Amendment 3_RFP 72047220R00001_USAID Timor-Leste NGO Advocacy for Good Governance.pdf

5. PROJECT NO.

CODE

7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED

BPA NO. 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODE CODE

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:

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended,

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning __________ copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment of 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 AC- KNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV. 10-83)

is required to sign this document and return ___________ copies to the issuing office. is not, 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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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.

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

D. OTHER

BY /s/

Contractor x one

16C. DATE SIGNED

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

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

STANDARD FORM 30 STANDARD FORM 30

(Type or print) (Type or print)

(Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

(No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

(If other than Item 6)

(Specify type of modification and authority)

(such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)

(If required)

FAA of 1961 and EO 11223, as amended.

(If applicable)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

(X)

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

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

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

1 13

03 See Block 16 C

Regional Office of Procurement Regional Development Mission for Asia 63 Wireless Road, Pathumwan Athenee Tower 25th Floor Bangkok, Thailand 10330

To all Offerors RFP No. 72047220R00001 x

The purposes of this amendment are to:

1. Provide responses to questions received during the question and answer period and incorporate them as integral part of the RFP;

2. Share presentation slides during the pre-proposal conference in Dili, Timor-Leste on November 6, 2019 (Attachment 1 to this amendment), and;

3. Amend the RFP with clean version (Attachment 2 to this amendment) and track changes version (Attachment 3 to this amendment).

All other terms and conditions in the original RFP remain the same.

Gregory S. Wang

11/15/2019

USAID/Timor-Leste NGO Advocacy for Good Governance RFP No.: 72047220R00001

QUESTIONS RECEIVED WITH USAID’S RESPONSE:

1. Is the Mission open to more than 10 NGOs being targeted by this activity?

USAID Response: The Offeror may propose less or more than the 5-10 range. The Offeror must provide rationale for the number proposed in their criteria selection. USAID is interested in supporting long-term sustainability of a few rather than broad, short-term support of many in the NGO sector writ large.

2. Can USAID clarify why it requires Offerors to work with only "advocacy" organizations? There is an argument to be made that working with organizations in other sectors on advocacy could be more beneficial?

USAID Response: USAID is focusing this assistance to strengthen NGOs that are advocacy minded.

3. Can USAID define its criteria for how USAID defines mid-level advocacy NGOS?

USAID Response: USAID will allow Offerors to define the mid-level advocacy NGOs (see page 68, Section L.7). USAID is not aiming to build new NGO’s or necessarily to support well-established, self-sustaining NGO’s through this activity.

4. On page 68, under section L.7.1 – FACTOR 1 – PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS) AND

TECHNICAL APPROACH, the RFP states: “The Offeror must provide the analysis and rationale for selecting the targeted organizations as well as propose the selection criteria and a transparent process for selecting what is estimated to be 5-10 mid-level local advocacy NGOs.” Could USAID confirm that the Contractor will select these NGOs after contract award?

USAID Response: Yes, the NGOs will be selected after contract award.

5. Does the Mission have a preference for sector represented by the participating NGOs?

USAID Response: The Offeror is encouraged to review U.S. government foreign assistance priorities, USAID/Timor-Leste’s CDCS recognizing that a new CDCS is under development, and Government of Timor-Leste development priorities.

6. Page 19 mentions that the COR may request annual program reviews. Should logistical costs for holding annual program reviews be included in the proposal budget?

USAID Response: The Offeror is accountable for all costs of implementing the requirements of the contract.

7. Page 74, L.9.2.C

The solicitation states that the Offeror must arrange for its own logistical arrangements, including interpreting. Would it be possible to provide more details as to how much interpreting will be necessary on an annual basis?

USAID Response: The Offeror is responsible for determining the level of interpretation needed.

8. F.5 - The undefined quantity of ad hoc and special reports conflicts with the principle of a firm fixed price contract. We respectfully ask to specify a ceiling of such reports for each year.

USAID Response: This category of reporting is to accommodate potential reporting requirements that may arise as a result of data calls or other related information requirements. This may include ad hoc reporting on activity implementation that may not already be included in quarterly or annual reporting.

This is not intended to include costly studies or reports that would be outside of the work the contractor would already be implementing.

9. F.5 – Would USAID establish due dates for the COR to provide comments on the deliverables that are priced in B.5, such as Annual Work Plan? Any delay in the approval means delay in payment.

USAID Response: USAID is committed to promptly reviewing all submissions for compliance to the contract’s requirements for deliverable acceptance.

10. F.6 – Could you elaborate more on what you mean by “related field of study” and “strong working experience” under the COP minimum qualifications requirements?

USAID Response: Examples of related field study may include but are not limited to development studies, social sciences, management studies, business administration. Strong working experience:

minimum 10 years of working experience.

11. Please provide clarification as to the detail required for quarterly financial reports. As this is a FFP with payment linked to deliverables, is the contractor required to provide a breakdown by main line items; funds expended to date in the current quarter, comparisons between previous estimated costs and actual costs; budget estimates for next quarter; and budget estimates for the remainder of the activity as stated on page 17.

USAID Response: The contractor must provide financial details by line items (CLIN 001 and CLIN 002).

Comparisons between previous estimated costs and actual costs will not be required under quarterly financial report. Please see the amendment in Section F.

12. Section C of the RFP (p. 10) states “Cost share must be considered.” We agree with the need for partner buy-in but given the management demands cost share requires on the grantee, we respectfully request that USAID remove this requirement. ADS 303.3.10.1 states that “When used, its (cost share’s) application should be flexible, case-specific, and used to support or contribute to the achievement of results. USAID should use cost sharing after considering whether it is appropriate for the recipient organization in the particular circumstances, in particular, the programmatic and technical context. There is no set formula for cost sharing…A specific program may be risky and discourages potential recipients from providing meaningful contributions.” The use of mandatory cost sharing in the grants fund may unfairly limit competition and limit the type of mechanism the successful implementing partner may use, and the administrative burden of submitting receipts and backup documentation could discourage some organizations from applying. Given these factors, would USAID kindly remove the language that cost share must be considered?

USAID Response: Cost share must be considered for Grants Under Contract. The Offeror may propose to use or not use and must substantiate their position and how it responds to the objectives of the activity and to achieving success in the activity.

13. Can USAID clarify if the results listed for each Objective are illustrative results, or are they required results? Are Offerors allowed to modify and/or add to the results?

USAID Response: The results are illustrative.

14. On page 10, in Local Capacity/Sustainability section, the RFP talks about “..maximizing the potential for local capacity building, including professional development for Activity staff to assume higher levels of responsibility….” On page 69, section L.7.2 FACTOR 2 – STAFFING PLAN AND MANAGEMENT APPROACH, paragraph a. Staffing, the RFP states: “The Offeror must also discuss how they plan to transition any technical support or key functions of activity funded staff to local public or private sector partners before the close of the Activity.” Meanwhile, on page 20, under section F6.

KEY PERSONNEL, the RFP states: “The Contractor must remain responsible for providing such key personnel for full-time performance for the term of this contract unless otherwise agreed to by the Contracting Officer.” Could USAID confirm that the Offeror could plan for transitioning the role of any international staff engaged as key personnel to a local staff to be hired or promoted to replace the international staff member?

USAID Response: The three expectations outlined above remain in effect. The Offeror may propose how their management plan addresses these elements.

15. On page 19, under section 9. Annual Program Review, the RFP refers to a Project Steering

Committee. Is USAID envisioning that this would be a permanent committee for the duration of the Activity?

USAID Response: The nature of the Activity Steering Committee will be determined after the award but is likely to be composed of USAID personnel and potentially other stakeholders to be able to review the progress of the activity towards achieving results and provide recommendations for technical direction to help in their achievement. The Annual Program Review is part of USAID’s methodology for proactive monitoring and evaluation of activities and adaptive management.

16. Should the offeror propose any grants under contract (GUC), can USAID please confirm if it would be able to include G&A and fee based on risk associated with GUC in CLIN 002?

USAID Response: The G&A, indirect rates and fees are not allowed under the CLIN 002: Grants Under Contract (GUC) if GUCs are proposed as part of an Offeror’s PWS/SOW. Costs for administering GUCs, if any, must be captured in CLIN 001.

17. Under L.8, Part 2, page 70, the RFP states that a “Cost Schedule must be submitted for CLIN 002 if grants under contract are included.” As section B.3 of the RFP gives a not to exceed (NTE) plug for GUCs, can Offerors provide simply a breakout by year of implementation towards GUCs?

USAID Response: There is no standard template for the cost schedule. If the use of GUCs are proposed as part of the Offeror’s approach, a breakout of the anticipated utilization of GUCs must be submitted to serve as the cost schedule.

18. L.8, Part 2 requires that: “A cost schedule must be submitted for CLIN 002 if grants under Contract are included”. If further requires that: “If the Offeror proposes the use of Grants Under Contract, the Offeror must propose the amount of budget to be allocated for Grants Under Contract by year of implementation.” Is it optional to the offeror to propose a GUC funds to be used in this award or we are limited to suggest a different amount not to exceed what is stated in Section B.3 ($650,000).

USAID Response: The GUC amount is optional, depending on the Offeror’s approach to achieve the activity goal.

19. As stated on page 1 of the RFP, we understand that this is a performance-based, firm fixed-price contract with a five-year period of performance, although on page 4, under B.2. Contract, it states that this is a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract and cost contract hybrid. Can USAID please clarify the cost contract hybrid portion, and does this pertain to CLIN 2, as the contractor will be reimbursed for incurred costs for awarded grants, although under CLIN 1 the reimbursement is based on deliverables and results with a firm fixed price?

USAID Response: CLIN 001 will be Firm Fixed-Price while CLIN 002 will be cost reimbursement.

20. On page 10 of the RFP it is stated that the grants under contracts are to fund "innovative ideas that promotes advocacy services and financial sustainability of the participating Timorese NGO". Is this the only possible purpose of the GUC CLIN or will USAID consider other uses of the GUC fund to match with the technical approach?

USAID Response: The Offeror may propose other uses of the GUC for the success of the activity.

21. Section H.3.2 of the RFP (p. 25) states that “The contractor is to ensure that grants to local government institutions are in accordance with paragraph (a) and (d) of ADS 220.3.3.2, as well as the terms and conditions of this provision.” Does USAID anticipate the contractor will issue grants to government institutions under this program?

USAID Response: USAID is open to the option of issuing GUCs to the government institutions. The Offeror may propose selection criteria for whom GUCs will be made available.

22. Page 10, Section C states that a GUC “may be proposed to fund innovative ideas that promotes advocacy services and financial sustainability of the participating Timorese NGOs” and that selection criteria must include but not be limited to the NGOs organizational capacity to manage the funds in accordance with USAID’s GUC policy.” Could USAID confirm if any proposed GUC beneficiaries must be the 5-10 organizations targeted by the core activities of this program or if the GUC can be utilized at offeror’s discretion?

USAID Response: GUCs are an optional tool for the Offerer to propose how and to whom GUC could be used.

23. On page 25, under section H3. GRANTS UNDER CONTRACT, in paragraph 2. Award Amount

Thresholds, the RFP states:

● Non-Governmental Organizations: The total value of an individual grant to a U.S. NGO must not exceed $100,000. This limitation does not apply to grant awards to non-U.S. NGOs.

● Partner Government Entities: The total value of all GUCs that provide funds (as opposed to in-kind assistance) to a particular partner government entity (for example, ministry, municipality, district, etc.) must not exceed $300,000 for the duration of the prime contract.

Does the first stipulation refer also to grants for US-based nonprofit organizations that the Offeror might engage as subcontractors to implement the Activity?

USAID Response: The subcontractors in this activity are not required to comply with the requirements under Section H.3 Grants Under Contract.

24. Will USAID reconsider the fee approach to focus on a more flexible deliverables schedule, which would be more responsive to the dynamics of a project as has been proposed in the SOO? There are a number of determinants that go into whether a contractor would be able to achieve deliverables, key among them ownership, leadership, participation, and capacity of the Timorese counterpart institutions. As such, there is a high risk that the contractor will not be able to achieve deliverables based on issues completely outside their control.

USAID Response: Fee approach will not be used in this solicitation. The Offeror has been provided with USAID’s budget amount available and are being allowed the flexibility to propose the work to be performed, the results to be achieved, and the schedule of receiving payments.

25. In L.7.1 under offeror may demonstrate #3 "maintain flexibility while safeguarding progress." The firm fixed price contract mechanism limits flexibility. How does USAID see flexibility within this mechanism?

USAID Response: The Offeror has flexibility in proposing the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and technical approach that the Offeror thinks is best to respond to the SOO indicated in the RFP, the results to be achieved, and the schedule of receiving payments.

26. Section L provides a list of required sections and annexes. The section does not include any mention of resumes, biographical forms, or letters of commitment for key personnel. Could USAID please confirm that an additional annex containing resumes and letters of commitment may be added to the technical proposal and that biographical forms may be added to the cost proposal?

USAID Response: The Biographical Data Sheet, letter of commitment, and resumes of the proposed key personnel are not required at the proposal submission stage. The Offeror is anticipated to focus on the composition of the implementation team and the roles of the key personnel. The successful Offeror will submit the required documents for key personnel review and approval after award.

27. Can USAID please confirm if offerors are expected to designate the position titles of and propose candidates for the second and third “TBD” key personnel positions in their proposals? Or rather, are offerors expected to only discuss these final two key personnel positions “at time of award” (page 19 of the RFP)?

USAID Response: The Offeror should propose the positions, responsibilities, and qualifications of key personnel positions in their proposal. Specific individuals should not be proposed at this time and will be reviewed and approved by after award to the successful Offeror.

28. Both Section L.8 and Section M.3 refer to past performance information for the Offeror and any major subcontractor. In Section L.8, Part 7, (pp. 71-72), contractor performance information is listed as part of the Cost Proposal, however in Section M.3, (pp. 76-77), past performance is listed as one of the factors to be evaluated under the technical proposal. Can USAID please confirm whether Contractor Performance Information should be included in the technical or cost proposal?

USAID Response: Contractor Performance Information must be submitted as part 7 of the price and cost proposal.

29. Can USAID clarify the order in which Offerors attach J.2 Contractor Performance Indicator?

USAID Response: The Attachment J.2 Contractor Performance References must be submitted as Part 7 of the price and cost proposal.

30. In L.8 in Part 7, Would USAID accept past performance on cooperative agreements of similar- sized and complexity?

USAID Response: Past performance on Cooperative Agreements performing work of a similar nature of similar-size and complexity is acceptable.

31. Page 71, Section L.8 Part 7 requires Past Performance information utilizing attachment J.2. Is there a minimum number of past performance references required?

USAID Response: The Offeror must provide past performance information of the the top 3 contracts/awards of similar scope and/or complexity which are not beyond the past five years.

32. Section L.8, Part 8, (pp. 72-73), includes a Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan under the “Instructions for the Preparation of Price and Cost Proposal.” However, Part 8 also refers to including the plan within the technical proposal (p. 73). Can USAID please confirm that the Branding, Implementation, and Marking Plan should be included in the technical proposal, and if so, that it may be included in an annex?

USAID Response: Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan must be submitted as Part 8 of the Price and Cost Proposal.

33. Consent to subcontract: Once an award is made, we ask that the requirement for consent to subcontract at 52.244-2 be removed as it appears to be inconsistent with a fixed price contract.

USAID Response: The consent to subcontract requirement will be kept in the solicitation in accordance with FAR 52.244-2 Subcontracts.

34. Section B.7 (p.5) states that “In the event of cancellation, the Government will negotiate a settlement for work performed in accordance with the procedures of FAR 52.249-2.” However, Section B.7 then goes on to include a table listing cancellation dates and ceilings. Can USAID please confirm if this table was intentionally included, as FAR 52.249-2 (e) provides a different methodology for determining the amount to be paid in the event of cancellation, even under instances in which the parties disagree?

USAID Response: The Cancellation dates and Ceiling Amounts under B.7 was intentionally included in the RFP to establish ceilings in the event of a cancellation. Negotiation of the settlement of work performed will be conducted in accordance with FAR 52.249-2.

35. B.7 – It is not clear what is the relationship between termination of convenience pursuant to FAR

Clause 52.249-2 and the Cancellation of the Contract pursuant to FAR Part 17.103 which requires the incorporation of FAR Clause 52.217-2. This distinction has been laid out in FAR 17.104(d).

Cancellation ceiling applies to all subsequent fiscal year’s quantities and not limited to a percentage of the current obligation. To the contrary, the obligation should always include and cover any cancellation ceiling. Are the percentages used in B.7 illustrative and the offeror should propose different ceiling percentages/amounts? We respectfully remove the reference to obligation and use the FFP ceiling instead.

USAID Response: The percentages in the solicitation are defined, not illustrative. USAID will remove the reference to the obligation and will revise the ceiling amounts as follows:

Contract Year 2 Ceiling Amount: 7% of contract total price.

Contract Year 3 Ceiling Amount: 5% of contract total price.

Contract Year 4 Ceiling Amount: 3% of contract total price.

Contract Year 5 Ceiling Amount: 2% of contract total price.

36. Should Offerors include Letters of Commitment for subrecipients who do not exceed 25% of the

Offeror's total proposed contract price (those not defined as Major Subcontractors)?

USAID Response: Submission of letters of commitment for subrecipients that do not exceed 25% of the Offeror's total proposed contract price is not required.

37. Should Offerors include Letters of Support from resource partners?

USAID Response: Submission of letters of support from resource partners are not required.

38. Can USAID clarify what format the Proposed Price and Payment Schedule should be presented in

(Part 2 of Cost Proposal, Volume II - Pricing Information)? Word Document or Microsoft Excel?

USAID Response: Part 2 of the price and cost proposal can either be MS Word or MS Excel as long as the information required under the section is completed. The format of the payment schedule can be found under B.5 PAYMENT SCHEDULE.

39. Per section L.8, Part 2, page 70, for CLIN 001, please confirm that only a payment schedule is required to be submitted as part of Offeror’s Price/Cost proposal. No detailed budget or budget narrative is required.

USAID Response: It is confirmed that neither detailed budget nor budget narratives are required as part of the price and cost proposal.

40. In B.5 Payment Schedule table under Management Outputs, can USAID please clarify what is the base of the "Not to exceed 2%"? (% of what?)

USAID Response: The total award amount is the basis of “not to exceed 2%”.

41. Section B.5, page 4, provides a payment schedule for the firm fixed price CLIN 001 with management outputs and performance outputs.

• Please confirm that the column label “Total Cost” can be changed to state “Total Price”, as this is an FFP.

USAID Response: Confirmed.

• Please clarify if items already identified as “Management Outputs”, along with the percentages, are illustrative (can be edited by Offerors) or fixed.

USAID Response: The Manage Outputs in the payment schedule are fixed and the percentages are fixed. Please note that the Management Output section will be revised as follows:

NO. DUE DATE

MANAGEMENT REPORT/

DELIVERABLE PERCENTAGE

TOTAL

PRICE

Management Outputs 1 See Section F.5 Approval of Annual Work Plan

-Year 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 1.25%

(.25% / year)

TBD

2 See Section F.5 Approval of Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan

.25% TBD

3 See Section F.5 Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) Analysis

.25% TBD

4 See Section F.5 Approval of Annual Reports -Years 1, 2, 3, and 4

1% (.25% / year)

TBD

5 See Section F.5 Approval of Final Report .25% TBD

42. In B.5 Payment Schedule on page 4 of the RFP, only four of the Management Outputs are included from the list of Management Reports/Deliverables on pages 14-16. Will USAID please clarify if the list of Management Reports/Deliverables on pages 14-16 will be added to the payment schedule?

USAID Response: The Management Outputs of the solicitation are fixed and constitute 3% of the total award price. As indicated in Section L.7.3, the Offeror must propose the Performance Outputs of which payment will be made to constitute the remainder of the total price.

43. B.5 – What are the required Performance Outputs? It is not clear if the offeror is to propose these, and if they are to be priced as end-of-project outputs or annually priced.

USAID Response: Performance Outputs are performance-based milestones, deliverables, or accomplishments in which payment is tied are to be proposed by the Offeror based off of their proposed technical approach and PWS. Offerors should propose Performance Outputs and payment amounts that align with the Offerors accomplishment toward achieving the objectives of the activity.

44. The RFP lists organizing the proposal according to the evaluation factors laid out in Section M, in which Staffing Plan and Management Approach precedes the MEL Plan; however, according to the outline on page 67, the MEL Plan precedes the Staffing and Management Plan. Can USAID clarify the order of the outline for the Technical Approach?

USAID Response: The Offeror must follow Section L.6 of the RFP that outlines the structure of the technical proposal. Please note that the organization of the technical proposal does not determine the importance of the evaluation factors which is indicated in Section M.

45. In L.7.1 on p. 69 Example of Table of Deliverables Metrics can USAID provide examples of acceptable performance standard description?

USAID Response: The sample of the Deliverable Metrics is provided in the amendment no. 3 of the

RFP.

46. On page 69, USAID states the Offeror must provide results and deliverables for the activity separately, does USAID want separate tables for deliverables and a table for Results for Annex B or should Offerors create a combined table that includes both deliverables and results?

USAID Response: The deliverables and results must be in the same Deliverables Metrics table but in separate column.

47. Will USAID require a small business utilization plan for this contract? There is no mention of the requirement if the RFP. However, in Part II Section 1.2 FAR 52.219-9 is incorporated by reference.

USAID Response: Small business utilization plan is not required for this contract.

48. Page 75, Part 7 - Contractor Performance Information; Performance in using Small Business (SB)

Concerns (as defined in FAR 19.001). The government requests information on previous use of subcontracting plans. For this proposal, is a Small Business Subcontracting Plan required?

USAID Response: Small business subcontracting plan is not required.

49. In L.3 p. 64 FAR 52.232-28 Propose Performance Based Payments (1) under (d)(c) please clarify what kind of information is needed to address "Contractor's Investment in the contract."

USAID Response: If special financing arrangements are proposed to be used by an Offeror, the Offeror must then propose their investments in performing the contract for consideration of the proposed financing scheme.

50. Page 69 Section L.7.2(a) states: “Offeror must provide an organogram of the staffing plan plus a more full description of any explanatory information as required.” Could USAID confirm that the organogram should be included as an additional annex to the proposal (excluded from page limit)?

USAID Response: The organogram is counted against the page limit of the Staffing Plan and Management Plan.

51. Page 66, Section L.5(a) states: “The proposal must be accompanied by a cover letter typed on official organizational letterhead and signed by a person who has signatory authority for the organization.”

Could USAID please confirm that this cover letter is excluded from the page limit?

USAID Response: The cover letter is excluded from the page limit.

52. Per page 67, Section L, can USAID please confirm that graphics are not counted in the 28-page limit?

USAID Response: The graphics that are not listed as the Annex will be counted against the page limit of each section.

53. Can USAID clarify if a Table of Contents and List of Acronyms can be included in the Technical proposal and if they will not count against the page limit?

USAID Response: The table of contents and list of acronyms will not be counted against the page limit.

54. L.6 – Would USAID increase the page limitation for the PWS as 4 pages appear to be insufficient to adequately address all PWS requirements;

USAID Response: The page limit of the PWS remains at 4 pages.

55. Can Offerors include a Table of Contents in the Cost Proposal (volume II - Pricing Information)?

USAID Response: The Offeror may include a table of contents in the price and cost proposal.

56. Can USAID clarify if it prefers the 3-page Mobilization Plan to be presented in Word Doc or Excel spreadsheet?

USAID Response: Word document.

57. Page 67 states: “The text in any text boxes included within the technical proposal must not be less than 12 points in size.” Will USAID consider allowing offerors to include text in text boxes and tables in size 10 font?

USAID Response: The text in text boxes and tables may be font size 10.

58. May offerors adjust the number of pages per each section in the Technical Approach?

USAID Response: No. The number of pages must follow the requirement under Section L.6.

59. The cover page indicates a “five-year period of performance”, Section B.7 indicates a “multi-year contract” and Page 6, Section C indicates “up to five years.” Could USAID confirm this solicitation will result in a multi-year contract, as defined in FAR Subpart 17.1?

USAID Response: This solicitation will result in a multi-year contract.

60. Would USAID provide an example of a preferred PWS format to help ensure more responsive and comparable submissions?

USAID Response: There is no standard template for the Performance Work Statement.

61. Could USAID please clarify the draft MEL Plan requirements and Section L instructions in evaluation and learning, to be included in the monitoring section and performance indicators outlined in the RFP?

USAID Response: Offeror’s must submit a draft MEL plan for the Offeror’s proposed technical approach.

The MEL plan should include indicators that would be used and align to proposed technical approach and the objectives of the SOO.

62. M.2.3 Factor 3 is stated as “The quality and realism of the MEL plan and how likely it will ensure quality standards are met.” Does this mean that USAID will evaluate how likely the proposed MEL Plan will ensure quality measurement of the results or also how it will contribute to successful implementation?

USAID Response: Both.

63. Can USAID please provide a local compensation plan?

USAID Response: The resulting contract will be a firm fixed-price contract with cost reimbursement component in CLIN 002 so the local compensation plan does not apply to this solicitation.

64. In Section L.7.1, page 68 the RFP states that the “The Offeror’s technical approach and strategies must include proposed tasks and interventions to achieve the performance standards in the SOO (proposal must clearly qualify and quantify, when possible, these expected results).” However, on page 69, the RPF says that in the Performance Work Statement the offeror must “clearly articulate what actions the Offeror will perform, the quantifiable results of those actions…(and) measurable quality standards for all work” . These two requirements seem almost identical. Can USAID confirm that it wants to see this information in both sections? If yes, can USAID please clarify the difference between the Technical Approach and the PWS?

USAID Response: The Offeror must submit both PWS and the Technical Approach as required in Section L.7.1.

Performance Work Statement describes what interventions are to be performed to achieve the activity goal and objectives delineated within the SOO and how it will be measured. Technical Approach describes how the PWS will be implemented. The Offeror is required to present their solution as well as its approaches, methodologies, and activities broken down into its lowest activity level and linking tasks in a logical flow of interventions that achieve the four objectives of the Activity and the goal. The PWS will be incorporated as part of the Section C of the resultant contract.

65. On page 67, under section L6. INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL

PROPOSAL, the RFP lists Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (6 pages) as a part of the Technical Proposal, as well as Annex A – A Narrative and Diagram of the Theory of Change and Results Chain (3 pages) and Annex B – Deliverable Metrics as annexes to the Technical Proposal.

Could USAID please clarify what it expects the Offeror to include in each of these sections, so that they do not overlap or repeat the proposed deliverables, expected results, as well as the approaches and tools for measuring the results?

USAID Response: The requirement of Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (6 pages) is instructed under L.7.3 FACTOR 3 - Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (MEL Plan). The requirement of Annex A and the sample of Annex B are described under L.7.1 FACTOR 1 – Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Technical Approach.

66. On page 69, under section L.7.1 – FACTOR 1 – PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS) AND

TECHNICAL APPROACH, in the section dedicated to the Performance Work Statement, the RfP states: “In drafting the PWS, Offerors must utilize language of mandatory obligation (“must” versus “will”, “should”, or “may”). Could USAID clarify what this means? What are the mandatory obligations that the RfP refers to here?

USAID Response: The PWS of the successful Offeror will be incorporated as part of the contract. As a contract document, language of mandatory obligation should be used such as “The Contractor must …” versus statements such as “The Contractor may …”.

67. Can USAID please confirm that it wants to see both a six-page preliminary MEL plan as a part of the

28-page Technical Proposal, and, separately, a narrative and diagram of the Theory of Change and Results Chain in Annex A?

USAID Response: Confirmed. In addition, with reference to L.7.1, the offeror my choose to keep the Theory of Change in this SOO or propose a Theory of Change more aligned with their approach.

68. The first paragraph of the cover letter states that USAID is utilizing a “build-to-budget model for this acquisition and $9.9 million is the amount of total funding reserved for this activity.” However, page six, paragraph one, states that the Activity is expected to be funded with $5-9.9 million.” Can USAID confirm that with the “build-to-budget model” terminology, USAID expects offers to propose a budget to match $9.9 million?

USAID Response: Build-to-budget means that USAID is disclosing the amount of funding available for this activity and requesting Offerors to develop their proposal with that operating constraint in mind. This does not set a price floor; USAID is still required to analyze the price. This means to provide Offeror with more information and change the paradigm from “how much will this program cost” to “how much development benefit can USAID get with the funding”.

69. The proposal due date of November 29 coincides with the US holiday of Thanksgiving. Will USAID kindly consider extending the due date by at least one week?

USAID Response: The Proposal due date remains at November 29, 2019.

70. Will USAID confirm the amount of funding available for this activity is $9.9m as stated on the Cover

Page and Section B.3 and offerors are not expected to budget with the range of $5-9.9m as stated on Page 6 of the RFP?

USAID Response: The available funding for this activity is $9.9m. The total price is dependent on the Offeror’s determination.

71. Section J includes an SF LLL – Disclosure of Lobbying Activities template. Can USAID confirm this should be submitted as part of the cost proposal?

USAID Response: Confirmed.

72. Can USAID please confirm if sub-contractors are required to submit Evidence of Responsibility for sub-contractors with more than 25% of the budget?

USAID Response: The Evidence of Responsibility is not required.

73. Page 66 of the RFP states that, “The information below must be clearly marked on the cover page of the proposals: ABXY, Inc.” Can USAID please clarify and restate what information offerors are expected to include on the cover page of the proposals?

USAID Response: The Offeror must clearly provide the following information on the cover page of the proposal.

ABXY, Inc. (organization name) RFP/SOL No. 72047220R00001 USAID/Timor-Leste NGO Advocacy for Good Governance

74. SF-33 - It appears that the page numbering is incorrect. It should be Page 1 and not 2. Please confirm.

USAID Response: Confirmed.

75. Section B starts at p.4, is there a page missing?

USAID Response: Section B starts at page 4 following 2 pages of cover page and 1 page of SF-33.

76. Sections H and I include some clauses that are applicable only to cost reimbursement type contract.

We believe this contract is a firm fixed price (except for the GUCs). Therefore, we believe the following clauses don’t apply and should be removed, unless you specify to which CLIN they apply:

a) H.3, Consent to Subcontract.

b) H.4, Limitation on Acquisition of Information Technology

c) H.17, Foreign Government Delegations to International Conferences

d) I.7, 52.247-67, Submission of Transportation Documents for Audit

e) I.11, 752.7027 Personnel, Section (f) and (g).

USAID Response: The following Sections will be removed from the solicitation. The rest will remain in the solicitation as it is required by USAID policies.

- I.7, 52.247-67, Submission of Transportation Documents for Audit

- I.11, 752.7027 Personnel, Section (f) and (g).

77. L.4(j) Discrepancy – FAR will prevail over RFP, too broad. Does this mean FAR clauses/provisions included into the RFP will prevail over other language in the RFP in case of conflict? The FAR, at large, does not apply unless it is incorporated in the solicitation except those mandatory provisions/clauses that conveys a deeply ingrained strand of public procurement policy or required by law which is considered to be included even if it is not actually in the document. We respectfully request the removal of Section L4(j) or limit it to the clauses/provisions incorporated in the solicitation.

USAID Response: This section has been removed from the solicitation.

78. We respectfully request that USAID remove the following sentence from section H.3.12 (p. 26), “Copies of all reports received from grantees must be promptly forwarded to the Contracting Officer Representative,” given that there is no requirement for the COR to receive grantee reports, either in the GUC authorizing language for ADS 302, or in ADS 303. We also respectfully request that USAID remove the following sentence from the same section: “At the conclusion of the contract, the Contractor must consult with the Contracting Officer for direction as to which records must be transferred to USAID.” Although 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.

USAID Response: The sentence “Copies of all reports received from grantees must be promptly forwarded to the Contracting Officer Representative” will be removed from Section H.3.12.

79. Section I.11 (a)(1) (p. 46) states that “The Contractor will obtain written notification from the

Contracting Officer of Cooperating Country clearance of any employee sent outside the United States to perform duties under this contract.” In addition, Section I.11 (a)(2) states “No individual shall be engaged or assigned… to perform work outside the United States… unless authorized in the schedule or otherwise approved by the Contracting Officer or Mission Director,” and Section I.11 (f) references the duration of appointments for regular employee appointments. However, as this is a fixed-price contract, with the exception of the key personnel in F.6, we kindly request that USAID remove this requirement, as a fixed-price contract should preclude the need for the Contractor to obtain CO approval, as we are to complete the deliverable, not provide certain personnel under the contract.

Would USAID kindly remove the language that requires CO Approval of non-key personnel?

USAID Response: The AIDAR 752.7032 International travel approval and notification requirements (APR 2014) apply to the implementation of this contract. USAID is not looking at international travel from the perspective of cost reimbursement in this contract. The requirements for approval and notification of international personnel remain as part of USAID’s visibility and management of contractor staff deployed in-country supporting the contract. Section I.11 (f) and (g) will be removed from the solicitation.

- End of Questions received for RFP 72047220R00001 -