MS Windows environment.” However, Section L.7 notes that technical proposals should be “submitted in Microsoft Word and

Adobe PDF.” Would USAID please confirm that offerors are only required to submit the Evaluation Factor 1: Technical

Approach for Task Order 1, Evaluation Factor 2:

Institutional Experience and Capability, Evaluation Factor 3:

Management Approach, and Past Performance sections of the technical proposal in Word, not the front matter or annexes of the technical proposal? Limiting the Word submission to this material will help preserve formatting and, therefore, readability while ensuring that the file size does not result in the need for a multi-email submission of the technical proposal. If offerors must submit the entire technical proposal in Word, would USAID please confirm that the one-inch margin requirements do not apply to pages with signed letters, which offerors may need to submit as full-page images to respect the signees' security and ensure the letters' font is legible?

Offerors shall submit the sections related to Evaluation Factors in

Adobe PDF format or Microsoft

Word. Is it acceptable to submit the front matter and annexes of the technical proposal in Adobe PDF format. USAID confirms that the one-inch margin requirement does not apply to pages containing signed letters.

Section L.7, on page 89, states that Calibri point 10 font may be used in charts, graphs, and tables. Would USAID kindly consider allowing 9-point font?

10-point type.

In Section L.7, page 89, USAID notes that offerors must have "each page and paragraph numbered consecutively."

Would USAID kindly confirm that offerors should only number each page consecutively, not each paragraph? The readability of the technical proposal will be significantly impacted by numbering each paragraph.

Pages only.

In Section L.7.1, page 91, USAID states that major subcontractors are “those expected to perform at least

20% or a prominent part of the technical effort, and/or whose proposed cost exceeds 15% of the total estimated contract cost.” Then, in Section L.7.1 on page 94, USAID defines a major subcontractor as “one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the Offeror’s total proposed cost or performs a critical activity.” Would USAID kindly clarify the definition of a major subcontractor?

In Section L.7.1, page 91, and Section M.2 Evaluation Factor

2, page 104, USAID refers to Section C without specifying if the reference is to Section C of RFP (i.e. pages 12-17 of the

RFP) or Section C of Attachment J.1 Task Order 1 (i.e., pages 3-14 of Attachment J.1). Would USAID kindly clarify?

Both IDIQ and TO1

Part 2 of L.8, page 93, instructs that “offerors are requested to present cost/price information for IDIQ and Task Order

1,” and notes in (i) on the next page that “the offeror must submit a separate cost-plus-fixed fee type (completion form) detailed budget for…Task Order 1.” However, Section L appears to only provide instructions for submission of the Task Order 1 budget proposal, further noting in Part 2 (ii) that “the fixed fee percentage…under

Task Order 1 will constitute the Offeror’s fee ceiling for the

IDIQ Contract and all task orders,” with no further instruction for cost/price information to be submitted for purposes of the IDIQ proposal. Would USAID please confirm that all cost/price information submitted by offerors for purposes of the Task Order 1 proposal satisfy the requirements of both the IDIQ and TO1 cost/price proposal, and that no separate cost/price information is required for purposes of evaluating the IDIQ?

The Offeror must submit a separate cost-plus-fixed fee type (completion form) detailed budgets for the accomplishment of the interventions required to implement the agriculture Task Order 1. An evaluation of the Fixed Fee and

Indirect Costs is required for the budget of the IDIQ. The agency will only evaluate the Fixed Fee and

Indirect Costs for the IDIQ.

In Section M.2., Evaluation Factor 3 Management

Approach, page 104, states that the offeror’s management approach/organizational structure must demonstrate ability to “manage the IDIQ and subsequent task orders.”

However, as noted above (see Question 9), offerors are not instructed to provide an IDIQ-level budget. Would USAID kindly confirm if there are additional instructions/assumptions for IDIQ staffing?

An evaluation of the Fixed Fee and

Indirect Costs is required for the budget of the IDIQ

Would USAID please clarify that proposed key personnel should not be named as part of the proposal submission?

Key personnel should not be named as part of the proposal submission.

Would USAID please confirm that only the successful offeror will be required to submit formal and detailed

Branding Implementation Plan and Marking plans for final review before award, and not as part of the initial submission?

Yes.

Would USAID please confirm a QASP is not necessary for the Modernizing the Agriculture Sector in Sri Lanka Task

Order?

QASP is not required.

Would USAID please confirm the scope of the Task Order is exclusively on crops, as noted in Section C.3, and not the broader agricultural sub-sectors included in Section C.2?

("...includes crop cultivation, livestock farming, fisheries, and forestry.”)

Crop cultivation and processing

(except paddy) is the focus of TO1, but broader agricultural sub-sectors can be considered.

Given that the IDIQ grants ceiling is $7.5M and $650,000 is allocated to the first task order, would USAID share additional insights about the anticipated use of grants under contract in future task orders?

No additional information is available for future tasks orders.

Does USAID expect the applicant to select priority agricultural value chains as part of the proposal submission process for the first task order?

Proposed priority value chains would be appropriate to include in submissions. The successful offeror will work with USAID to determine the selected value chains.

As CPIF is not listed in RFP Section B.2, page 9, as an optional task order type under this IDIQ, would USAID please remove the reference to CPIF in Section B.5(a) on page 9?

Section B.2 is amended in the RFP amendment #1.

RFP Section C.4 Result Area 2, page 13, indicates that the

Contractor must ensure that “Export competitiveness and growth for SMEs [are] enhanced. a) SMEs equipped with expanded export capabilities, enabling them to effectively compete globally. b) Barriers to SME exports overcome, and opportunities in the global marketplace effectively utilized, leading to increased exports and economic growth.” Based on this language, should we consider export crops to be the sole or primary focus under the Task

Order?

Can include export oriented crops as well as crops produced for the local market. Successful offerors and

USAID will determine the priority value chains.

RFP Section F.6.6(b), page 28, indicates that cost proposals in response to RFTOPs must provide “proposed labor categories”; however, the RFP/IDIQ does not include any labor categories. Section F.6.6(b)(1) on the same page includes another reference to labor categories. Could

USAID please remove this requirement from Section

F.6.6(b) and the reference to labor categories in Section

F.6.6(b)(1)?

Section F.6.6 has been revised in the

RFP amendment #1.

RFP Section K.13, page 84, requests an offeror’s DUNS number. Would USAID please confirm that offerors may provide a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) in place of a DUNS number?

Yes. This is corrected. Please refer to the RFP amendment #1.

In RFP Section L.2, page 85, would USAID please remove the reference to “(term or completion)” for the CPAF task order type?

Please refer to the revised language in section L.2 in the RFP amendment.

RFP Section L.7, page 89, specifies that offerors may use

10-point font for charts, graphics, and tables. Would USAID confirm offerors may additionally use 10-point font for text boxes?

Offerors should avoid using 10-point type in instances other than those mentioned.

Would USAID provide further information or a definition of what might be considered a “prominent part of the technical effort” under Institutional Experience and

Capability (RFP Section L.7.1, page 91)?

The Offeror must describe its capability and experience and any major subcontractors (those expected to perform at least 20% or a prominent part of the technical effort, and/or whose proposed cost exceeds 15% of the total estimated contract cost). Please refer to RFP amendment #1.

RFP Section L.8, Part 2(iv), page 94, references “historical biodata forms” and “payroll records” as optional supporting information for the narrative. As proposed salaries should be based on market data, would USAID please confirm that offerors should not reference any supporting information that would reveal an individual’s salary history?

Correct.

RFP Section L.8, Part 2(v)10, page 96, requests that offerors include ceiling indirect cost rates in the format presented in

Section B.7; however, that section presents provisional indirect cost rates. Would USAID please confirm that offerors should present their provisional indirect cost rates in Section B.7 and that ceiling indirect cost rates are not required?

Please view questions #105.

Should ceiling indirect cost rates be required, would USAID please confirm that offerors do not need to propose a ceiling rate for fringe benefits, considering some fringe costs, e.g., payroll taxes, are not under an offeror’s management control?

Offerors are expected to include ceiling rates when applicable

RFP Section L.7.3, page 92, says the Past Performance

Matrix (attachment J.3) should be included as Annex 1;

however, Section L.7, page 90, identifies Annex 1 as the

Organizational Chart. Please confirm the numbering and order of the annexes to the technical proposal.

The Past Performance Matrix is part of the submission, not an annex to the Technical Proposal.

Please confirm the up to 5 pages of past performance information listed under required sections of the technical proposal in RFP Section L.7, page 90, is to be included in the technical proposal, and Attachments J3 and J4, Quality

Awards and Small Business Information, should be included as an annex to the technical proposal and do not count…