SOL-72051418R00016_(03)_-_Q&A.pdf

SOL-72051418R00016 – USAID’s Land for Prosperity Activity Q&A

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS DOCUMENT

Technical Questions

1) On Page 11, the RFTOP states that “LPA will work…to strategically support massive land titling (massive land formalization) in rural areas ...” Can USAID clarify whether massive land titling should or should not include parcels within the urban area of a municipality (“casco urbano”).

Response: Massive land titling should include both urban and rural areas with the distinction that urban areas are covered by the municipal government through Municipal Land Offices mentioned in Section C.2. p 12, Section C.5.2 – Intermediate result 2.1, as well as in the Fixed Fee deliverable section. Rural areas are covered by the National Land Agency under the massive titling strategy of the GOC.

2) In Section C.6, USAID/Colombia notes that grants may be issued to “local organizations” as defined in footnote 17 (bottom of page 26). Can USAID clarify if US organizations and international organizations falling outside of the definition for “local organizations” also be issued grants under contract?

Response: US organizations and international organizations can receive GUCs; however, the subaward and organizational capacity development plan is targeted to local firms (Section H.9.; C.6.5.; F.7.2 (h)).

3) Would USAID allow edits to the Deliverables Matrix (Section F.7.3 on pages 46-51) to clarify how each deliverable will be measured or demonstrated to be complete?

Response: Yes. As described in section F.7.1 (b)(8), an annex with the Fixed Fee Deliverables Matrix must be included in the AWP in which the Contractor must list the component, Fixed-fee contract deliverable name, the proposed fee percentage, the verification method, the quality standard, the assumptions for the achievement of this deliverable, and the AMEP indicator it contributes to.

4) Can USAID please clarify the difference between deliverable #4 listed on page 46 and deliverable #32 listed on page 49?

Response: Deliverable 32 refers to the needs assessment of the systems required to implement and maintain massive land titling efforts supported by the Activity. Deliverable 4 refers to the needs assessment of the systems to interoperate land policy data (massive land titling and restitution, among others) at the municipal level when implementing a massive land titling effort. The Contractor must define after the needs assessment if this can be one single system given the confidentiality of land restitution data or if they should be separate.

5) In Section L.7.3.b.i (page 77) USAID/Colombia notes that case studies must include an indicator table with “targets for the indicators proposed and disaggregated targets for each region in the case studies, along with the causal relationship between interventions and the achievement of these targets.” Can USAID clarify whether the ONLY disaggregate which should be shown is for region? Or are other standard disaggregates (e.g., sex, age) required?

Response: The disaggregation must respond to the objectives set forth in the proposal, including the guiding principles on youth, gender, and ethnic communities. The reference to the disaggregation by region responds to the need for USAID to see what targets will be proposed for each region.

6) Please confirm that tables—such as the tables required in the case studies shown in Section L.7.3 b) ii (on page 77): the table of proposed indicators and targets, the table with the map of actors, and the table listing the significant risks to achieve the objectives in Section C—are to be included in the technical proposal, within the 45-page limit.

Response: Tables are to be included in the Technical Proposal, within the 45-page limit.

Solicitation has been amended to reflect this specification.

7) Attachment 14 (LPA Results Framework with Illustrative Indicators, pp. 114-116) contains indicator STIR-2 (Number of innovations supported through USG assistance with demonstrated uptake by the public and/or private sector) within IR 3.1. The current set of Standard Foreign Assistance Indicators refers to this crosscutting indicator as STIR-11: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/288882.xlsx. Please confirm that this is the same indicator.

Response: The correct indicator number is STIR-11. Solicitation has been amended to reflect this change.

8) Please confirm that the $20m GUCs should be included in either the local grants line item or the international grants line item. Does USAID have a recommended allocation between local and international grants?

Response: the $20M plug figure for GUCs is removed from the budget included in Section B.3 of the Solicitation; the Total Activity Fund is now set with a minimum of 25% and a maximum of 35% of the Total Estimated Cost. At this point USAID/Colombia does not have a recommended allocation between local and international GUCs; however, ease of implementation, extra costs, local capacity building and sustainability concerns need to be take in into account (and justified in the technical approach) before proposing any international subcontract or GUCs. Finally, please consider the limitation in Section C.9 1)

9) Due to the locations of the selected regions, will a certain level of data sensitivity need to be assumed?

Response: Yes. This will be defined during implementation on a case by case basis.

However, some data related to sensitive policies such as land restitution will very likely be safeguarded. This is usually agreed upon with the corresponding GOC counterpart.

10) Technical Sections L.3 and Section C.6 both note the guiding principles. However, there is a discrepancy in guiding principles numbers three through five between the two sections. Should Section L.3 or Section C.6 be used as the controlling category of principles?

Response: Section L.7.3 provides instructions to the offerors on elements that must be present in the technical approach. Section C.6 “Guiding Principles and Policies” contains the guiding principles for the TO. Section M explains that Section C.6 will used to evaluate the Technical Approach section of the proposals.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/288882.xlsx

11) RFTOP Section C.4 Regional Implementation and Geographic Coverage (p. 14) lists regional coverage selection criteria in order of priority, with “priority areas for post-conflict assistance by relevant government of Colombia institutions” listed third, after 1)illicit crop presence/potential and 2) high formalization demand and past USAID land intervention. Does USAID anticipate working exclusively or primarily in municipalities prioritized for formalization by the Agencia Nacional de Tierras (ANT), or does USAID anticipate including municipalities that meet the first two criteria but not necessarily the third?

Response: Since the massive formalization support to the GOC needs to be implemented with the National Land Agency, this is a must to implement land formalization. The GOC is currently in discussion to identify targeted municipalities by the ANT during this administration. We are in this discussion with the GOC to make sure that the targeted regions are part of the ANTs priorities. The contractor will need to continue this discussion with the ANT to identify what capacity building is required as well as finalizing an agreement on targeted municipalities within targeted regions in the Solicitation.

12) Section C.5 IR 1.1 (p. 16) indicates that “Land for Prosperity support will include the incorporation of inputs provided by a USAID consultant to the National Land Agency to adapt the massive formalization methodology in municipalities with illicit economies.”

Has the USAID consultant already provided this input to the National Land Agency, or is this an activity to be carried out during Land for Prosperity implementation? If the consultant has already developed this input or methodology, could USAID kindly provide it to offerors?

Response: The document with the consultancy report has been included in the list of attachments in Section J. Solicitation is amended to reflect this change.

13) Can USAID please provide to offerors the Colombia Land and Rural Development Program’s (LRDP) annual report for 2018?

Response: The document with the LRDP annual report 2018 has been included in the list of attachments in Section J. Solicitation is amended to reflect this change.

14) Can USAID please provide to offerors the Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) attachment that covers the environmental threshold decision for this program, mentioned on Page 57 of the RFTOP?

Response: Solicitation is being amended to reflect the language approved by the Mission Environmental Officer (MEO), which categorizes this Activity as a Positive Determination.

A copy of the IEE will also be provided and posted in www.fbo.gov.

[END OF TECHNICAL QUESTIONS]

http://www.fbo.gov/

Contractual Questions

1) How do the costs listed in the RFP Section B.3 Summary Table correspond to the costs listed in RFP Attachment 4? Are “Activities” comprised of all proposed costs listed in RFP Attachment 4 less the GUCs?

Response: The Activity Fund comprises all subcontracts of a technical nature (those which directly advance the objectives of the contract) plus all GUCs. All other costs (except fee) are to be included in the Activity Costs.

2) Where are costs for M&E, Branding and Marking, and Communications & Outreach (C&O) supposed to be included in Attachment 4? Should a new section be added similar to the sections for Environmental Compliance and Security?

Response: the Offeror is encouraged to add any lines to the proposed budget structure in Attachment 4 to increase the clarity and relevance of the cost proposal.

3) Section E “Training” – should travel costs associated with training be included in this section or in Section C?

Response: Section C corresponds to “TRAVEL, TRANSPORTATION, AND PER DIEM”; please include all proposed travel costs within this section, appropriately disaggregated.

4) How are seminars and conferences different than Section F Training?

Response: Training in Section E (not F) must include all proposed training to be provided to the beneficiaries of the Activity; on the other hand, “Seminars, Workshops and Conferences” includes these events for contractor’s personnel, aimed at directly advancing the objectives of the contract.

5) Please confirm that proposed subcontractor’s costs should be included in the line items titled “local subcontracts, international subcontracts, or construction subcontracts”.

Response: Proposed subcontractor’s costs must be included in the line items titled “local subcontracts, international subcontracts, or construction subcontracts.”

6) Since IDIQ holders have a small business subcontracting plan at the IDIQ level, please confirm that there is no small business subcontracting plan requirement (L.8 part 6 and H.16).

Response: Small business subcontracting plan at the IDIQ level must be included with the proposal.

7) Will any property, such as furniture, equipment or vehicles be made available from another project?

Response: At this point, USAID/Colombia is not offering any GFP for this Activity.

8) What is the anticipated start date for budgeting purposes?

Response: For budgeting purposes, the expected start date is on or around July 1st, 2019.

9) Section L.8.2.f (page 82) references “components” and L.8.g(10) (bottom of page 84) references “CLIN 001.” Could USAID confirm that the Offeror does not need to separate costs by component or CLIN?

Response: Disregard any mentions to CLIN 001. Solicitation is amended to reflect this change.

10) Section L.8.2.g(2) (top of page 83) states that “Personnel, whose salary histories include salaries in currency other than the U.S. dollars, must show the contemporaneous U.S.

dollar equivalent.” On the biographical datasheets, however, instructions in the second paragraph under L.8 (page 80) state that Offeror must budget using an exchange rate of COP 2,800/USD. Could USAID confirm that salaries in COP be converted to USD using the RFP exchange rate (COP 2,800) and salaries in a third currency would be converted using the contemporaneous exchange rate?

Response: Salaries in COP must be converted to USD using the RFP exchange rate (COP 2,800) and salaries in a third currency must be converted using the contemporaneous exchange rate. Solicitation is amended to reflect this change.

11) Could USAID confirm that if an Offeror is proposing to use a STARR II IDIQ partner that has already obtained consent to subcontract, then the supporting documentation referenced in the Cost Volume would not need to be submitted again unless it was applicable (i.e., an updated NICRA).

Response: Any and all subcontracts proposed for a specific TO (a separate contract by itself) must receive individual Consent to Subcontract, pursuant to the regulation quoted above. Related to this issue, it's M/OAA's guidance that a positive "Responsibility Determination" is made about any proposed subcontractors at the IDIQ level. This, however, does not preclude any specific Mission (in this case USAID/Colombia) to require a Consent to Subcontract IAW FAR 44.201-1, Consent requirements "(b) If the contractor does not have an approved purchasing system, consent to subcontract is required for cost-reimbursement, time-and-materials, labor-hour, or letter contracts, and also for unpriced actions (including unpriced modifications and unpriced delivery orders) under fixed-price contracts that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, for— (1) Cost-reimbursement, time-and-materials, or labor-hour subcontracts;" Also, IAW FAR 44.202-1 Responsibilities, "(b) The contracting officer responsible for consent shall review the contractor’s notification and supporting data to ensure that the proposed subcontract is appropriate for the risks involved and consistent with current policy and sound business judgment."

Finally, IAW FAR 44.202-1 Responsibilities, "(c) Designation of specific subcontractors during contract negotiations does not in itself satisfy the requirements for advance notification or consent pursuant to the clause at 52.244-2. However, if, in the opinion of the contracting officer, the advance notification or consent requirements were satisfied for certain subcontracts evaluated during negotiations, the contracting officer shall identify those subcontracts in paragraph (j) of the clause at 52.244-2."

12) Section B.7 (page 9) states that “no indirect costs or fees are applied to GUCs;” however, Section L.8.g.(13) (page 85) states that “no indirect costs or fee will be applied to the GUC funds unless specified in terms and conditions of the Contractor’s NICRA.” Could USAID update Section B to include the same language as in Section L.8.13?

Response: Language in Section B.7 has been edited to reflect the language in Section L.8.g(13). Solicitation is amended to reflect this change.

13) Section L.8.2.g(2) (page 82) allows for biographical data sheets for all proposed Key Personnel. Would USAID allow an Offeror to submit biographical datasheets for anyone that has been negotiated, even if not a Key Personnel position?

Response: USAID does not provide approval for candidates other than Key Personnel;

therefore, EBDs for individuals other than key personnel are not required or reviewed.

14) Section J “Environmental Compliance/Management” and “Other Direct Costs”- there are 2 Sections numbered “J” in the budget template. Should these be re-numbered?

Response: Section I – Security has been renumbered as Section H, and Section J – Environmental Compliance/Management has been renumbered as Section I. Attachment 4 has been amended to reflect this change.

15) Section B.2 (Contract Type) – states the award will be a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee completion type contract. However, the contractor fee, as described in Section B.6 seems to indicate that all of the fee payment will be tied to the deliverables as laid out in Section F.7.3.

Most of the deliverables listed in this section have ambitious targets, some of which are not under the control of the offeror and depend on the Government of Colombia delivering on its commitments. Would USAID consider allowing a portion of the fee to be invoiced monthly? Or if not, could a portion of the fee be tied to submission of required reports as laid out in Section F.7.1 (page 31) and not solely on deliverables (which may be outside the control of the offeror) listed in Section F.7.3?

Response: A portion of the fixed fee can be tied to the submission of required reports as laid out in Section F.7.1. Monthly fees are not being considered for this activity. The Offeror is allowed to adjust the table to reflect their suggested Fee payment structure with these issues in mind.

16) Does USAID have suggested or approved reduced per diem rates which are utilized amongst the donor community in Colombia?

Response: Per-diem rates are proposed in accordance with the Offeror’s internal policies and procedures; however, any rates exceeding the “maximum per diem rates, […] established by the Secretary of State […and ] published in Section 920 (Post Classification and Payment Table (Allowances by Location)) of the Standardized Regulations” are considered to be unallowable costs.

17) Section L.8 Part 2.e states that the “Summary Cost Worksheets provided must include separate worksheets for the prime and all subcontracts”. Please confirm that “Summary Cost Worksheets” are referring to RFP Attachment 4 worksheets titled “Prime Costs (US$) and Subcontractor Costs (US$).

Response: “Summary Cost Worksheets” are referring to RFP Attachment 4 worksheets titled “Prime Costs (US$) and Subcontractor Costs (US$).

18) Section L.8 Part 2.g states that “The Offeror must propose cost and submit a summary budget for the for the full five year period of performance in the cost proposal.” Please clarify what “summary budget” is referring to – is this different than the RFP Attachment 4 worksheets titled “Prime Costs (US$) and Subcontractor Costs (US$) and/or the B.3 Summary Tables?

Response: Summary budget is, in fact, a different sheet from either “Prime Costs” or “Subcontractor Costs” and was not initially included in the spreadsheet. Attachment 4 has been amended to reflect this change.

19) Page 82 of the RFP (Section L.8 Part 2.f) states that the Offeror must submit a detailed budget, per component, and budget narrative that supports item for item the cost estimates proposed in its detailed budget. Are Offeror’s expected to submit a detailed budget as described in Attachment 4a? Or is it expected to complete an Attachment 4 for each component described in Section C of the RFP?

Response: The budget general structure must include total costs; however, information by component needs to be disaggregated (at a minimum) only to the major line items (salaries, fringe, etc.) in a separate sheet within Attachment 4. Totals from these spreadsheets must match the major budget and be consistent across the proposal.

20) Section L.7.5 states that major subcontractor are defined as one whose proposed costs exceed 10% of the Offeror’s total proposed costs. The Offeror’s total proposed costs will include the $20m in GUCs which is not available to subcontractors. Please confirm that total proposed costs should include the $20m in GUCs in terms of defining a major subcontractor.

Response: The Offeror’s total proposed costs include all costs.

21) The Offeror’s total proposed costs will also include fee. Please confirm that total proposed costs should also include fee for purposes of defining a major subcontractor.

Response: The Offeror’s total proposed costs include any proposed fee.

22) On page 45, in section F.7.2.i), the RFTOP states that the due date for the gender and social inclusion analysis and baseline for project implementation is “180 calendar days prior to the completion date of the contract”. This reads as 180 calendar days before the project end date in Year 5. Can USAID please clarify when is the due date for the gender and social inclusion analysis and baseline for project implementation?

Response: Due date for the gender and social inclusion analysis and baseline is 60 calendar days after award. Solicitation is amended to reflect this change.

23) According to Section H.8 (a)2) (p. 58), contractors are required to seek approval to create new professional positions not included in the initial Activity budget. This requirement would seem consistent with a CPFF-term contract where USAID exerts control over inputs of the contract (through the level of effort) as opposed to controlling the outcomes.

Given that USAID has chosen to tie payment of fee to deliverables under this CPFF completion type contract, we would recommend that this clause be removed to give the contractor the flexibility to adjust the inputs of the contract in accordance with the changing context to best achieve the results (within the accepted terms of a completion contract, such as remaining within major budget line items).

Response: The Statement of Work has several activities that are similar to a CPFF-term contract and previous experience with this type of oversight has yielded positive results for the US Government initiatives in Colombia. Therefore, the clause is not being considered for removal at this time.

24) 8. Section H.8 (p.58) states: “In addition to the requirements above, for the first year of the Activity, the maximum salary for each individual position cannot exceed the daily rate proposed in the budget for the specific position.” We respectfully request that this restriction for salaries be removed from the RFTOP, as it appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007 Personnel Compensation, incorporated in the contract under Section H.2 of the IDIQ, which stipulates that personnel compensation be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, with reimbursement subject only to the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold. The limitation on adjustments to the salaries proposed in the budget may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices, as required by AIDAR 752.7007, especially should there come a time when there are unexpected personnel changes during implementation.

Response: This limitation has been established only for the first year of the Activity and it is expected that the Offerors take into account all possible scenarios and limitations from the IDIQ and the RFTOP before committing to a proposal. Therefore, this language is not being considered for removal at this time.

25) Section C.9 (p. 26) states, “The HCA has approved the execution of GUCs with nongovernmental organizations (non-profit or for profit), community organizations and private foundations in Colombia. GUCs to partner Government entities have not been authorized.” Will USAID consider authorizing in-kind grants to partner government entities on a case-by-case basis?

Response: USAID/Colombia will consider authorizing in-kind grants to partner government entities on a case-by-case basis.

26) On Page 44, under section F.7.2 h, the text refers to section C.6.4. Can USAID please confirm whether the correct reference should be C.6.5?

Response: The correct reference is “Section C.6.5.” Solicitation is amended to reflect this change.

27) Thank you for providing the local compensation plan (LCP) for salaries for local staff.

We know in many USAID countries that allowances (such as housing, transportation, meals, and miscellaneous) are part of the LCP. Is this the case with USAID Colombia?

If so, could USAID please provide the USAID Colombia allowances provided under the

LCP?

Response: Such allowances are not part of the LCP for USAID/Colombia.

28) Section B.7 GUCs states that no indirect costs or fee are applied to GUCs. Section

L.8.g.13 states that “No indirect costs or fee will be applied to the GUC funds unless specified in terms and conditions of the Contractor’s NICRA”. If the Offeror’s NICRA allows indirect costs, than is the $20m in GUCs inclusive or exclusive of the Offeror’s applicable indirect costs?

Response: see answer to question # 8 in the Technical Questions and Question # 12. In addition, the Activity Fund costs in Section B.3 include all indirect costs for Subcontracts and GUCs, if any.

29) Does USAID expect to see one summary budget per subcontractor, or would USAID like to see subcontractor budgets presented by component?

Response: Disaggregation by component is only required for the prime Offeror’s cost proposal.

30) Section L.8 Part F on page 82 of the RFTOP states that the Offeror must submit a detailed budget per component; however, the budget template (Attachment 4) is broken down into major cost line items with detailed costs to follow and is not organized by component. Can USAID confirm that the Offeror should prepare one budget for the overall program based on the template provided, and that USAID is not expecting the Offeror to provide three detailed budgets (one per component listed in Section C.5)?

Response: see answer to question # 19.

31) Does USAID expect to see one summary budget for the Offeror plus budgets presented by component?

Response: see answer to questions #19 and # 29.

32) Attachment J4, the Budget Template, presents categories labeled by sequential letters on the Prime Costs tab. The template presents “G. Activity Fund” followed immediately by “I. Security,” skipping the letter H. May the Offeror revise this template in its submission, so all of the lettering is sequential?

Response: see answer to question # 14.

33) May the Offeror revise the Budget Template, Attachment J4, to add categories that are not currently included, but are required for our proposal presentation to USAID, such as a category for subcontractors?

Response: see answer to questions # 2 and # 17.

34) The RFTOP asks that the Offeror provide a summary budget, subcontract budgets, and budgets presented by component. Can USAID please specify if it prefers to see the budget narrative for the summary budget or for the component budgets (or both)?

Response: see answer to questions # 17, # 18 and # 19.

35) RFP Attachment 4 has a line item for Grants Management Fee which would appear to allow fee on GUCs. Please clarify.

Response: see answer to question # 12.

36) To transfer knowledge, skills, and abilities to local organizations and apply scalable technological and innovative solutions that help achieve the objectives of this Statement of Work, we anticipate awarding a combination of Grants under Contracts and nonconstruction subcontracts to organizations and service providers. Given this, would USAID consider allowing offerors to propose a $20 million Activity Fund which can include both Grants under Contract and non-construction sub activities, rather than solely Grants under Contract?

Response: see answer to Technical question # 8 and question #1.

37) Section L.8 Part 2.g states that “Subcontracts, GUCs and STTAs: This Contract allows the utilization of subcontracts, GUCs and STTAs within CLIN 001, as provided in the associated GUCs provisions in this solicitation.”. Please clarify what CLIN 001 is since there is no mention of CLIN 001 anywhere else in the RFTOP.

Response: see answer to question # 9.

38) Section K “Indirect Costs/Overhead” - there is one line item for Overhead. Offerors may have more indirect costs types than overhead. Can Offerors create new line items for indirect costs besides Overhead?

Response: see answer to question # 2.

39) Per Section L.8, Offerors are being asked to provide Information to Support Consent to

Subcontractors. If USAID has already provided consent to subcontract for a specific subcontractor under the STARR II IDIQ, will it be necessary for the Offeror to complete this information again under the USAID Colombia Land for Prosperity RFTOP under

STARR II?

Response: see answer to question # 11.

40) Please clarify what is to be included in Section G “Activity Fund”. Is this the line item where the GUCs should be mapped to?

Response: see answer to question # 1.

[END OF CONTRACTUAL QUESTIONS]

[END OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS DOCUMENT]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS DOCUMENT