72051422R00005 (01) - Attachment 2 - Questions and Answers.pdf

RFP 72051422R00005 – SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

ATTACHMENT 2 – QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (Q&A) DOCUMENT

Technical:

1. Pages 44-48 state that all key personnel are required to have either Level IV or Level III

English proficiency, depending on the position. The market for Colombian candidates who are experts in agriculture, have experience with USAID/development programming, and have the required level of English proficiency is extremely small. Would USAID instead consider revising the key personnel requirements in the RFP to remove the language requirements for each role to be replaced instead with, "i. The requirements below are the basic minimum requirements and responsibilities for each key personnel position. Between the COP and DCOP, one key personnel role must have written and spoken fluency in both Spanish and English (Level III for both)”, in order to increase the opportunity for bidders to propose qualified Colombian experts in senior leadership roles?

USAID will maintain the language requirements for Key Personnel as they are currently written in the RFP for the COP and the DCOP. The language requirements for the Partnership and Private Sector Engagement Specialist and the Activity Fund Manager are revised to “Written and spoken fluency in Spanish (minimum level III) and English (minimum level II).”

2. Page 17, Section C.3, Component 3, USAID states, "CSA can embrace a whole-of-landscape perspective." Question: The Offeror respectfully requests clarification from USAID concerning its definition of "whole-of-landscape perspective."

The following text was added at the end of the paragraph on Component 3, “A whole-of-landscape perspective refers to the connection of farmer’s individual plots to the surrounding environment, and takes into consideration the farmer’s impact on the local ecosystem.”

3. Page 21, Section C.4, Grants Under Contracts, states, “For commercial entities, MSME funds must be on a 1:1 leverage match for the least experienced firms and be on a sliding scale based on the capacity of the recipient. Larger firms should have a 30% (USAID) 70% (larger firm) match or more.” Question: The Offeror respectfully requests clarification from USAID concerning the definition and threshold of “larger firms.”

Please find below the definition of small, medium and large enterprises:

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) employ fewer than 250 people. SMEs are further subdivided into micro enterprises (fewer than 10 employees), small enterprises (10 to 49 employees), medium-sized enterprises (50 to 249 employees). Large enterprises employ 250 or more people. Enterprises by business size - Entrepreneurship - OECD Data.

4. Page 23, Section C.6, Geographic Focus, states, “the key three geographic regions of focus for this activity include but are not limited to: 1) Catatumbo 2) Bajo Cauca and Southern https://data.oecd.org/entrepreneur/enterprises-by-business-size.htm

Bolivar, and 3) Caquetá/Meta.” However, page 157 included as attachment J.5, Initial Municipalities List, does not include initial municipalities for the Department of Meta.

Question: The Offeror respectfully requests clarification from USAID if there are target municipalities in Meta to be considered as initial municipalities in the proposal.

A decision was made to not include Meta in SA’s target geography. Section C.6 was revised to delete “Meta.” Note that this could change during implementation, as indicated in the solicitation.

5. Page 45, Section F.7, bullet b. of the COP requirements states, “Minimum of ten (10) years of experience managing complex development projects.” Question: The Offeror respectfully requests that USAID confirm that complex development projects include economic development projects led by the private sector.

It is expected that the offeror will propose someone for the COP role who has the experience needed to lead this project successfully.

6. Pages 46 and 47, Section F.7, Key and Non-Key Personnel, requires that the DCOP, Partnerships and Private Sector Engagement Specialist and the Activity Fund Manager have “written and spoken fluency in Spanish and English (Level III in both).” USAID Form 1420 Biographical Data Sheets describes proficiency level 3 as “General professional proficiency” rather than “fluency.” Question: The Offeror respectfully requests that USAID/Colombia confirm that these three Key Personnel are required to have General Professional Proficiency in Spanish and English, as described for level III in Biographical Data Sheet 1420.

See response to Question #1. Definitions for language proficiency are defined in the Biographical Data Sheet 1420

7. Pages 46 and 47, Section F.7, Key and Non-Key Personnel, requires that the DCOP, Partnerships and Private Sector Engagement Specialist and the Activity Fund Manager have written and spoken fluency in English and Spanish. Question: The Offeror respectfully requests that, considering that most of the work and documentation for the Activity will be in Spanish, and given USAID/Colombia’s preference for a diverse team of qualified Colombian professionals, USAID/Colombia consider lowering or removing the English language requirement for some positions.

See response to Question #1

8. Section C.3., page 13 of the RFP, says that “the activity will work primarily in the coffee, cacao, rubber, dairy, fruits and vegetables value chains” but it also mentions that “the contractor is encouraged to explore other value chains with economic potential based upon regional market systems analysis.” Could USAID please confirm whether palm oil can be considered as an important regional commercial crop that can be an environmentally sustainable option for producers in that region?

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/AID1420-17.doc&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1647454837014469&usg=AOvVaw1Vl6cQTV3Z5e1utOTp782o

Palm oil will not be considered as a target value chain for this activity.

9. Section C.6., page 23, states “The three geographic regions of focus for this activity include but are not limited to: 1) Catatumbo 2) Bajo Cauca and Southern Bolivar, and 3) Caqueta / Meta. The list of specific municipalities where work will initially be implemented is provided in Section J.5.” However, in J.5 no municipalities are listed for Meta. Could USAID please clarify if bidders should include Meta in their analysis for the proposal (and if so which municipalities) or if it is listed only as a potential geographic focus for future programming?

See response to Question #4.

10. Section C.6., page 23, also mentions the need to work in line with the Mission’s Regional

Integration Strategy. Could USAID please share its Regional Integration Strategy?

The link to the Regional Integration Strategy has been included in section J.1.

11. Section C.6 states that the three geographic regions of focus include 3) Caquetá/Meta, however, in J.5 the list of municipalities does not include Meta. Could USAID please clarify if specific municipalities of the Meta department will be part of this Activity?

12. On page 125, in section L.7.4.1. Key Personnel, it states: “individuals proposed for Key

Personnel positions must be available immediately upon contract signature to initiate the assignment in the Activity”. Given that most people need to give at least 2 weeks (and in some cases 3 – 4 weeks in Colombia) notice to their employer, would USAID consider allowing for more time for proposed personnel to be available?

Section L.7.4.1 Key Personnel has been revised as follows: “Individuals proposed for Key Personnel positions must be available within two weeks of contract signature to initiate the assignment in the Activity.”

13. Section F.7. Key and Non-Key Personnel, pages 45-46, requires Level IV in English and Spanish for the chief of party, and Level III in English and Spanish for the deputy chief of party, the partnerships and private engagement specialist, and the activity fund manager.

Would USAID kindly consider changing the English language requirement for these positions to “preferred” instead of “required.” This would allow offerors to explore a larger pool of valuable candidates, to present USAID with the best identified profiles.

See response to Question #1.

14. In Section J.1. the technical links for reference do not open, could USAID please allow access?

Attachments J.1.2 and J.1.3 have been revised so that Offerors have access to these documents.

15. Pages 44-48 state that all key personnel are required to have either Level IV or Level III

English proficiency, depending on the position. The market for Colombian candidates who are experts in agriculture, have experience with USAID/development programming, and have the required level of English proficiency is extremely small. Would USAID instead consider revising the key personnel requirements in the RFP to remove the language requirements for each role, to be replaced instead with, "i. The requirements below are the basic minimum requirements and responsibilities for each key personnel position. Between the COP and DCOP, one key personnel role must have written and spoken fluency in both Spanish and English (Level III for both)”, in order to increase the opportunity for bidders to propose qualified Colombian experts in senior leadership roles?

See response to Question #1.

16. C.4. page 22 states that, "The Contractor must manage and oversee construction subcontracts that will co-finance both market and transportation infrastructure and work closely with a third-party Architecture and Engineering contractor on the design and/or quality assurance of any construction project....” and, provide "b. Confirmation that engineering design was completed by a licensed architecture-engineer firm." Are Architecture and Engineering (A&E) costs such as studies, assessments, etc covered under the $3Million small infrastructure fund? If not, will such costs be covered by other Activity Fund resources?

All infrastructure related studies, assessments and designs must be included in the Activity Fund.

17. In L.7.41 it states “the four Key Personnel Positions include the Chief of Party, the Deputy Chief of Party, the Partnership and Private Sector Engagement Specialist, and the Activity Fund Manager. However in section F.7 - Key Personnel – Partnerships and Private Sector Engagement Specialist (page 48), the Activity Fund Manager Responsibilities include:

“Working closely with the COP, DCOP the Partnerships and Private Sector Specialists ….”

Would USAID please clarify if this pluralizing Private Sector Specialists is a typo, or does USAID anticipate other positions with the same title as the Key Personnel- Partnerships and Private Sector Specialist?

Yes, this was a typo. The “s” was deleted at the end of Specialists in Section L.7.4.1..

18. C.3. minimum activities under IR 1.2. page 15. "Incentivize private sector investment to improve access to finance and value chains with a minimum leverage 1:1 for Global Development Partners...." Would USAID please provide a reference to or define what private sector entities are included in the term "Global Development Partner"?

According to the USAID Private Sector Engagement Policy, a private partner can be for-profit, commercial entities and their affiliated foundations; Financial institutions, investors https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1865/usaid_psepolicy_final.pdf and intermediaries; Business associations and cooperatives; Micro, small, medium and large enterprises; American, local, regional, and multinational businesses; and For-profit approaches that generate sustainable income (e.g., a venture fund run by a non-governmental organization (NGO) or a social enterprise). These types of private sector entities are the ones USAID wants to partner with through a Public private partnership

(PPP).

The reference to Global Development Partners under IR 1.2: Improved quality of agricultural products delivered to markets was removed to avoid confusions.

19. In section F.3. page 28 "Performance of CLIN 001 of this contract and task orders issues under CLIN002 hereunder will be in Colombia (514)." Would USAID consider expanding the place of performance statement to include the USA and indicate if other locations will be approved to permit achievement of IR objectives? For example, under IR 1.1 Increased domestic and international market opportunities for Colombian agricultural products, the minimum activities include "Conduct international marketing efforts, such as online events and international trade events, to elevate the profile of Colombian products in international markets." (page 15 ). If the most productive expertise on international markets is found in a market external to Colombia, restricting performance solely to Colombia may reduce outcome targets.

The place of performance will remain Colombia (514). Certain activities outside Colombia may be considered on a case by case basis as part of the implementation plan.

20. Under H.4. Authorized geographic code page 54. Meeting the IR 1.1 objective of increased domestic and international market opportunities for Colombian agricultural products will be constrained and rendered less timely by the additional administrative requirements and uncertainty of approval of waivers to source expertise and services from non-prohibited geographies regionally and internationally. Would USAID consider applying the 935 code to CLIN 001and/or CLIN 002 in this procurement?

See response to Question #19.

21. Section C.3, Page 15. The RFP requires “a minimum leverage of 1:1 for Global

Development Partners and minimum leverage of 70% - 30% for PPPs”. Can USAID clarify the difference in these two types of partnerships?

The reference to Global Development Partnerships under IR 1.2: Improved quality of agricultural products delivered to markets was removed to avoid confusions.

For PPPs, at a minimum, the contractor will Incentivize private sector investment to improve access to finance and value chains. USAID expects the private sector to leverage at least 30% of the resources of the total partnership, and USAID could contribute with the remaining 70%.

22. Section C.6, Page 23. Could USAID clarify the geographic focus between this section and Attachment J.5?

23. The RFP notes that Meta is part of the geographic focus for this activity in C.6. However, in Attachment J.5, page 157, Meta is not included. Can USAID confirm if Meta is part of the geographic focus? And if it is, can USAID provide the initial target municipalities for Meta?

See response to Question #4

24. The RFP includes Cordoba in Attachment J.5, but it is not mentioned in C.6. Can USAID confirm if Cordoba (and the noted municipalities) are part of the geographic focus?

Yes, Cordoba is included as part of the geographic focus. The first sentence of the first paragraph in Section C.6. has been revised as follows: “The three geographic regions of focus for this activity include but are not limited to: 1) Catatumbo 2) Bajo Cauca, Cordoba, Southern Bolivar and 3) Caqueta.”

Also, on Attachment J.5 Initial Municipal List, numeral 2 was revised to include Cordoba in the title.

25. Section F.5.18, Page 41. The RFP references a Data Management Plan (DMP), but in the description of the AMELP components, on page 33 there is reference to a plan for managing data. Can USAID clarify the difference between these two?

The Data Management Plan referenced on Page 41 is considered a component of the

AMELP.

26. Under H.11 page 65. Transition of Knowledge, Skills and Abilities states the "Local institutions and organizations will be supported, utilized, and/or built to the greatest extent possible, in order to carry out program interventions. These organizations should become sustainable as a matter of a deliverable, not merely as a goal. " Would USAID please clarify if its evaluation of the technical proposal will incorporate achievement of organizational sustainability as a deliverable? If so, will USAID please specify what organizational sustainability measure(s) it intends to apply to local institutions and organizations?

Please see Section M.3.1 - Technical Approach. No further guidance will be given on the evaluation criteria.

27. Attachment J.1, Page 144. Would USAID provide a word version of this attachment?

Attachments J.1.2 and J.1.3 have been revised so that Offerors have access to these documents. The rest of the links in J.1 are accessible.

28. (Technical Links for Reference)? The links cannot be accessed from the PDF version.

See response to Question #27.

29. Attachment J.4, Page 153. Does USAID consider the Feed the Future indicators and the indicators marked as high priority for sustainable landscapes as critical for the Sustainable Agriculture Activity?

As provided in Section J.4 - List of Illustrative Indicators, offerors should select indicators that best match their technical approach from the list provided as well as propose their own custom indicators.

30. Can USAID provide all assessments and reports carried out by the Producers to Market

Alliances program or ensure they are posted to the DEC?

Yes, these links have been included in Section J.1.

31. Section L.7.3, Page 124. Can USAID clarify/add more details on the mapping chart described in this section? How extensive or exhaustive should this list be? Would the list include local consortium partners?

USAID will not provide any additional guidance on this. It is up to each offeror to clearly present a plan to meet the requirements in Section L.7.3.

Business/Cost:

32. Page 21, Section C.4, Activity Fund, states, “The Activity Fund can include Grants under

Contract (GUCs) and Subcontracts.” Further, page 40, Section F.5.14, Activity Fund Manual, states, “The Activity Fund can include Grants under Contract (GUCs) and Subcontracts.” Later, on page 131, Section L.8, Part 2.A.10, Activity Fund, states, “Offerors should use the Activity Fund to account for subcontracts to local organizations and Grants under Contract (GUCs).” Question: The Offeror respectfully requests confirmation from USAID that the Activity Fund can be inclusive of all subcontracts as defined by FAR 44.101.

Yes, the Activity Fund can be inclusive of all subcontracts. Section C.4 clearly describes the technical purpose of the Activity Fund for the Sustainable Agriculture Activity which is broader than subcontracts.

33. Section L.8 Part 2, Pages 131-132. Please confirm if Subcontracts with non-local organizations can be included under the Activity Fund.

Yes, the Activity Fund can be inclusive of all subcontracts. Section C.4 clearly describes the technical purpose of the Activity Fund for the Sustainable Agriculture Activity which is broader than subcontracts.

34. Section C. Statement of Work. C.4. Activity Fund. The RFP states that “Between 40-50% of the Total Estimated Cost of CLIN 001 of this Activity is required to be spent through an Activity Fund. The Activity Fund can include Grants under Contract (GUCs) and Subcontracts.” Based on the previous, can USAID confirm whether the Activity Fund can also be used for consulting projects under a Firm Fixed Fee arrangement?

Yes, with the understanding the Offeror is referring to a consulting firm fixed price subcontract. Section C.4 clearly describes the technical purpose of the Activity Fund for the Sustainable Agriculture Activity which is broader than subcontracts.

35. Section C. Supplemental Technical Assistance (CLIN 002). Can USAID confirm whether consulting projects under a Firm Fixed Fee arrangement could be used under CLIN 002?

Per Section C.5 of the RFP,” supplemental technical assistance is intended primarily to respond to emerging unanticipated priorities in support of work by the GOC and/or the USG but may also be used to support and complement specific opportunities that present themselves in response to inclusive rural development opportunities in conflict-affected areas.

Supplemental capacity may be required in any of the subject areas covered by the contract and any subsequent modifications. Activities may include technical assistance, training, logistics support, preparation of reports, monitoring, planning, analysis and assessments;

as well as promoting dialogue between stakeholders and partners.”

36. Page 123, Section L7.2., Format, Page Limitation and Content, states “The text in any text boxes included within the technical proposal must not be less than 12 points in size. Text in graphs, charts and text boxes may be less than 12 points in size but no less than 8 points and must be legible.” [italics added] Question: The Offeror respectfully requests that USAID confirm that “Text in graphs, charts and text boxes may be less than 12 points in size but no less than 8 points and must be legible.”

The sentence “The text in any text boxes included within the technical proposal must not be less than 12 points in size” was removed from this section.

37. Section L.7.2, Format, Page Limitations and Content, page 123, reads, “The text in any text boxes included within the technical proposal must not be less than 12 points in size.

Text in graphs, charts and text boxes may be less than 12 points in size but no less than 8 points and must be legible.” Could USAID please confirm that text boxes in the Technical Proposal may feature a font size of less than 12 points but no less than 8?

38. On page 123, Section L.7.2 states, “The text in any text boxes included within the technical proposal must not be less than 12 points in size.” and goes on to state “The text in graphs, charts and text boxes may be less than 12 points in size but no less than 8 points.” Could USAID confirm that we are able to use 8-point font and higher in text boxes?

39. Section L.7.2, Page 123. In the proposal preparation in this section, the RFP that the text in any text boxes included within the technical proposal must not be less than 12 points in size but in a separate sentence thereafter, it is stated, texts in graphics, charts, and textboxes may be less than 12 points in size but no less than 8 points; Can USAID confirm that text in textboxes can be less than 12-point font?

40. Page 135, section B, CLIN 002 states, “The Offeror must propose ceiling daily rates for each of the positions listed below. For each of the positions, qualifications include at least 5 years of relevant experience.” Question: The Offeror respectfully requests confirmation from USAID that offerors may propose three differing rates for each position based on level of experience (i.e., junior level, mid-level, senior-level, etc.).

Offerors can propose separate ceiling rates for the same position by level; if that is the case, they must include in their cost proposal sufficient detail to support and explain all costs proposed, giving figures and a narrative explanation, in accordance with Section L.8 Part

2.B. CLIN 002.

41. Page 135, section B, CLIN 002 states, “The Offeror must propose ceiling daily rates for

5 years of relevant experience.” Question: The Offeror respectfully requests confirmation that Offerors may further distinguish rates for positions by local hires and expatriate hires.

Offerors can distinguish rates for positions by local hires and expatriate hires; if that is the case, they must include in their cost proposal sufficient detail to support and explain all costs proposed, giving figures and a narrative explanation, in accordance with Section L.8 Part 2.B. CLIN 002.

42. Page 135, section B, CLIN 002 states, “The Offeror must propose ceiling daily rates for

5 years of relevant experience. -Home Office Support….” Question: The Offeror respectfully requests confirmation that Offerors may propose positions under “Home Office Support” consistent with its accounting practices.

Offerors can propose positions under “Home Office Support” consistent with its accounting practices; if that is the case, they must include in their cost proposal sufficient detail to support and explain all costs proposed, giving figures and a narrative explanation, in accordance with Section L.8 Part 2.B. CLIN 002.

43. Section L.8 Part 2B, Page 136. The RFP requires ceiling daily rates be provided for the 20 labor categories listed. Please confirm that the categories of Home Office Support and Activity Fund Support are expected to be USN/TCN offsite personnel and all other categories are expected to be CCN/TCN onsite personnel.

Not necessarily. Offerors can propose positions as deemed appropriate. Offerors must include in their cost proposal sufficient detail to support and explain all costs proposed, giving figures and a narrative explanation, in accordance with Section L.8 Part 2.B. CLIN 002.

44. In section L.8.Part 2.B. CLIN002, the RFP states, "The offeror must propose ceiling daily rates for each of the positions listed below. For each of the positions, qualifications must include at least 5 years of relevant experience."

a) Can USAID please expand this definition of qualifications to include educational degree minimums for these positions?

The reference to at least five years of experience was included for Offerors to properly budget ceiling daily rates. Qualifications will not be expanded at this point, since the execution of CLIN 002 is not defined at this time. If and when the Government determines to issue an RFTOP per Section F.9, further details will be provided.

b) Will USAID please confirm that it is requesting a blended rate across qualification levels for each category, rather than a single rate based upon the minimum experience qualification?

Offerors can propose single rates or separate ceiling rates for the same position by level; if that is the case, they must include in their cost proposal sufficient detail to support and explain all costs proposed, giving figures and a narrative explanation, in accordance with Section L.8 Part 2.B. CLIN 002.

45. Page 138, Part 9, Letters of Commitment (Major Subcontractors), states “The

Cost/Business Proposal must include a letter, on subcontractor letterhead, and signed by an authorized representative of each major subcontractor, which specifically indicates the subcontractor's agreement to be included in the Offeror's proposed teaming arrangement.”

Question: The Offeror respectfully requests USAID consider adding an annex to the cost proposal for letters of intent/commitment from subcontractors that do not meet the “major subcontractor” threshold, as well as from local organizations.

Letters of Commitment are only required for major subcontractors per the terms of the RFP. As stated in the document, USAID expects that Offerors will have equal access to all local organizations needed for this contract, and strongly discourages exclusivity agreements with local partners.

46. Sections F.6., page 43, and L.8, page 135, state that 70% of CLIN 0001 fixed fee will be paid according to completion of measurable deliverables, targets, or outputs based on their specific Technical Approach. However, deliverables set as part of the proposal process may change during implementation due to evolving technical needs, newly emerged opportunities, and stakeholders’ priorities. To account for these potential shifts, would USAID consider adding the following language to Section F.6: “The Fixed Fee Schedule may be adjusted during annual work planning to reprogram any unpaid fees from partially completed or nonaccepted deliverables from the past year into other or additional deliverables as mutually agreed to between the COR and the contractor, ensuring the fee remains fixed.” Adjusting the fee distribution plan with each annual work plan allows the Contractor to readjust and reallocate effort and resources as needed to achieve the most results attainable within the total estimated cost.

This is a FAR 16.102(b) combination award consisting of a Cost-plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) Completion (CLIN 001) and a single-award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type contract (CLIN 002) for the purpose of providing supplemental technical assistance.

The type of award indicates the contractor is required and expected to complete the deliverables in Section C and F. If needed, FAR Clause 52.243-4 Changes, allows the Contracting Officer to modify the contract during implementation.Th suggested language will not be added.

47. Section L.7.5.d.3, Past Performance, on page 126, states “To supplement the narrative summary above, provide a list of two recent contracts for which you submitted subcontract reports to eSRS (FAR 52.219-(d)(10) and a copy of any similarly recent [over the past three years] subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS.” For some offerors, their hardcopy subcontracting reports, SF-294s, for the past three years may surpass 100 pages and comprise more than 2.52 MB. In addition to the hardcopy SF-294s for projects not registered in the eSRS, offerors may have also submitted individual subcontracting reports through the eSRS for registered projects. Instead of submitting the electronic files totaling

2.52 MB with more than 100 pages of SF-294 reports, would USAID allow offerors to submit a list of five relevant eSRS reports?

Please note this section only requires the list of two recent contracts for which the offerors submitted subcontract reports to eSRS and not the actual reports. Only if they were not submitted to eSRS, a copy of a similar report is required.

48. Section L.8., Part 2, A: CLIN 001 10. Activity Fund, page 131, states, “Offerors must provide sufficient information to determine the reasonableness of costs proposed for each year. Detailed information on proposed grant activities must be provided in the budget narrative.” As the successful offeror will submit a grants manual within 60 days of award, which details the process for identifying, evaluating, vetting, awarding, and monitoring grant activities, could USAID please confirm that a plug figure may be included in the proposal submission as the grantee selection process will be initiated after award and in coordination with USAID?

Yes, a plug figure may be included. Please note this section also states “GUCs funding can be used as an activity implementation mechanism as Offerors deem appropriate” and therefore, USAID’s intent is to assess “the reasonableness of costs proposed for each year”.

49. On page 22, the link for USAID’s Construction Risk-Assessment Tool does not open.

Could USAID please provide an updated link?

The link is available to USAID personnel only; as such, this section states “the COR must complete the required risk screening by using USAID’s Construction Risk-Assessment Tool”. For Offerors’ reference, the link is included in the” Management of Construction Risk A Mandatory Reference for ADS Chapter 201” at:

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/201maw.pdf

50. In section L.7.5 Past Performance (1), the RFP states that offerors and subcontractors must provide past performance information using the template provided in the attachment J.5.

Can USAID confirm that the attachment intended to be used for Past Performance is attachment J.7? Additionally, could USAID please confirm whether this form is required if the contractor is referencing a project that has information listed in the government past performance systems.

Yes, the correct attachment is J.7. The RFP has been amended to update the reference.

51. Per section H.3.a, “CCN and TCN Salaries should not exceed LCP Max…” in order to ensure that CCN and TCN salaries are not above LCP max ranges, could USAID share the most recent LCP for Colombia?

52. Section H.3.a, Page 56. The RFP states that CCN and TCN salaries must not exceed the

Local Compensation Plan (LCP). Can USAID please provide the current LCP?

Please see the LCP above.

53. Attachment J.8 Budget Guidance and Template – In line with the instructions under L.8

Instructions for Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal (specifically Part 2 – Proposed Costs and Prices/Detailed Budget Narrative) which states that “The cost proposal must be prepared in a manner consistent with your current accounting system,” could USAID please confirm that offerors may adjust the provided budget template to account for their cost structures, provided offerors explain any such deviations in the written budget narrative?

Offerors must use the format included in J.8. Offerors may also complement this information by using their own detailed budget spreadsheet as a separate tab within the excel file.

54. Attachment J.8 Budget Guidance and Template – Can USAID please confirm whether offerors may add a cost category to the CLIN 002 portion of the budget template for Fringe Benefits, to ensure offerors may properly capture any fringe benefits associated with the personnel budgeted under the Salaries and Wages category?

Yes, in accordance with Section L.8 Part 2.B. CLIN 002, “the Offeror must propose costs associated with the above number of person-days of level-of-effort”.

55. L.8 Instructions for Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal – Can USAID please confirm that offerors may add a cost category to the budget template to capture the Equipment and Supplies noted in the instructions under Part 2 – Proposed Costs and Prices/Detailed Budget Narrative, Number 6. Equipment (p. 130) and Number 7. Supplies (p.131)?

Offerors must use the format included in J.8. This format allows them to include line items within cost categories; in this case, equipment and supplies can be included within Other Direct Costs. Offerors may also complement this information by using their own detailed budget spreadsheet as a separate tab within the excel file.

56. L.8 Instructions for Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal –under Part 2 – Proposed

Costs and Prices/Detailed Budget Narrative, Can USAID please confirm that cost category Number 8. Communications (p. 131) is the same as communications costs outlined under Number 13. Other direct costs (p. 132); and therefore, that all communications costs (i.e.

mail, telephone, cellular phones, internet, etc.) should be budgeted only under the ODC cost category?

The reference to communication costs under Number 13 was removed to avoid confusions.

57. L.8 Instructions for Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal – Can USAID please confirm that offerors may add a cost category to the budget template to capture the training costs included under Part 2 – Proposed Costs and Prices/Detailed Budget Narrative, Number 9. Training (p. 131)?

Offerors must use the format included in J.8. This format allows them to include line items within cost categories as needed.

58. For consideration – For M.3.3. Past Performance, the RFP states that the “performance information will be used for both the responsibility determination and best value decision.”

However, M.2 states that this procurement utilizes a “Highest Technical Rated with Fair and Reasonable Price and Realistic Cost (HTR) process. Could USAID clarify or amend the past performance evaluation criteria to align with HTR?

This sentence has been revised to read “Performance information will be used for the responsibility determination”.

59. M.2.3 (pages 140-141) indicate that "Adjustments from this analysis will be applied to other costs that are derived from labor costs (e.g. indirect costs)". Would USAID please specify the full range of other costs that it defines it as “derived from labor costs”?

It will depend on every Offeror. Per Section L.6.f, “Offerors must provide proposals in compatible MS Word (or PDF readable format) and budgets as text accessible, unlocked Excel spreadsheets.”. The excel file will indicate for each Offeror which costs are derived from labor costs.

60. Under H.23. Title to and Care of Property. Does the control of non-expendable property purchased under this contract extend to equipment that might be procured under GUCs or the constructed structures, equipment, or rehabilitated infrastructure that may be financed by the Small Scale Infrastructure portion of the CLIN 001 Activity Fund. If so, would USAID consider and approve property disposition plans that transfer ownership and maintenance to beneficiary grantees, communities and organizations before the last quarter of the overall Period of Performance of this contract?

Section H.23 does not extend to GUCs. However, since infrastructure can only be financed under subcontracts, the clause would. Disposition of property can occur at the close out phase per section F.5.21. Close-Out Plan or earlier as needed.

61. Key Personnel References - please confirm that names and contact information for references for Key Personnel are not required.

Names and contact information for references are not required. Per the terms of the RFP, “The Government reserves the right to obtain information on key personnel from any and all sources inside or outside the U.S. Government.”

62. Section L.8 Part 2, Page 129. The RFP requires Offerors to provide separate Summary Cost Worksheets for the prime and all subcontractors. Please confirm that only the tab marked Summary Budget of Attachment J.8 is required for subcontractors and this requirement is for major subcontractors only.

This requirement is for all subcontracts identified at the proposal stage. This section was revised as follows: “e. The Offeror must provide the Cost Proposal budgets in unlocked Microsoft Office Excel Worksheets. The budget must be completed in the format included in Section J.8 – BUDGET TEMPLATE. The budget must include the budget associated with all proposed subcontracts. The Summary Cost Worksheets provided must include separate worksheets for the prime and all subcontracts identified at the proposal stage.

This will be used to analyze proposals. If possible, we request that the Offeror’s detailed worksheets, in support of this summary, be provided in one large spreadsheet with linkages to the summary worksheets, to ease analysis.”

63. Section L.8 Part 2, Pages 131-132. Please clarify if Locally Established Partners (as defined by the New Partnerships Initiative https://www.usaid.gov/npi/npi-key-definitions) fit the definition of “local organization” as defined by the RFP.

No, Local Organizations or Local Entities are different from Locally Established Partners.

The differences are clearly established in the NPI link provided by the Offeror. The RFP has been amended to include the exact definition for a Local Entity found in the NPI.

64. Section L.8 Part 3, Part 5, and Part 8, Pages 136-138. Please confirm that the requirements for subcontractors for Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors (Part 3), Information Concerning Work Day, Workweek, and Paid Absences (Part 5), and Evidence of Responsibility (Part 8) are for major subcontractors only.

No. This requirement is for all subcontractors.

65. Attachment J.8. The tab entitled Budget Summary Cost Sheet: Level of Effort of

Attachment J.8 requires the names, titles, starting salaries, and salary ranges for positions.

As section L.7.4 (p.125) requires that only key personnel be named, please confirm that this section is for key personnel only.

Attachment J.8 does not require names for positions, other than for Key Personnel.

66. Section L.7.5 Past Performance. The RFP states, “The Offeror (including all partners of a joint venture or a consortium) must provide performance information for programs submitted within the last five years for itself and each major subcontractor in accordance with the following: List two (2) of the most recent and relevant performed contracts or on-going contracts (or assistance instruments, such as cooperative agreements/grants) for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal for the Offeror and two (2) for each major subcontractor using the template provided in Section J.5.” Can USAID confirm whether may also submit past performance information for non-major subcontractors?

Past Performance information for non-major subcontractors is not required.

67. Section L.7.5 Past Performance. Since the Past Performance submission date is on April

4th, which is 21 days ahead of the full proposal submission, there is a possibility that not all consortiums are fully completed before this date. Hence, would appreciate if USAID can clarify the following questions:

● Would an organization, that did not submit past performance information, be eligible to participate in a consortium, as a subcontractor, in the full proposal stage?

If the question refers to the prime or a major subcontractor, the organization will not be eligible.

● Would an organization, that submitted past performance information independently, be eligible to participate as a member of a consortium in the full proposal stage?

If the question refers to the prime or a major subcontractor submitting past performance information independently, the organization will be eligible.

Note: Past performance information is only required for the Offeror and each major subcontractor, as defined in the RFP. A consortium in this context means a new entity legally created with the purpose of implementing this contract, and not a prime contractor / sub structure.

68. Section L.8 Instruction for Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal. 14. Indirect Costs The RFP states, “The Offeror and each major subcontractor must include a complete copy of its most current NICRA or other documentation from its cognizant Government Audit Agency, if any…. [i]f the Offeror or major subcontractor does not have a cognizant Government Audit Agency, the proposal must include…[a]udited balance sheets and profit and loss statements.. and…[t]he most recent two fiscal year pool and base cost compositions.” Offerors may propose specialized commercial subcontractors, many of whom perform solely on a firm-fixed-price basis, utilizing pricing methodologies that are not based on a cost buildup; can USAID confirm the requirement to provide a NICRA or the other specified financial documentation is not applicable to major subcontractors who will perform solely on a firm-fixed-price basis, provided the offeror provides other information to demonstrate the reasonableness of subcontractor pricing?

These requirements will be maintained.