72051420R00024_Female Empowerment Activity FEMPOW_QandA.pdf

Female Empowerment Opportunity (FEMPOW) Request of Proposal (RFP) Number 72051420R00024

Questions & Answers (Q&A) Document

General

1. In order to maximize USAID’s ability to receive the best services and to encourage the participation of local organizations, would USAID consider strongly discouraging the use of exclusive teaming arrangements?

Please see the first full paragraph of the second page of the cover letter of the RFP.

2. Could USAID please share the most recent annual reports from the following projects: USAID Colombia Overcoming Gender-Based Violence and USAID Colombia Transforming Communities to Protect Women and Girls.

Please refer to the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) at https://dec.usaid.gov/dec / for reports that are publicly available from other activities.

3. Could USAID please share the most recent annual reports of any additional ongoing economic growth activities that included dedicated components addressing gender and social inclusion.

Please refer to the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) at https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/ for reports that are publicly available from other activities.

Technical:

1. Would USAID confirm whether an inception period is anticipated for FEMPOW?

No inception period is anticipated for FEMPOW.

2. RFP Attachment J.1, Section 9.a., pages 139–140, states that FEMPOW will likely include, but not be limited to, municipalities in Colombia’s Pacific Coast, Bajo Cauca, and Montes de Maria regions, as well as work in urban centers. Would USAID confirm that geographic prioritization will be conducted in partnership with USAID during program implementation?

USAID will work with the implementer upon award to determine the program’s final geographic scope. However the geography ultimately selected for this activity must: 1) align with Government of Colombia priority geographies (known as PDET municipalities by their Spanish acronym); 2) were hardest hit by Colombia's fifty-plus-year conflict; and 3) reflect the greatest need by women in terms of GBV and unemployment rates as stated in the RFP. Attachment J.1. Section 9.a.

3. In RFP Attachment J.1 Statement of Objectives under Objective 1 (RFP page 137, paragraph 2)

USAID indicates that programming under this objective should address “the increasing percentage of female-headed households.” Would USAID kindly provide more specific guidance on this point?

The reference to the increasing percentage of female headed households was used to demonstrate https://dec.usaid.gov/dec https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/ the need and importance of increasing women’s economic empowerment on a whole in Colombia. It is up to the Offeror to determine how addressing this need may, or may not, be incorporated into their proposal.

4. Page 140, 9. Activity Parameters, 9e., Environmental Sustainability, states: “The Offeror must show how their proposal contributes to environmental sustainability and conservation throughout each component. The Offeror must develop an environment strategy that incorporates best practices related to the use of green materials, air travel minimization, recycling and waste management, carbon-offset strategies, and energy and water conservation.”

Question: Please clarify the Offeror needs to address environmental sustainability and conservation in the Performance Work Statement pursuant to the Activity parameters outlined in this section.

Offerors should demonstrate how their proposed activities will potentially incorporate environmentally sustainable approaches. Additionally, the RFP has been amended to remove the Environmental Management Approach (EMA) deliverable from Section F.7.

5. Page 141-142, J.1, Statement of Objectives, 10. Supplemental Technical Assistance states, “In addition to the activities described above, the Contractor must respond to unanticipated events impacting, or related to, the achievement of the three objectives outlined in Section C.4 using the Supplemental Technical Assistance.”

Question: The Offeror requests that USAID provide additional pieces of Section C that appear to be missing from the RFP, including a Section C.4 that outlines unanticipated events impacting, or related to, the achievement of the three objectives that the Offeror is intended to respond to using the Supplemental Technical Assistance.

Thanks for pointing this out. Attachment J.1.10 has been revised to read as follows: “In addition to the activities described above, the Contractor must respond to unanticipated events impacting, or related to, the achievement of the three objectives outlined in Section J.1.(7) using the Supplemental Technical Assistance.”

6. Section J.1, page 138. Under Objective 2 indicators, the RFP provides the following indicators:

Percentage of target population that views Gender-Based Violence (GBV) as less socially acceptable;

Percent decline of women age 15-49 who reported experiencing physical and sexual violence by current or past partner in target zones; 60 percent of target population reporting increased agreement with the concept that males and females should have equal access to social, economic, and political resources and opportunities. In section J.18, USAID provides a Baseline Study Summary of the Social and Institutional Tolerance Towards Violence Against Women in Colombia. Questions:

Should Offerors plan to use the results of USAID’s baseline study as the baseline for these indicators?

Or if not, could USAID provide the data source to use for the baseline percentages?

Upon award, the chosen Offeror will be provided with USAID’s complete Baseline Study. The numbers provided in the Baseline Study can be used to determine the final indicators.

7. In Section J.1, page 138 under Objective 2 indicators. The RFP provides the following indicator:

“Percent decline of women age 15-49 who reported experiencing physical and sexual violence by current or past partner in target zones.” This indicator suggests that the incidence of violence is going down, but FEMPOW interventions could potentially result in increased reporting of cases, even in instances where more violence is not necessarily occurring, as noted on page 139 of the RFP under Objective 3, “Success under this objective will be measured through indicators collecting data on progress towards compliance with Law 1257, an increase in GBV reporting,…” Could USAID provide guidance on how Offerors should address this possibility?

We understand that interventions from this activity may actually cause the number of GBV cases reported to increase as these GBV cases are currently underreported. In this instance, the indicator’s target would still be a percent decline in the number of cases reported but the implementer will be able to explain discrepancies between indicator targets and results through in its quarterly, annual and final reports.

8. Section J.1.6, page 140 states that “the Offeror must include a PSE strategy as part of their technical approach.” In addition, on page 136: In Private Sector Engagement and Partnerships, the RFP states “USAID/Colombia has a team of PSE experts to support the development of FEMPOW’s PSE strategy through technical assistance and facilitating relationships with the Colombia private sector.”

Questions:

a. Could USAID please provide instructions for what information offerors should include in the PSE strategy as part of their technical approach in their proposal, and how this information will be evaluated?

As USAID is using a Statement of Objectives (SOO) for this solicitation, it is up to the Offeror to develop and integrate a PSE strategy into their proposal. All proposals received will be evaluated in accordance with Section M.

b. Could USAID elaborate on how it envisions these PSE experts would be engaged in project PSE strategy, technical assistance, and relationships with the private sector?

USAID/Colombia’s Private Sector Engagement team will support FEMPOW in its PSE and public-private partnership (PPP) work. To support in a coordinated and complementary fashion, USAID/Colombia has a team of PSE experts that can facilitate connections, coordinate meetings with private sector partners, and support in building the PSE Strategy within the Annual Implementation Plan. In addition, USAID’s PSE team will offer "office hours" to FEMPOW’s PSE team, as required and coordinated with COR. Lastly, guidance is given specifically for Monitoring & Evaluation as all PPP (public-private partnerships) data will be required to be uploaded on USAID/Colombia's MONITOR system, following specific instructions in the PPP-Third Party Fund guidance.

c. Can USAID confirm that the expectation is to submit a draft PSE strategy in the proposal and then further refine it post award together with USAID experts?

Yes, Offerors should submit a draft PSE strategy within their proposal. The chosen Offeror will be able to fully refine this strategy upon award.

9. Section L.7.3.3, page 112 lists “migrants” among the vulnerable populations that the Activity should reach. Questions:

a. Should FEMPOW include activities supporting Venezuelan migrants?

All proposed activities should seek to engage vulnerable populations. USAID widely understands vulnerable populations to include, but not be limited to, youth, Afro-Colombians, indigenous people, LGBTQI, Venezuelan migrants, Colombian returness, and Colombian receptor communities. That being said, it is up to the Offeror to determine how its proposed interventions will seek to engage or target these vulnerable populations.

b. Should project target geographies focus on communities affected by migration?

USAID will work with the implementer upon award to determine FEMPOW’s final geographic scope. However the geography ultimately selected for this activity must: 1) align with Government of Colombia priority geographies (known as PDET municipalities by their Spanish acronym); 2) were hardest hit by Colombia's fifty-plus-year conflict; and 3) reflect the greatest need by women in terms of GBV and unemployment rates.

10. Under L.7.3.2. Local Capacity Development, USAID defines criteria for Local Organization in the context of FEMPOW’s anticipated efforts to “build capacity among local organizations who have never undergone a pre-award survey and received USAID funding so that they are eligible to receive USAID a direct award after the period of performance of the contract.” Additionally, under L.7.4.

Management Approach, “USAID encourages the Offeror to maximize the use of local organizations.”

Could USAID please confirm that “local organizations” under L.7.4 don’t necessarily need to strictly meet the definition set forth under L.7.3.2?

We confirm that “local organizations” do not have to strictly adhere to the definition set forth under L.7.3.2. However, proposals should still demonstrate how the Offeror’s interventions will build capacity among local organizations who have never undergone a pre-award survey and received USAID funding.

11. Does the Mission have a specific COVID-19 Objective, IR, or activity? If so, is it possible to share with the offerors.

The Mission does not currently have a specific COVID-19 objective, IR or activity.

12. On P. 135, the RFP states that FEMPOW should align with the Producers Markets and the Justice for Sustainable Peace Activities. Will FEMPOW contribute to the same IRs in the Mission’s CDCS? Are there common indicators that FEMPOW should use and can be shared? Are there specific interventions under these activities that should be integrated into FEMPOW or replicated in areas where these programs are not working?

FEMPOW aligns with USAID/Colombia 2020-2025 Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) Strategy. The activity will address the cross-cutting gender theme across DOs and IRs in this CDCS, including: IR 1.2 enhanced community capacity to prevent violence; shared IR 1/ 2.1 improved governance for citizen security; and IR 3.1 expanded licit livelihood opportunities. FEMPOW is expected to use standard indicators identified in this CDCS, as well as additional indicators proposed by the Offeror. It is up to the Offeror to identify other USAID/Colombia activities that it would like to work with, and what interventions used by other USAID/Colombia activities it would like to scale-up.

13. Can USAID share the Mission’s PSE Strategy? What are the industries or economic sectors that the PSE Strategy emphasizes? Are there key sectors that the Mission would like FEMPOW to partner with?

The link to USAID’s PSE policy was included in the solicitation and can be found at this link. It is up to the Offeror to propose what sectors it would like to FEMPOW to partner with.

https://www.usaid.gov/colombia/cdcs https://www.usaid.gov/colombia/cdcs https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1865/USAIDPSEPolicy_ExecutiveSummary.pdf

14. Under Objective 2, is FEMPOW responsible for conducting a population-based survey to collect data for the indicator –“%of women age 115-49 who report experiencing physical and sexual violence by current partner in target zones? Or is there another mechanism that is responsible for collecting the data, such as the Mission MEL Platform , government surveys, or other?

The Mission will provide a complete Baseline Study to the chosen Offeror. However, it is up to the Offeror to include additional surveys that it would like to conduct as part of its proposed interventions, and that may be used to inform the indicators it proposes.

15. Is there a limit to the number of partnerships that an offeror can establish with private sector partners in the proposal?

There is no limit to the number of partnerships that the Offeror can propose. This is up to the Offeror’s discretion.

16. Are there specific PDET Districts that are required for FEMPOW to work in? Is there a minimum number of Districts or a minimum size of the population the project is required to cover?

USAID will work with the successful implementer upon award to determine the program’s final geographic scope, including specific PDET districts. There is no minimum number of PDET districts or minimum size of the population. The geography ultimately selected for this activity must: 1) align with Government of Colombia priority geographies (known as PDET municipalities by their Spanish acronym); 2) were hardest hit by Colombia's fifty-plus-year conflict; and 3) reflect the greatest need by women in terms of GBV and unemployment rates.

Cost/Business

1. Would USAID confirm whether the 9% allocation for Supplemental Technical Assistance (CLIN

002) should be calculated based on the total project budget or on the project budget minus the 20– 25% activity fund designation?

The 9% allocation for Supplemental Technical Assistance (CLIN 002) should be calculated based on the total project budget.

2. RFP Section B.3.c, CLIN 002, on page 9 states, “In no event, the fixed fee of the Task Orders under CLIN 002 can exceed the negotiated fee under CLIN 001.” Would USAID please confirm that this refers to the fixed fee percentage applied to CLIN 002 Task Orders and is not indicating that the negotiated fee amount under CLIN 001 is also expected to cover CLIN 002 Task Orders?

Correct. This restriction applies to the fee percentage. USAID and the Contractor will negotiate the fixed fee percentage for each individual task order. The fixed fee percentage for CLIN 001 functions as a cap for any task order fee. For budgeting purposes in the budget proposal, the Offeror must use their CLIN 001 fixed fee percentage amount in budgeting for CLIN 002 unless it is offering a lower fixed fee cap for CLIN 002.

3. RFP Section H.3.e on page 41 states, “…if the consultant was specifically named in the approved budget and a Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet was submitted; and if such provision has been made or approval given, compensation must be within the pay scale specified and must not, without approval of the contracting officer exceed: 1) 8% over the highest rate of annual compensation received by the consultant during the immediately preceding three years or 2) the maximum daily salary rate as described in ADS 302, whichever is less.” The latest version of the Contractor Biographical Data Sheet—USAID Form 1420-17—as required in Section L.9, Part 2, A.1 on page 118, does not require potential consultants to disclose their salary or consultant rate histories.

Would USAID please confirm that Offerors should use market data rather than salary or rate history in determining proposed consultant rates for this activity and remove all language related to using salary or rate history to establish proposed consultant rates?

Thank you for pointing this out. The RFP Section H.3.e has been amended to read as follows “For Short-Term Technical Assistance (Consultants), the Contractor must submit a Pay Scale, which will include the level of expertise (e.g., Junior, Mid-Level, Senior), along with the responsibilities and the qualifications sought for each level. Consultant compensation must be within the pay scale specified and must not, without approval of the contracting officer, exceed the maximum daily salary rate as described in ADS 302.”

4. RFP Section H.3.f on page 41 states, “In accordance with paragraph (a) above, the compensation plan must cover all proposed salary ranges for all positions. Initial salaries for candidates should be within each applicable range and will be based on other factors including but not limited to consideration of the individual’s education and compensation history over the most recent 3 years.” The latest version of the Contractor Biographical Data Sheet—USAID Form 1420-17—as required in Section L.9, Part 2, A.1 on page 118, does not require potential employees to disclose their salary or consultant rate history. Would USAID please confirm that Offerors should use market data rather than salary or rate history in determining proposed salaries for this activity and remove all language related to using salary or rate history to establish proposed salaries?

USAID confirms that market research and/or data should be used in lieu of salary history. This subparagraph has been removed from the RFP.

5. RFP Section L.8, Part 2, f on page 118 states, “The Offeror must submit a detailed budget, per component…” Would USAID please confirm that “per component” means major cost categories?

Yes, “per component” refers to Cost categories. Cost categories are explained in detail in Section L.8.

6. On page 119, Section L.8, Part 2, A.2, the RFP states, “Personnel, whose salary histories include salaries in currency other than the U.S. dollars, must show the contemporaneous U.S. dollar equivalent.” Would USAID please confirm that Offerors should use the new biographical data sheet (USAID Form 1420-17) that does not include salary history?

USAID confirms that the new Biographical Data Sheet should be used, which does not include salary history. The RFP Section L.8.A.2 has been amended to delete “Salaries of personnel must be reflected on the bio-data form in U.S. dollar equivalent.”

7. RFP Section L.8, Part 2, A.15 on page 123 states, “USAID will not agree to allow GUCs to be included in the calculation of fixed fee.” Would USAID allow Offerors to propose a lower grants fee for GUCs?

The sentence “USAID will not agree to allow GUCs to be included in the calculation of fixed fee.”

has been removed from Section L.8, Part 2, A.15 on page 123. However, when proposing the fixed fee, please note that fixed fee is an aspect of an offeror’s proposal that affects competitiveness and USAID highly encourages Offerors to propose a lower fee on GUCs.

8. RFP Sections C.2.1 (page 12), F.7.15 (page 27), and L.8.A.11 (page 120) include language indicating that GUCs are an optional element that may be proposed by an Offeror if GUCs fit its technical approach (up to a ceiling of $8M). In contrast, Section L.7.3.2(b) states that the Offeror must set aside a minimum amount of 20% or $8M for GUCs, whichever is greater. Could USAID please confirm that GUCs are an optional element and, if proposed, should not exceed $8M?

The RFP has been updated to clarify that the Activity Fund includes GUCs, subcontracts to local organizations, and transition awards.In no case may the GUC portion of the Activity fund exceed $8,000,000.

9. RFP section C.2.1, page 12, and L.8.2.11, page 120, state that Grants Under Contract (GUCs) must not exceed $8 million within CLIN 1. RFP section L.7.3.2, page 111, states, “the Offeror must identify the portion of its budget that will be set aside for GUCs, with a minimum amount of 20% or $8,000,000.00, whichever is greater.” RFP section L. part 12, page 127, “Activity Fund Estimate” also states “ USAID anticipates that 20-25% of the total budget of CLIN 001 is an appropriate estimate for the Activity Fund for programmatic subcontracting activities, local capacity development, and Grants under Contract (GUCs).” Could USAID please consider allowing offerors to propose any amount for the Activity Fund (including subcontracts and GUC) that aligns with their technical strategy for implementation, as long as it does not exceed $8 million?

The Activity Fund includes Transition Awardees that are expected to be selected and local organizations. However, USAID has considered this request and agrees that maximum flexibility would be better. The following sections were amended as follows:

- Section L.7.3.2.b is changed to “The Offeror must clearly explain how local organizations will be incorporated into proposed interventions utilizing the Activity Fund and the Offeror must identify the portion of its budget that will be set aside for the Activity Fund.”

- Section L.8 Part 2.A.11 is changed to: “Activity Fund: This Contract allows the establishment of an Activity Fund that includes Grants Under Contracts (GUCs), subcontracts to local organizations, and transition awards. USAID expects the Activity Fund to be in the range of 20% to 25% of the total CLIN 001 amount. However, this is not a mandatory amount and Offerors may propose the amount best suited for their technical approach. In no cases may the total amount for GUCs exceed $8,000,000 due to internal USAID approvals. Offeror must provide information sufficient to determine the reasonableness of costs proposed for each year.

Detailed information on proposed Activity Fund activities must be provided in the budget narrative. This section is exclusive for the cost of the activities and must not include cost related to management or oversight of the grant.”

- Section L.8 Part 12 - Activity Fund Estimate is changed to “USAID anticipates that 20-25% of the total budget of CLIN 001 is an appropriate estimate for the Activity Fund for Grants Under Contracts (GUCs), subcontracts to local organizations, and transition awards.” This is only an estimate and Offerors may propose the amount best suited for their approach. The GUC component of the Activity Fund cannot exceed a total of $8,000,000.

10. Section L.8.15, page 123, states, “USAID will not agree to allow the GUCs to be included in the calculation of fixed fee.” This appears to be inconsistent with FAR 15.404-4 and ADS 302.3.6.9, which state, inter alia, that pre-negotiation fee objectives must be determined according to a structured approach that considers contractor effort, risk, and other special factors. Grants require significant effort to administer and carry risks for the contractor. Additionally, the statutory underpinnings of fixed fee at 10 USC 2306(d) and 41 USC 254(b) discuss fee definitions and limitations in terms of total estimated cost, which would include grants in this case. Given this, we respectfully request that USAID reconsider its agency pre-negotiation fee objective of zero percent on grants and allow offerors to charge a fee that is reasonable and consistent with federal regulations.

The sentence “USAID will not agree to allow GUCs to be included in the calculation of fixed fee.” has been removed from Section L.8, Part 2, A.15 on page 123. However, when proposing the fixed fee, please note that fixed fee is an aspect of an offeror’s proposal that affects competitiveness.

11. Regarding RFP Section L.8, Part 2, B (CLIN 002) on page 124, please clarify the following items:

A. Must Offerors use the proposed ceiling daily rates (CDRs) for the CLIN 002 budget, or may they use more likely daily rates based on past experience?

For fairness in evaluation, all Offeror’s must use their proposed CDR in any budget calculations.

B. The last sentence of paragraph two states, “For each of the illustrative positions, qualifications include at least 5 years of relevant experience and a Master’s degree is preferred.” Should Offerors assume that these are the minimum requirements for all three levels, including junior positions? If so, would USAID consider lowering these qualifications for junior positions?

These minimum listed qualifications may apply to either the mid-level or senior-level positions.

The Offeror must be clear on the minimum qualifications they are proposing for all proposed salary levels.

C. The RFP states that Offerors should distribute 800 person-days equally across all labor categories each year (for a total of 4,000 person-days over five years). Would USAID please confirm the number of labor categories? There are four discrete position titles and one for technical experts in complementary areas (which could be several position titles), plus three levels for each and separate rates for local and expatriate hires. Does USAID expect LOE to be divided equally among the four positions x three levels x two types of staff = 24 labor categories? Or, should it be allocated equally among five positions x three levels x two types of staff = 30 labor categories?

The 4,000 person-days over five years must be evenly distributed among all proposed rates. If only 3 levels are done for the 5 listed labor types then the 4,000 hours would be distributed equally across the 15 proposed rates. If all positions are further proposed between local and expat rates, then the 4,000 labor hours would be equally distributed across the 30 proposed rates.

This distribution is solely done for evaluation purposes. The distribution is not binding on the final contract, however, proposed rates will be binding on any future task order that is issued.

D. The RFP states that there is a $1M limitation on ODCs. Would USAID confirm whether ODCs need to be broken out, or can it be budgeted as a lump sum?

For CLIN 002, Offerors must budget ODCs as appropriate but they may not exceed $1M.

E. What cost categories (e.g., travel, subcontracts, other direct costs, etc.) are included in the $1,000,000 ODC limitation? Is it correct to assume that this limitation captures all direct material costs and not just ODCs as a single cost category?

The $1M limit applies to all costs except labor, allowances, indirect rates, and fixed fee.

12. RFP Section L.8, Part 10 on page 127 indicates in the heading that Information to Support Consent must be submitted for major subcontractors; however, the text below refers to “proposed subcontractors.” Would USAID please confirm that Offerors may submit Information to Support Consent to for all subcontractors to ensure timely engagement of subcontractors?

Offerors are required to submit supporting data to support consent for any subcontractors proposed in the offer that require approval under FAR 52.244-2 (See I.12 of the RFP).

13. RFP Section L.8, Part 12 on page 127 clarifies that 20-25% of the budget must be set aside for the

Activity Fund. Would USAID please confirm that Part 12 is only a point of information and that there are no additional cost documents required for this section?

This is informational only and meant to assist in the budget preparation, however please note the “must” in the instruction as this makes it a requirement.

14. Regarding RFP Section L.8, Part 12, on page 127, would USAID please clarify whether the Activity

Fund should be 20-25% of the CLIN 001 budget only or the overall total of CLINs 001 and 002?

Correct, this applies to CLIN 001 only. See also the response to questions 7, 8, and 9.

15. Would USAID please provide Offerors with an updated LCP?

Please see the below LCP chart.

16. Page 10, B.5, Other Direct Cost Limitations Under CLIN 002, states: The estimated cost of this CLIN includes estimates for material, equipment, subcontracts, travel, and training required for performance of the total amount of work that can be ordered by the government under this CLIN during the life of this contract. The amount of ordered Other Direct costs will not exceed $1,000,000.00. Further, B.6.a, Level of Effort, states: In performing Government orders for Technical Assistance under CLIN 002, the Contractor is obligated to provide up to a maximum of 4,000 person-days.

Question: The Offeror respectfully requests to remove “subcontractors” from the Other Direct costs as subcontractor LOE will be a component of the LOE composition of CLIN 2.

Please see 11(E) for a response.

17. Page 118, L.8.A.g, Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal, CLIN 001, states: “The Offeror must propose cost and submit a summary budget for the full seven-year period of performance in the cost proposal. All proposed costs must be in accordance with the requirements stated in the RFP.” Page 124 , L.8.B, Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal, CLIN 002, states: “For estimating purposes the offeror must propose costs for a total of [800] person-days equally distributed across all labor categories for each of the five-year contract.”

Question: The offeror respectfully request clarification that CLIN 002 LOE should be equally distributed over 7 years per L.8.A.g. (571 days per year).

Please distribute CLIN 002 labor over 5 years.

18. Page 118, L.8.A.g, Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal, CLIN 001, states: “The Offeror must propose cost and submit a summary budget for the full seven-year period of performance in the cost proposal. All proposed costs must be in accordance with the requirements stated in the RFP.” Page 124 , L.8.B, Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal, CLIN 002, states: “For estimating purposes the offeror must propose costs for a total of [800] person-days equally distributed across all labor categories for each of the five-year contract.”

Question: The offeror respectfully request that the person-days not be required to be distributed equally across labor categories.

The person days must be distributed equally across the labor categories over five years. This distribution is solely done for evaluation purposes. The distribution is not binding on the final contract, however, proposed rates will be binding on any future task order that is issued.

19. Page 124, L.8.B, Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal, CLIN 002, states: “For each of the illustrative positions, qualifications include at least 5 years of relevant experience and a Master’s degree is preferred. • Survey design specialist; • Economic policy specialist; • Supply chain creation specialist; • Marketing and advertising specialist; and • Short term technical experts in complementary areas (socio-economic, cultural, peace).”

Question: The Offeror respectfully request to include an operational labor category in accordance with our cost structure to provide for realistic ordering mechanism under CLIN 002, and that as such, person-days not have to be distributed equally across labor categories.

Please see response to questions 11 and 18.

20. Section L.8, part 2e, page 117 states that the budget must be completed in the format included in Section J 15 –BUDGET TEMPLATE. The budget template provided in the RFP includes cost elements suitable for RFAs and it is missing cost elements applicable to CPFF Completion (CLIN

001) and CPFF term (CLIN 002). Please confirm that offerors may use a modified budget template, and include an overall summary budget outlining Section B of the RFP.

The correct budget template has been updated in Section J.

21. Section L.8, part 2a, page 117 states that offerors should include in their cost proposal “sufficient detail to support and explain all costs proposed, giving figures and narrative explanation (A line-item narrative is requested for each of the budget line items included).” Please confirm that offerors can submit a budget narrative in MS Word in order to address the required justification under each cost element.

USAID will accept budget narratives that are submitted in Microsoft Word format.

22. Section L.8, part 2g, page 118 states that the Offeror must propose costs and submit a summary budget for “the full seven-year period of performance” in the cost proposal. Please clarify whether the summary budget should be for the 5-year contract period of performance, or if task orders under CLIN 002 can extend an additional two years beyond the CLIN 001 performance period.

Task orders that are issued against the CLIN 002 IDIQ portion, may be for up to a 5-year period of performance and up to 2 years after the expiration of the CLIN 001 contract. The CLIN 001 period of performance is for 5-years from the date the contract is signed. Any task orders that go beyond the CLIN 001 period of performance will be issued with a budget to cover all costs after the end of CLIN 001.

23. Under L.8. Instructions for Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal, could USAID please allow a

Title Page to be submitted as part of the Cost/Business Proposal content in order to provide consistent labeling of the proposal and proper marking?

USAID will accept a title page for the Cost/Business Proposal.

24. If a Title Page is allowed for the Cost/Business Proposal content, could USAID please share what details (authorized negotiator, DUNS, etc.) should be included?

You may include the DUNS number, NCAGE code, NAICS code, Tax Identification Number, and any other appropriate information that is relevant.

25. Could USAID please provide detail for the definition of a Major Subcontractor under this effort? For example, are subcontractors considered Major Subcontractors if the size of their subcontract is 20% or more of the total project budget?

A Major Subcontractor is defined as consisting of 20% or more of the total budget for either CLIN.

26. Could USAID please clarify that the Security Budget, as referenced in Instructions for Preparation of the Cost Proposal, should be included as a part of the Other Direct Costs section of the Offeror’s CLIN 001 Detailed Budget?

The Security Budget may be included in the Other Direct Costs Category.

27. Could USAID please revise the solicitation to require Part 3 – Representations, Certifications, and

Other Statements of Offerors only for the Offeror and Major Subcontractors? Requiring this documentation from all subcontractors is excessively burdensome to smaller organizations.

While USAID understands the burden, all Offerors and subcontractors must complete the certifications and representations though USAID will accept a signed certification that this has been done for each subcontractor in lieu of all documentation, as it is the Prime’s responsibility to ensure they are following all applicable laws, regulations, and policies.

28. Page 118 – Section g. Could USAID please revise the following sentence to require a budget for the five (5) year period of performance?

a. The Offeror must propose cost and submit a summary budget for the full seven-year period of performance in the cost proposal.

The budget will be for the five-year period of performance.

29. Can you provide a more detailed explanation of what you mean by Hybrid between Cost plus fixed fee (CPFF) completion and the IDIQ portion or the contract? How will the relationship between USAID and the contractor differ across the two contracts?

Please refer to PEB 2014-01 https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/peb2014_01.pdf for more detailed information about Hybrid contracts. USAID anticipates awarding a single hybrid contract.

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/peb2014_01.pdf

30. Can project staff on the completion contract bill time for their work on responding to RFTOPs under the IDIQ contract?

USAID/Colombia may consider this request at the time of issuance of a RFTOP depending on consultations with USAID/Washington.

31. Can you confirm that TOs under the IDIQ contract for the Project can have a period of performance of up to 5 and run up to two years beyond the end of the completion contract, as long as they are contracted 5 years before the end of the 7 year time limit?

Task orders that are issued against the CLIN 002 IDIQ portion, may be for up to a 5-year period of performance at a maximum. An individual task order may go up to 2 years after the expiration of the contract. A task order that would go a full 2 years past the expiration of the contract would have to have started by Year 3 of the contract at the earliest.

32. Do all IDIQ TOs have to be contracted before the end of the completion contract?

All TO’s have to be contracted before the end of the period of performance of the contract.

33. Should the IDIQ portion of the budget be presented in a stand-alone Excel sheet, or should it be a separate worksheet in the overall budget that is totaled in the summary page of the budget?

Offerors must submit the CLIN 002 budget as a worksheets within one Excel budget file that is totaled in the summary page of the budget.

34. Do all subcontractors have to complete section K or only major subcontractors? What defines a major subcontractor for this contract?

Please see answers to questions 25 and 27.

35. Are the labor rates for junior, mid-level, and senior TA categories burdened or unburdened?

All labor rates for full-time employees must be unburdened.

36. Should private sector funds that are leveraged as part of the partnership to be shown in the budget?

They may be included in the budget submission but not included as part of the total estimated cost of the award.

37. Is there a maximum number of grants that can be given to social movement and civil society organizations?

The RFP has been updated to clarify that Grants Under Contract (GUC) must be no more than $8m.

There are strict regulations that govern giving US funding to government entities that must be considered prior to entering into any agreement. Offerors must follow their own internal policies in selecting specific recipients of GUCs.

38. Should potential grantees also sign letters of commitment?

USAID only requests letters of commitment for any major subcontractors as defined in response to question 25.

39. Do grantees need to provide counterpart funds to receive a grant?

Each Offeror is welcome to propose different approaches to issuing GUCs through their proposed Grants Manual and USAID highly encourages the review of ADS 302.3.4.13.

40. Given the atypical situation created by the pandemic, which makes it more difficult to do business during the current quarantine, would USAID consider extending the deadline for submission of proposals.

USAID is not extending the deadline for submission of proposals at this time.

41. Is it required to present letters of commitment for Key Personnel for the project?

In accordance with Section L.7.2 signed letters of commitments are required for Key Personnel.

Contractual:

1. Could USAID please clarify the period of performance for FEMPOW? Section L.8, Part 2g, states with emphasis that it is a seven-year period of performance, but all other RFP sections (Section F.2, other parts of Section L.8, budget template in Section J.4) indicate a five-year period of performance.

The period of performance is for 5-years from the date the contract is signed. Task orders that are issued against the CLIN 002 IDIQ portion, may be for up to a 5-year period of performance and up to 2 years after the expiration of the CLIN 001 contract. As such, any task order that would be implemented for the full two years after the expiration of the contract would have started in Year 3.

2. RFP section B.10 and F.2 state the period of performance as five years, but section L.8.g, page 118 states, “The Offeror must propose cost and submit a summary budget for the full seven-year period of performance of the cost proposal.” Could USAID please confirm that the period of performance for implementation is five years and that offerors should submit detailed budgets for a five-year period?

Correct. This has been amended in the RFP to request a 5-year budget.

3. Could USAID please clarify the definition of a major subcontractor? The term “major subcontractor” is used multiple times in the RFP, but there is no definition.

Please see response to question 25 above.

4. Section H.3.a, page 40 states, “All Cooperating Country Nationals (CCNs) and Third Country Nationals (TCNs) salaries must not exceed the Local compensation Plan (LCP).” We respectfully request that this salary restriction be removed from the RFP, because it appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR

752.7007 Personnel Compensation, incorporated in the contract under Section H.2 (page 39), 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 salary restriction above may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices, as required by AIDAR 752.700.

In accordance with AIDAR 722.170 this requirement cannot be removed. It is USAID policy to provide CCNs who are hired abroad under USAID-direct contracts the same benefits and be subject to the same restrictions as CCNs employed by the USAID Mission. Any proposed CCN salary that exceeds the LCP may be considered on a case-by-case basis with a clear and convincing justification and would require a waiver from this federal regulation (AIDAR 722.170).

5. Section H.9, page 47, requires compliance with ADS 302 but states “GUCs to partner Government entities have not been authorized.” Given that ADS 302.3.4.13 allows for solely in-kind grants to government entities, could USAID please modify the language in section H.9 of the RFP to allow the contractor to award solely in-kind grants to government entities?

The RFP Section H.9 has been amended to read as follows “Cash GUCs to partner Government entities have not been authorized; however, in accordance with ADS 302.3.4.13 (b)(1), GUCS that are in-kind, technical assistance, and other activities provided to or for the benefit of a partner government entity, are authorized.”

6. Section J.1, Statement of Objectives, 9.g., page 141, indicates Offerors must develop a Security Plan, whereas Section L. Part 2, page 124, states, “Offerors are not required to submit the security plan as part of the proposal.” Could USAID please confirm that a security plan is not required at the proposal stage?

Costs associated with security should be included in the cost proposal but a full security plan is not required at the proposal stage.

7. Section L.6.d., page 108, and section L.6.k., page 109, note that no cost information must be submitted in the technical proposal. RFP section L.7.3.2, page 111, under instructions for the Performance Work Statement, states, “the Offeror must identify the portion of its budget that will be set aside for GUCs, with a minimum amount of 20% or $8,000,000.00, whichever is greater.” Could USAID revise section L.7.3.2 of the RFP to require this information only in the cost proposal?

USAID has considered this request, but concluded that this is an important part of the technical evaluation and must be included. However, the RFP has been updated to clarify that GUCs must be no more than $8m.

8. Section L.7.2., page 110 states, “Text in any text boxes included within the technical proposal must not be less than 12 points in size.” Would USAID consider allowing text smaller than size 12 in text boxes as long as it is legible?

The RFP Section L.7.2 has been amended to say that text boxes included within the technical proposal must not be less than 9 points in size.

9. Section L.7.2., page 110 states, “All graphs and charts must be included in the annexes.” Would USAID consider revising this language to allow graphics related to technical strategy and management structure in the body of the Performance Work Statement and Management Approach?

The RFP Section L.7.2 has been amended to allow graphics to be included in the Performance Work Statement and Management Approach to read as follows “Graphs and charts can be included in the Performance Work Statement, the Management Approach and annexes”.

10. Section L.7.2, page 110 requires a 30-page limit for technical annexes. The ten required technical annexes are comprehensive and will exceed 30 pages. We kindly request that USAID a) consider revising the page limit for technical annexes to 60 pages with the exception of past performance references and information in using small business concerns which we request no page limit; or b) require individual page limits for each annex.

Proposed Page Limits for Technical Annexes:

• 12-page limit for key personnel CVs

• 5-page limit for personnel summary matrix

• 6-page limit for Contractor Performance Report-Short Form (attachment J.9)

• No page limit for past performance references and information in using small business concerns

• 5-page limit for organizational chart(s) and other graphics

• 2-page limit for small disadvantaged business participation program targets

• 7-page limit for Quality Assurance and Surveillance Plan (the template, Attachment J.15, is 7 pages)

• 6-page limit for Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (the template, attachment J.12 is 6 pages)

• 8-page limit for Branding Implementation Plan (the template, Attachment J.8, is 8 pages)

• 6-page limit for signed letters of commitment from major subcontractors and key personnel

The RFP Section L.6.a and L.7.2 has been amended to reflect a 50-page limit for the technical annex.

11. Section L.7.2., page 110 requires “Small Disadvantaged Business participation program targets information,” which is not mentioned elsewhere in the RFP. Could USAID confirm that instead of “Small Disadvantaged Business participation program targets information,” offerors should submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan, per section L.8.B, Part 6, in the cost proposal?

USAID confirms that this is referring to the potential Small Business Subcontracting Plan, which is encouraged, but not required, and up to the discretion of the Offeror whether they propose this as part of their proposal.

12. Section L.7.5.d, page 115, states, “provide a list of the contracts for which you submitted subcontract reports to eSRS over the past three years and a copy of any similarly recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS.” Our hard-copy subcontracting reports, SF-294s, for the past three years total 74 pages and comprise more than 1 MB in file size. Instead of submitting the electronic files totaling 1 MB with 74 pages of SF-294 reports and a listing of eSRS reports, could USAID allow Offerors to submit only a list of 10 relevant eSRS reports and a copy of 10 SF-294 forms that are not duplicated on the eSRS?

Section L.7.5.d.3 (B) has been revised to read as follows: “(B) To supplement the narrative in (A) provide a copy of the three (3) most recent SF-294 “Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts” reports submitted to eSRS (FAR 52.219-9(d)(10)) over the past three years or a copy of any similar recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS.”

13. The RFP attachment, Excel Budget Template, includes a “Narrative” tab. To present this information more easily, would USAID allow this information to be presented in PDF format as part of the cost proposal narrative as opposed to in the Excel spreadsheets?

USAID will accept budget narratives that are submitted in Microsoft Word format but not in PDF format.

14. The RFP attachments include a template for the Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (AMELP). Attachment J.13 AMELP Guidance states, “there is no contractually required format for partners to use in constructing the AMELP, this template can help USAID and its IPs ensure this plan meets the standards of USAID monitoring, evaluation and learning policies and directives.” Could USAID allow offerors to use their own template for the draft AMELP?

Yes, Offerors may use their own template for the draft AMELP as long as that plan meets the standards of USAID monitoring, evaluation and learning policies and directives and includes the content from the USAID template.

15. RFP Section F.7.3, page 20, states, “Indicators for the activity as a whole can be drawn from the Standard Foreign Assistance Indicators,” but page 20 states that the AMELP must include both USAID Standard Foreign Assistance indicators and customized indicators. Please confirm if the Offeror is to recommend custom indicators in the technical proposal.

It is up to the Offeror to propose indicators. Proposed indicators should include Standard Foreign Assistance Indicators and may also include custom indicators.

16. RFP Section F.7.3, page 20, states, “the Contractor must revise and submit a final version [of the AMELP] within 10 calendar days for COR approval.” On page 21, the RFP states the final version is due 90 days after award. Would USAID please clarify the deadline for the final AMELP submission?

Section F.7.3 has been amended and the following text was deleted “After the receipt of USAID/Colombia comments, the Contractor must revise and submit a final version within 10 calendar days for COR approval”. The final version of the AMELP is due 90 days after award..

17. RFP Section L.7.5., a.1., asks the Offeror to “List in an annex to the technical proposal up to two (2) of the most recent and relevant performed contracts or on-going contracts…and up to two (2) for each major subcontractor…” Given that it is unusual to include more PPRs for major subcontractors than for the prime, please confirm the number of…