RFP 72044020R00001_Questions and Answers.pdf

RFP #72044020R00001 Amendment 1 USAID Improving Private Sector Competitiveness

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Request for Proposal #72044020R00001

Q1. Would USAID consider allowing a one-page Executive Summary that is not included in the 35-page limitation of the Technical Proposal?

A1. The RFP has been amended to add a one-page Executive Summary, which does not count against the page limit (see Section L.6).

Q2. On page 8 of the RFP, Section C states that “[The Performance Work Statement must address the following items: …Discussion of activities to ensure compliance with branding and marking requirements;” is it sufficient to summarize at a high level and refer the reader to the Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan submitted as Part 5 of the Cost Proposal?

A2. The RFP has been amended. The following sentence has been removed “Discussion of activities to ensure compliance with branding and marking requirements”.

Q3. Page 26 of the RFP, H.7 Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation (f) Consultants states “Unless the consultant is an employee of the contractor, they are considered subcontractors subject to the applicable clauses and requirements.” Would USAID consider waiving the Consent to Subcontract requirement for consultants given the implementation burden of requiring consent for each consultant and to avoid delays in programming?

A3. The RFP section H.7 has been amended to remove f) Consultants.

Q4. L.6. (c) (page 68) Please confirm that the entirety of Factor 3, Past Performance, can be contained in an annex.

A4. Correct.

Q5. L.6. (c) (page 69) As part of the requirements for performance using small business concerns, offerors are instructed to submit copies of SF 294s, which could take up many of the 65 pages allowed for the annexes. If offerors’ small business reporting is included in eSRS, may we include a list of those contracts rather than a copy of the SF 294s?

A5. Offerors are instructed to submit copies of SF 294s.

Q6. Can USAID confirm that in Section L.7.(d) Part 4 – Letters of Commitment (Subcontractors) (p.72), “an approximately percentage of each type of work to be subcontracted” refers to the amount of each subcontractor’s work as a percentage of the total estimated cost of the contract?

A6. USAID confirms.

Q7. According to Section L.7.(g) Part 7 – Employee Biographical Data Sheets for Key Personnel, “Offerors must also include letters of commitment signed by each person proposed as key personnel confirming their present intention to serve in the stated position and their present availability to serve the project” (page 72). Can USAID confirm that the referenced letters of commitment for key personnel are to be submitted as an annex of the technical proposal only, and not included in the cost proposal?

A7. The RFP is amended in section L.7 (g) and L.6.B Evaluation Factor 2.

Q8. Can USAID confirm that the first sentence in section M.3 Cost/Business Proposal Evaluation should read as follows? “USAID’s goal is to achieve low administrative costs and focus funds for local engagement and program implementation, hence, this will be considered for the evaluation of cost/price.” (Page 74).

A8. The RFP has been amended in M3. Reference to administration costs has been deleted.

Q9. Would USAID kindly provide the latest USAID/Vietnam LCP?

A9. The LCP is not available but please be aware that the current maximum authorized under the LCP of the Mission is US $61,391 per year.

Q10. Can USAID please provide an official exchange rate?

A10. At the time this amendment is published, the official exchange rate is $1 to 23,235 VND.

Offerors are encouraged to use this rate for budgeting purposes only; it will not be part of the contract.

For Offerors’ reference, the updated official exchange rate can be found at the below link.

https://www.sbv.gov.vn/TyGia/faces/ExchangeRate.jspx?_afrLoop=1538136467961852&_afrW indowMode=0&_adf.ctrl-state=9i9r99du7_95

Q11. On p. 10 of the SOO, USAID states “While the activity aims to benefit SGBs nation-wide, interventions in a particular geographic region will need to be determined collaboratively with the counterparts (using a mutually agreed selection criteria) to ensure buy-in and playing to https://www.sbv.gov.vn/TyGia/faces/ExchangeRate.jspx?_afrLoop=1538136467961852&_afrWindowMode=0&_adf.ctrl-state=9i9r99du7_595 https://www.sbv.gov.vn/TyGia/faces/ExchangeRate.jspx?_afrLoop=1538136467961852&_afrWindowMode=0&_adf.ctrl-state=9i9r99du7_595 the strengths of the counterparts.” However, section L.6 on p.67 of the RFP states “a. A summary chart listing the general approach and proposed interventions for each objective, the name of any sub-partner(s) implementing the interventions (if known), period of performance and proposed geography.” Would USAID consider removing the requirement to list proposed geography in the summary chart and instead allow offerors to outline an approach to geographic location selection for interventions?

A11. The RFP has been amended to revise section L.6, Evaluation Factor 1, Part 2, reference a summary chart. After the award is issued, the contractor will collaborate with the GVN counterparts to refine and finalize the selection criteria and geographic locations.

Q12. In line with the guidance set forth in FAR 16.3 for cost-plus-fixed-fee completion form contracts, we request removal of the budget table in Section B.4, as line items may fluctuate during the implementation period, but it remains the contractor’s responsibility to accomplish the agreed-upon results within the total estimated cost.

A12. The budget table will remain in Section B.4.

Q13. Section H.7 states that, “Unless the consultant is an employee of the contractor, they are considered subcontractors subject to the applicable clauses and requirements.” We ask that USAID consider revising the statement to, “Unless the consultant is engaged as labor and hence considered contractor personnel or an employee of the organization, they are considered a subcontractor subject to the applicable clauses and requirements.” It is our understanding that a consultant, by definition, cannot be an employee; FAR 31.205-33(a) defines professional and consultant services as “those services rendered by persons who are members of a particular profession or possess a special skill and who are not officers or employees of the contractor.”

Because consultants provide personal services, they are considered contractor personnel and their billable costs are governed by the contract clauses and regulations related to personnel (RFP Sections H.6 and H.7). When an individual is engaged as a legally constituted organization, including as a sole proprietorship, they are considered a subcontractor and subject to the appropriate contractual requirements.

A13. See the response to Q3.

Q14. Would USAID please confirm that a discussion and agreement on the proposed scope of work for the subcontractor is sufficient to meet L.7(d), requirement #2?

A14. The RFP has been amended. Section L.7(d) 2) requires “a discussion and agreement on type(s) of subcontracts to be used and approximate percentage of each type of work to be subcontracted.”

Q15. Regarding the annual work plan referenced in Section F.7.1, would USAID confirm that this plan should not be included at the proposal stage?

A15. That’s correct. The annual work plan should not be included at the proposal stage.

Q16. Per our understanding of Section L.6.A, we have 65 pages for annexes in addition to the 35 pages for Factor 1, Technical Requirements, and Factor 2, Management Approach. Would USAID clarify all the documents that should be included in the annexes, at a minimum, and the order in which we should provide them?

A16. The RFP Section L.6 A has been amended. The order in which documents are listed in the annex is not important, as long as they are clearly marked and referenced within the main body of the technical proposal.

Q17. Section L.6.B lists past performance as a section of the technical proposal, whereas Section L.6.A indicates that past performance is not subject to the 35-page limit, and Section L.6.B(c)(1) lists it as an annex to the technical proposal. Would USAID please clarify that Factor 3, Past Performance, should be included as an annex in its entirety and does not count against the 35-page limit for the technical proposal?

A17. See the answer to Q4.

Q18. Section L.6.A states that the tables that summarize detailed qualifications of proposed key personnel are not included in the 35-page limitation. Kindly confirm that these tables should be placed in an annex.

A18. That’s correct.

Q19. In Section L.6.B(a), USAID has indicated that a summary chart of proposed interventions by objective and a table with proposed indicators and annual targets must be included in the technical requirements section of the technical volume. Given that the instructions do not indicate whether these elements should be included in Part 1, Proposed Performance Work Statement or Part 2, Technical Approach, are offerors permitted to include these elements in whichever part they deem most appropriate?

A19. The RFP section L.6.B has been amended to make it clear that a summary chart of proposed interventions by objective and a table of proposed indicators are required to be included in Part 2 Technical Approach.

Q20. Section F.7.3 states that the contractor must engage with a “third party” to conduct the baseline assessment. Would USAID confirm that the contractor is responsible for identifying and engaging this third party, or if this entity will be selected separately from the project. In addition, would USAID clarify if this third party could be a member of the IPS-C consortium? Finally, does this third party need to be identified in the proposal?

A20. Correct, the contractor is responsible for identifying and engaging this third party. This third party may or may not be a member of the IPS-C consortium. This third party doesn’t need to be identified in the proposal.

Q21. Should offerors decide to use a grants pool upon implementation, would USAID kindly confirm if there is a ceiling amount of the budget that we may attribute to this?

A21. There is no mechanism for Grants under Contracts (GUC) under this activity.

Q22. Given that household businesses are referenced only once in the expected results, would USAID confirm what level of focus should be given to household businesses?

A22. The frequency in which household businesses are referenced directly in the RFP does not reflect the level of focus or importance. USAID considers household businesses to be a subset of small and growing businesses (SGBs). Please refer to the definition of SGBs on page 2 of the

SOO.

Q23. USAID is operationalizing the Journey to Self-Reliance policy framework by integrating its principles into country development cooperation strategies. Given that Vietnam’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) is now expired (2014 to 2019), would USAID share an updated version that provides an updated results framework and/or the development objectives?

A23. USAID/Vietnam is finalizing its new CDCS for 2020-2024 and is unable to share the Results Framework or DOs at this time. However, USAID/Vietnam expects to continue to work in the same sectors: economic governance, environment, and health.

Q24. In Attachment J2, QASP Template, the section numbering jumps from 6 to 8; there is no Section 7. Would USAID confirm if this is a page numbering mistake or if there is a section missing? Additionally, the last paragraph of Section 6 says, “…the Inspection of Services clause in the Contract becomes the basis for the KO’s actions.” Would USAID confirm that this is supposed to say CO instead of KO?

A24. Correct. The RFP has been amended to revise the numbering and the typo.

Q25. Page 67, Section L.6 (b), d.: Would USAID please confirm that the staffing plan is expected to include position title and roles only, and not named personnel other than key personnel?

A25. That’s correct.

Q26. Page 72, Section L.7 (g), Part 7: Can USAID confirm that the letters of commitment from proposed Key Personnel are to be provided in an annex of the technical proposal, and not as Part 7 of the cost proposal?

A26. See Question 7 for response.

Q27. Page 37, Section I.1 – Clause 52.203-16: Can the Government please clarify what expected activities would constitute “acquisition functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions for, or on behalf of, a Federal agency or department” and thus require the inclusion of this clause? If no such activities would occur under this contract, would the Government consider deleting this clause.

A27. The RFP is amended to delete Clause 52.203-16.

Q28. Would USAID consider allowing offerors to include an executive summary in the content of the technical proposal? And if so, will it count against the page limit? Or is this considered part of the Cover Letter?

A28. See response to Q1.

Q29. Page 65, Section L.6 A: Can USAID clarify that the Content of the Technical Proposal including Annexes is subject to an overall limit of 100 pages? Or are the sections marked as “Does not count against page limit” considered above the 100- page limit?

A29. The RFP Section L.6 A has been amended.

Q30. Page 68, Section L.6 B (c): Can USAID clarify that since Past Performance is not included in the 35- page limitation of the technical proposal, it is to be included as an annex and thus subject to the 65-page limitation?

A30. That’s correct.

Q31. Page 73, Section L.7 (d): Are the subcontractor Letters of Commitment required for all subcontractors or only major subcontractors?

A31. Letters of Commitment are required for all subcontractors that the offeror proposes.

Q32. Page 6, Section B.5, Indirect Cost (for major subcontractors): A company’s indirect rates are acknowledged to be proprietary and sensitive financial information, the disclosure of which would result in competitive harm and, consistent with the Trade Secrets Act, should therefore be protected from such disclosure to third parties. Thus, we respectfully request that such indirect rate information from major subcontractors not be included in included in draft/resultant contract.

A32. The RFP Section B has been amended to remove the listing of major subcontractor indirect rate information. However, this information is still required to be submitted as part of the cost proposal from the prime offeror.

Q33. Will USAID be providing any support to this project in terms of financial assistance similar to the former DCA mechanisms?

A33. USAID does not have plans for a credit guarantee facility like DCA, however, offerors are encouraged to approach financial assistance in a creative and thoughtful manner, in line with USAID’s private sector engagement strategy and promoting Vietnam’s journey to self-reliance.

Q34. Assuming that the upward limit of firms with which the project will engage is 500 employees, does USAID envision overlap between this Activity and the LinkSME project, which already works with firms in the 300-500 employee range?

A34. There is no overlap between this Activity and the LinkSME project. While LinkSME focuses on linkage-ready small and medium enterprises, this Activity focuses on small and growing businesses (SGBs) that have yet to reach operational scale capacity to participate in supply chains. Please refer to the definition of small and growing businesses (SGBs) on page 2 of the SOO. Offerors, however, are expected to closely coordinate with LinkSME to explore potential synergies.

Q35. Will USAID consider contractors deliver certain tasks remotely or through alternative delivery models if required considering the COVID-19 spread and travel restrictions.

A35. This issue about delivery of certain tasks remotely or through alternative models will be handled at the post-award stage.

Q36. Page 63, Section L.5 (b): Would USAID consider increasing the size of the files for submitting proposals via email with up to 10MB per email.

A36. Yes, the RFP has been amended to increase the size of the files for submitting proposals via email with up to 10MB per email.

-- End of Questions & Answers --