RFP 72051422R00007 _DESTINATION NATURE ACTIVITY Q and A.pdf

RFP 72051422R00007 – DESTINATION NATURE ACTIVITY

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

Technical:

1. Section C.7 on page 23 includes a list of Activity Fund elements, the last of which is Short-

Term Technical Assistance subcontracts (STTA).” Could USAID please confirm that “subcontracts” is a typo for this item, and STTA (by employees or consultants) is the final item?

Please see response to Question 35.

2. Section C.7 on page states “When considering local organizations for a subaward, the Contractor is required to: a) develop criteria to identify and qualify a sub-awardee; b) develop procedures for making the sub-award; and c) establish a timeframe to develop the local organization’s capacity to become stronger and a more mature entity that will enable them to become eligible to receive a direct award from USAID or other donors in the future.” Do these criteria, procedures, and timeframes for capacity building apply to local subcontractors identified at the proposal stage?

These criteria only apply to subawards or subcontracts under the Activity Fund that are developed after award. If an Offeror proposes a local subcontractor at the proposal stage, the Offeror should provide sufficient information on that selection in consideration of the evaluation criteria in Section M. of the solicitation.

3. Sections F.8.1 (page 50) and F.8.2 (page 51) outline the minimum requirements, roles, and responsibilities for the chief of party and deforestation and climate change advisor. Both positions require a “post graduate education degree.” Would USAID consider revising this requirement to include a combination of an undergraduate degree and a specified minimum of years of experience as an alternative to a post graduate education degree? Revising this requirement will enable the offeror to propose and hire the best local talent possible to achieve activity objectives.

The candidate may substitute a post graduate degree for a relevant bachelor’s degree and an additional five years of relevant experience in addition to the minimum experience requirements listed below. Please see the modification to the RFP for changes to Sections F.8.1 and F.8.2.

4. [Ref. F.8.1, p. 50] Given the inherent cross-sectoral nature of sustainable nature tourism development- spanning economics, natural resource management, private sector engagement, and public administration- would USAID consider broadening the acceptable fields for the COP’s postgraduate education to include highly sector-relevant areas such as: economics, public administration, business management, political science, and sustainable tourism development?

The above-mentioned fields for the COP’s postgraduate education fall under the administrative science category and are therefore accepted.

5. Section H.14 on Social Safeguards for Parks and Protected Areas (page 73) requires a social safeguards implementation plan draft within the first 60 days. We respectfully request that USAID permit the contractor instead to submit the social safeguards implementation plan draft within the first 120 days. Having a fully approved work plan will enable the contractor, in collaboration with USAID, to define a more feasible and complete social safeguards implementation plan based on activities in the work plan.

The final award for any successful offeror will indicate that the 60 days period for submitting the social safeguards implementation draft plan will begin once the definitive list of six targeted nature tourism destinations is determined and if any work will be performed under Protected Areas.

6. Section H.14 on Indigenous Peoples (page 74) requires an Indigenous Peoples implementation plan draft within the first 60 days. We respectfully request that USAID permit the contractor instead to submit the Indigenous Peoples implementation plan draft within the first 120 days.

Having a fully approved work plan will enable the contractor, in collaboration with USAID, to define a more feasible and complete Indigenous Peoples implementation plan based on activities in the work plan.

The final award for any successful offeror will indicate that the 60 days period for submitting the Indigenous Peoples implementation plan draft will begin once the definitive list of six targeted nature tourism destinations is determined and if any work will be performed with Indigenous Peoples

7. L.7.3.h on page 126 states that “Offerors should select the ten indicators that demonstrate the

Offeror’s unique approach and expected results. Specific results and illustrative indicators listed in this section will be included into the resulting contract in the Annual Work Plan and AMEL Plan’. On page 16, the minimum expected results for Strategic Intervention 1 (page 13) and 2 (page 16) state that ‘Baselines for all the indicators defined for monitoring the Activity’s results, must be provided during the first year of implementation, as well as proposed target values upon completion of each sub-activity.’ Could USAID please confirm that updates to targets can be made upon award for these 10 indicators using updated baseline data?

As L.7.3.h indicates, the offeror’s proposed “indicators and targets are not a complete list for the Activity but rather should be proposed to demonstrate the Offeror’s approach to achieving results and successful implementation.” Although some proposed targets might be updated after identifying baselines, this should not be the rule and it might not apply to all cases.

8. In F.6, page 46, the Reporting and Deliverables Matrix has five major deliverables all due 60 days after award, and a sixth (Rapid Mobilization Plan) due 15 days after award. A more staggered or flexible timeline would allow for more thoughtful, methodical development of these deliverables that will serve as the foundation for the Activity. Would USAID be able to offer any flexibility around the timing of startup deliverables?

USAID decided to include the Biodiversity Conservation and Climate Strategy, the Capacity Building Strategy, and the Infrastructure Investment Strategy as stand-alone deliverables instead of having them as a section of the Annual Work Plan (AWP) to highlight each strategy´s requirements and their importance to the Activity. USAID is not considering extending these deadlines as these strategies are vital to the AWP construction.

9. Could USAID please clarify how it defines “environmental sustainability increases by 15%” in Section C.3, Page 8?

Environmental Sustainability refers to one of USAID/Colombia’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) internal indicators, involving different dimensions such as natural resource protection and management, improved economic benefits, climate change, among others.

10. In Section C.5.7, Page 21, USAID states “USAID understands PPPs as an agreement or contract between USAID and a private-sector entity, or entities, in which both parties contribute resources.” Can USAID clarify whether Offerors should apply this definition to the public-private partnerships required under Sections C.4.1.1 (Page 11) and C.4.1.3 (Page 13)?

Yes, the definition provided for Public-Private partnerships (PPP) on page 21 applies to the whole RFP.

11. In Section C.4.2.2, Page 15, USAID states “the Contractor will address local government institutions to increase their incorporation of social, economic, and conservation development objectives, including climate change mitigation, in the planning and management of nature tourism activities.” Could USAID please clarify what is meant by “address” in this context?

In the context of section C.4.2.2, it is expected that the contractor addresses the improvement of capacities of local government institutions to plan, manage and monitor nature tourism.

12. In Section C.5.8, Page 21, USAID includes “Security Strategy” as a Special requirement/Principle. Can Offerors address this requirement in the Management Approach section of the proposal?

It is the offeror’s decision to include or not elements of security in its proposed Management Approach within the submitted Technical Proposal.

13. In Section C.4.1.1, Page 11, USAID states “The Contractor will promote public-private partnerships to foster connectivity, georeferencing services, and infrastructure investments.”

Would USAID consider moving this requirement to IR 1.3 (Section C.4.1.3)?

This requirement is related to Intermediate Result 1.1, which explicitly refers to the need to address “existing human, technical, and financial gaps within the tourism supply chain from a market perspective” through the adoption of tools and technologies that enhance the reach and incidence of actors within the nature tourism supply chain.

14. In Section L.7.3, Page 124, USAID states that the Technical Approach “section will reflect an analysis and understanding of existing obstacles to success at all levels.” Can USAID please define the “levels” offerors should address in this section?

As stated in L.7.1, the Technical Proposal must reflect how the Offerors suggested approach satisfies the SOW of the solicitation, including how to address identified contextual challenges and opportunities, as well as meeting the Activity’s strategic objectives.

15. In Section C.5.1, Page 17, USAID states that “The Contractor must develop an explicit biodiversity objective… [and] must identify conservation activities based on an analysis of drivers and threats to biodiversity and a corresponding theory of change” in line with the Biodiversity Code. Can USAID clarify if offerors should develop this biodiversity-specific objective and/or theory of change as part of the proposal, or if this is something that will occur after award given that the final destinations will be defined after award?

As stated in L.7.3 c), offerors “must include a preliminary list of at least six potential destinations for nature tourism, supported by a proposed methodology and criteria for destination selection. Criteria should include at least proven conditions for achieving biodiversity conservation(...).” This requirement must respond to the Biodiversity Code Criteria, and therefore calls for “an analysis of drivers and threats to biodiversity and a corresponding theory of change.”

16. Section C.5.1 indicates that “The Contractor must develop an explicit biodiversity objective;

it is not enough to have biodiversity conservation results as a positive externality from another program to fully comply with the Code.” Does the requirement to establish a distinct biodiversity objective mean that Offerors should submit a dedicated section of the technical proposal explaining how it will address the requirements of C.5.1?

See response to question 18

17. [Ref. Attachment J.10 Nature Tourism Rapid Assessment] When opened, Attachment J.10 is titled, “Colombia Tropical Forest and Biodiversity Analysis 2019.” Please confirm that Attachment J.10 contains the correct document Attachment J.9 is titled “Nature Tourism Rapid Assessment,” the correspondent file uploaded in SAM is correct. Attachment J.10 contains the “Colombia Tropical Forest and Biodiversity Analysis 2019”, the title in Section J.10 of the RFP has been corrected. See the modification document to the RFP for the change to J.10

18. Related to Section L.7.7 Development in a Digital Age, are Offerors expected to include a dedicated section to respond to this requirement within the technical volume? o If so, where within the Technical Volume does this need to be placed?

This item must be incorporated into the overall technical approach where appropriate.

19. Section C5.3 Geographic Focus (p. 18) states a specific number of “… six targeted nature tourism destinations in which the Activity will concentrate …” and these sites will be selected during the first year of the work plan, through technical discussions with USAID led by the contractor. Please confirm that USAID’s definition of destination, can be interpreted as broader geographies which could include multiple nature tourism destinations.

Footnote 24 (Page 8) provides a reference that could help conceptualize a “nature tourism destination”. Please be aware that L.7.3 states that “The [technical] proposal must include a preliminary list of at least six potential destinations for nature tourism, supported by a proposed methodology and criteria for destination selection.”

20. Section C.7.2 (page 24) states that the contractor shall “work closely with a third-party

Architecture and Engineering Contractor on the design and/or quality assurance of any construction project.” Could USAID kindly clarify whether this passage refers to a subcontractor to be engaged through the Activity Fund?

For budgeting purposes, yes.

21. Per Section L.7.4.1, Page 126, USAID states: “The Offeror must describe the proposed management approach, including a staffing plan and an organizational chart composed of all the positions necessary to accomplish the Strategic Intervention outlined in the SOW…” Can USAID confirm that this should read “necessary to accomplish the strategic Interventions outlined in the SOW”?

Confirmed.

Business/Cost:

22. Could USAID please clarify the following discrepancies regarding CLIN 002 between

Sections B.5/B.6, and L.8 (Part 2, B)?

a. Section B.5 lists a maximum ODC value of $1.2M, while Section L.8 lists $2M. Please clarify which is correct.

ODC limitation for CLIN 002 is $1.2M. See the modification document to the RFP for the change to L.8

b. Section B.6.a lists an LOE ceiling of 9,000 person-days, while Section L.8 lists 10,000 person-days. Please clarify which is correct.

LOE ceiling for CLIN 002 is 9,000 person-days. See the modification document to the RFP for the change to L.8

23. Section F.7 on pages 47-49 includes deliverables with assigned fee percentages totaling 44%;

whereas, Section L.8, Part 2, A, 15 on pages 136-137 references a total of 46% and requests an assignment of the remaining 54%. Could USAID please confirm that the figures in Section L.8 are small typos, and Offerors should assign the remaining 56% to other deliverables?

Correct. Offeror’s should assign 56% to other deliverables. See the modification document to the RFP for the change to L.8

24. Section L.7.6.a.1 on page 127 asks contractors to list the two most recent and relevant contracts using Attachment J.4; however, the attachment itself says, “The form is not required if the below information is available in the Government past performance systems.” Please clarify if Attachment J.4 should be used for all contracts or only those that are not in CPARS.

a. If Attachment J.4 is not to be used for contracts in CPARS, may we identify our two most recent and relevant contracts by contract number and include a brief description of their relevance to DNA?

Offeror’s must provide references to two contracts that are currently in CPARs if feasible.

They should use the form to list the relevant information so that USAID/Colombia can pull the correct CPARs information. If the Offeror has no contracts in CPARS they can use the form to provide USAID information for past performance on other relevant contracts so that USAID does not assign the offeror a neutral rating for past performance.

25. Section L.8, Part 2, e on page 131 states, “The Summary Cost Worksheets provided must include separate worksheets for the prime and all major subcontracts identified at the proposal stage.” The Summary Budget tab in the required budget template includes only two line items with aggregate costs for CLINs 001 and 002. As major subcontractors are unlikely to have separate budgets for CLIN 002, is it correct to assume that major subcontractor summary cost worksheets will consist of a single line item for their CLIN 001 budget totals?

Correct.

26. Per Section L.8. CLIN 001, Part 2(e), Page 131, USAID states, “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 major subcontracts identified at the proposal”. Can USAID please clarify whether separate budget worksheets are required for all proposed subcontractors or only major subcontractors (per USAID’s definition of major subcontractor on Page 128 as “those that represent 20% or more of the Total CLIN 001 Budget”)?

Only major subcontractors.

27. Per Section L.8.A CLIN 001, Page 132, can USAID please clarify if Offerors should include

Equipment, Supplies, Communications and Trainings in the budget template as subcategories under Other Direct Costs?

Correct.

28. Section L.8, Part 2, g on page 131 states, “The summary budget must reflect summary cost information for each of the major budget categories for each of the contract years separately and then offer the program total for the entire contract, item for item in the last column of the spreadsheet.” The Summary Budget tab in the required budget template includes only two line items with aggregate costs for CLINs 001 and 002. Could USAID please confirm that only the Summary Budget tab in the required budget template must be provided?

Please re-review Section L.8 of the RFP in particular, but not exclusively, the second two paragraphs of L.8 and L.8, Part 2.

29. Section L.8, Part 2, A, 10 on pages 133-134 indicates that subcontracts with local organizations are considered part of the Activity Fund. Descriptions of the Activity Fund in Sections C and F list subcontracts as an Activity Fund element without any indication that it applies only to those with local organizations. Similarly, the Detailed Budget tab in Attachment J.5 does not include a separate cost category for Subcontracts, which seems to indicate that all subcontracts should be budgeted under the Activity Fund. Could USAID please confirm that Offerors also may budget international subcontractor costs under the Activity Fund? If this is not correct, please clarify which international subcontractor costs may be budgeted under the Activity Fund (e.g., STTA, programmatic activity costs, etc.).

Please review C.7, Section F.5.7 and L.8.Part 2.A.10. Offeror’s may add a line item to the budget template for international subcontractors but are reminded that USAID needs sufficient information to determine reasonableness and realism.

30. On the use of the Activity Fund under CLIN 001, page 23 of the RFP denotes “Subawards to local partners identified at the proposal stage are considered part of the Activity Fund”.

● Does “local partners identified at the proposal stage” mean/include local Subs already established within the consortium?

Yes, if they are a subcontractor and a local organization.

● Would it be possible for a Locally Established Partner, as qualified within the New Partnership Initiative, to receive funds from the Activity Fund under CLIN 001?

Yes.

31. On Section C.7, page 23, states that “Subawards to local partners identified at the proposal stage are considered part of the Activity Fund”, however, Section L.7.4.2 states that “Subcontracts identified at the proposal stage are considered part of the Activity Fund. Could USAID confirm whether all subcontracts are considered a part of the Activity fund?

Subcontracts to local partners identified at the proposal stage are considered part of the Activity Fund.

32. Per Section L.8.A CLIN 001, Page 132, can USAID please clarify if Consultants should be budgeted under the Salaries and Wages category as STTA in the Excel template or if a separate line item should be added to the template for Consultants?

The Offeror must determine if the Consultants will be hired as employees or subcontracts and budget accordingly.

33. Page 23’s description of the Activity Fund notes that it includes “Short-Term Technical Assistance (STTA) subcontracts”.

a. Could USAID please confirm that this refers to consultant contracts, as defined as “those services rendered by persons who are members of a particular profession or possess a special skill and who are not officers or employees of the contractor/non-Federal entity”

vs. subcontracts with organized entities?

STTA has been removed from the Activity Fund. Please see the modification to the RFP for details. Note that if the offeror identifies local subcontractors to perform consulting services; these costs could be counted towards the AF.

b. Section 5.7 includes STTA in the Activity Fund and Section L.8 lists it outside of the Activity Fund. Could USAID confirm whether Offerors should allocate STTA labor LOE provided by the prime contractor as a direct cost, separate from the Activity Fund?

See previous answer.

34. Section C.7, page 23 and Section F.5.7, page 36 state that “[u]p to 50% of the Total Estimated

Cost of the Total Estimated Cost of CLIN001 of this Activity is required to be spent through an Activity Fund.” However, Section L.8.A.10, page 133, states that the Activity Fund “must be up to 50% of the TEC of CLIN001.” Could USAID confirm that the Activity Fund can be less than 50% of CLIN001?

C.7., F.5.7, and L.8.Part 2.A.10 are all consistent. Offeror’s must not allocate more than 50% of the TEC of CLIN 0001 to the AF. Offeror’s are encouraged to review Section M for the evaluation factor’s USAID will utilize in identifying the Highest Technically Rated Offeror with Fair and Reasonable Price and Realistic Cost.

35. Section L.8, Part 2, A, 16 on page 137 states in the first sentence of paragraph two that a security plan is not required as part of the proposal. The third sentence of the same paragraph requests a “coherent, overall integrated security plan”. Could USAID please confirm that a security plan is not required as part of the proposal?

Offerors are not required to submit the security plan as part of the proposal.

36. Regarding Section L.8, Part 2, B (CLIN 002) on pages 137-138, please clarify the following items:

a. The last sentence of paragraph two states, “For each of the positions, qualifications include at least 5 years of relevant experience.” Should Offerors assume that there is one level for all labor categories for all types of staff/consultants or may Offerors propose separate ceiling daily rates (CDRs) for mid-level and senior for expatriates and CCNs, respectively?

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.

b. Must Offerors use the proposed CDRs for the CLIN 002 budget or may they use more likely daily rates based on past experience? Please note that this is particularly important, should USAID limit the CDRs to one per labor category (to cover both expatriates and CCNs).

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

c. Could USAID please clarify whether ODCs need to be broken out or could they be budgeted as a lump sum?

For CLIN 002, Offerors must budget ODCs as appropriate, but they may not exceed $1.2M.

d. Could USAID please confirm that the ODC limitation refers to all direct material costs, e.g., travel, subcontracts, ODCs, etc., and not just ODCs as a single cost Category?

The $1.2M limit applies to all costs except labor, allowances, indirect rates, and fixed fee.

37. Per Section L.8.B CLIN 002, Page 138, USAID states, “The Offeror must propose ceiling daily rates for each of the positions listed below” and lists seven labor categories. Would USAID allow for Offerors to add additional labor categories to account for additional labor such as Home Office support staff, consistent with the line items in CLIN 001?

For fairness in the evaluation, the labor categories to be included under CLIN 002 are required, not illustrative, and CDRs must be proposed for each labor category.

38. Section L.7.4.3, page 126, the RFP states that “The Offeror’s capacity and approach to respond to requests for task order proposals and perform task orders under the Supplemental Technical Assistance IDIQ CLIN 002. This must include a description of how the contractor will mobilize and augment resources should the Government order level-of-effort under the IDIQ CLIN without hindering performance under the completion portion of the contract. Offerors must also describe how potential orders would relate to, or affect, efforts being carried out under CLIN 001 in terms of management.” Could USAID confirm if the 10,000 hours allocated under CLIN 002 correspond to both to short term technical assistance and program management support?

The 9,000 hours (see response to Question 24 and modification document) applies to all labor under CLIN 002.

39. Section L.7.2 (page 124) states that “No part of the technical proposal is excluded from the page limitation except key personnel resumes. As Past Performance Information is due prior to the rest of the technical proposal (See L.7.5), Offerors must ensure the entire technical proposal does not exceed the page limit, including the earlier submission of Past Performance Information.” Section L.7.6 (page 129) outlines the performance information the offeror must provide, which includes “a list of two recent contracts for which you submitted subcontract reports to eSRS ... and a copy of any similarly recent subcontracting reports [SF-294 reports] if they were not submitted to eSRS.” Copies of an offeror’s recent SF-294 reports may consume several pages, and per Section L.7.2, these pages would count against the proposal’s 60-page limit. Consequently, offerors with more SF-294 reports would be at a disadvantage; they would have less space to articulate their technical and management approaches than offerors with fewer SF-294 reports. We respectfully request that USAID exclude copies of SF-294 reports from the 60-page limit.

SF-294s are not required to be submitted under the terms of the RFP. Any subcontracting reports submitted in support of past performance are considered part of the 60-page limit.

40. The RFP Cover Page and sections L.7.2 and L.7.6 instruct Offerors to submit Past Performance Information on May 30, 2022, in advance of the remainder of Offerors’ Technical Proposal.

Section L.7.2 further instructs Offerors that Past Performance Information is subject to the 60-page limitation. Typically, when submitting Past Performance Information in the same volume as the rest of the Technical Proposal, Offerors’ submissions would be under one cover page, which contains information requested by USAID in section L.6. Could USAID please confirm that Offerors may include a cover page with the earlier submission of Past Performance Information that is excluded from the 60-page limitation, to maximize the space available to respond to USAID’s technical requirements and evaluation criteria?

No cover page is required for past performance under the terms of the RFP. If the offeror decides to include one, it would be considered part of the 60-page limit.

41. Per Section L.6, Page 122, USAID states “the proposal must be accompanied by a cover letter typed on official organizational letterhead and signed by a person who has signatory authority for the organization”, however a cover letter is not included in the sections listed in section L.7.2 on page 124. In addition, in Section L.6, Page 123, USAID states “Mark the title page with the following legend…”. Can USAID confirm that the cover page and title page are the same, and that USAID wants a cover letter in addition?

The Cover Letter and the Title page refer to the same document. See the modification document to the RFP for the change to L.6 and L.7.2 for consistency. Refer to Section L.8, part 1, for submission instructions for the Cover Page.

42. In Section L.7.2, Page 124, USAID states: “Text in graphs, charts, and textboxes may be less than 12 points in size but no less than 8 points and must be legible”. Could USAID please confirm that this 8-point font limit also applies to tables?

The 8-point font limit applies to tables.

43. L.7.5, page 127, states that “Resumes are not included in the page limit but must be limited to three pages for each individual,” and L.7.2 (p. 124) states that “No part of the technical proposal is excluded from the page limitation except key personnel resumes”, but then goes on to say, “The page limitation stated above for the English- language TECHNICAL PROPOSAL is inclusive of the sections listed below…and CVs.” Can USAID confirm that resumes/CVs are not included in the page count?

Resumes /CVs are not included in the page limitation. See the modification document to the RFP for the change to L.7.2

44. L.7.4.1, page 126, for the requirements on Team and Office Structure within the Management Approach, the RFP states that “Offerors must not provide names of individuals for any non-key personnel positions.” Could USAID please clarify whether offerors are allowed to include names of non-key personnel candidate in their Technical Approach?

Offerors are not allowed to include names of non-key personnel in their Technical Approach.

USAID evaluates specific individuals for key personnel positions only.

45. L.7.5, page 127, states that “Offerors must identify five ‘key personnel’, one of which must be the Chief of Party and the other Deforestation and Climate Change Advisor. Only a resume is required for these two positions. The other three Key Personnel positions must be proposed by the Offeror. Resumes must be provided for each key personnel proposed.” Could USAID confirm that resumes/CVs must be provided for all 5 (five) key personnel positions/candidates?

Resumes/CVs must be provided for all 5 (five) key personnel positions.

46. On page 127, L.7.5 Key Personnel, this section refers to five mandatory key personnel, but the instructions for the preparation of this section refers to only three key personnel (“ Information for the three key personnel position proposed by the offeror must include”). Could USAID confirm the number of required key personnel?

Offerors must identify five “key personnel,” one of which must be the Chief of Party and the other must be the Deforestation and Climate Change Advisor; only resumes are required for these two positions as Section F clearly spells out their minimum qualifications and roles and responsibilities. The other three Key Personnel positions must be proposed by the Offeror and the instructions found in L.7.5 apply to what information must be submitted for those three Offeror-selected positions.

47. In L.8 Instructions for Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal, section B, Part 12 on page

140 states that the offeror must prepare both a Branding Implementation Plan and a Marking Plan. Could USAID confirm that these are required as part of the Cost Proposal?

These instructions were included in L.8 not L.7.

48. Section L.8 Part 2.A.10.iii, page 133, the RFP states that “Small-scale Infrastructure

Subcontracts: Offerors must set aside no more than $5,000,000 of the Activity Fund for the small-scale infrastructure; for budgeting purposes, projects are expected to average $70,000 per project and rarely exceed $300,000.” Could USAID clarify if the small-scale infrastructure subcontracts note to exceed amount of $5,000,000 includes labor/assessments or just materials and construction?

Any costs under a subcontract for small scale infrastructure are included in the $5,000,000 ceiling.

49. Section C.7.2 states that the Small-scale Infrastructure Subcontracts portion of the Activity Fund “does not have a fixed budget amount but will not exceed $5,000,000 within CLIN 001.

Could USAID please confirm that Offerors may budget the Infrastructure Subcontracts portion of the Activity Fund at less than $5,000,000?

The Small-scale Infrastructure Subcontracts portion of the Activity Fund budget must not exceed $5,000,000.

50. Section C.7.2 Small-scale Infrastructure Subcontracts (p. 24) informs that the “… [Infrastructure] component is part of the Activity Fund with varied small-scale investments at each targeted destination …” and “… there is no fixed budget amount for infrastructure investments at each target tourism destination …” [and] these infrastructure investments “… will not exceed $5,000,000.00 within CLIN 001.” In addition, it informs an estimated investment cost per site “… to average $70,000 per project and rarely exceed $300,000.” Our questions related to this topic of budget per site, and total ceiling are as follows:

a. Could USAID please direct Offerors to the most recent policy guidance related to small scale infrastructure for this size of project?

Small scale infrastructure term, and the estimates on costs, are used only to aid offerors in understanding that USAID does not expect to construct large structures or perform other forms of high dollar construction. Regardless, all construction is governed by the relevant construction restrictions found in the FAR and USAID Policy. All USAID policies on construction are publicly posted online. Offerors are encouraged to perform their due diligence on this issue.

b. Given that we do not know the exact scope of infrastructure work at the anticipated six target locations at this time, are infrastructure investments per destination (vs. per project) in excess of $300,000 permitted in this activity? If so, is there any special approval process anticipated for this level of infrastructure investments?

Offerors must determine their most accurate method for budgeting for the infrastructure component and sufficiently justify this approach in their budget narrative to show reasonableness and realism.

51. Could USAID please confirm whether labor dedicated to delivering and monitoring activities under the Small-scale Infrastructure portion of the Activity Fund may be funded by the Small-scale Infrastructure Subcontracts pool?

The prime contractor’s personnel dedicated to this portion of the Activity Fund must be budgeted under the appropriate labor category. Subcontracts implementing construction or directly supporting construction may be budgeted under this portion of the Activity Fund.

52. The same Section C.7.2 Small-scale Infrastructure Subcontracts also states that “… the Contractor must manage and oversee construction subcontracts … and work closely with a third-party Architecture and Engineering Contractor on the design and/or quality assurance of any construction project.” In addition … “[T]he Contractor will be required to submit the following information to seek Contracting Officer’s representative (COR) approval for any small-scale infrastructure activity … [b] Confirmation that a licensed architect-engineer firm completed the engineering design.” Our questions are as follows:

a. The statement and/or may be interpreted as mutually exclusive. Please confirm if the

Contractor must work closely with a third-party A/E firm (a) either on the design or on the QA process of a construction project, or (b) both on the design and on the QA process of a construction project.

The contractor must use a third-party A&E firm on both.

b. Is the licensed A/E firm described in bullet (b) of the same section required to be licensed in Colombia, or in the USA, or in a region of South America that has accreditation reciprocity with Colombia?

The firm must be properly accredited to perform the work for which they are contracted. It is the Offeror’s responsibility in selecting an appropriate firm.

c. Would it be possible for USAID to share the Construction Risk Assessment Tool described in the last paragraph of the page 24 of the solicitation? This document is not listed as a reference under Section J (ATTACHMENTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS – Ref. p. 147).

A link to the Construction Risk Assessment Tool was included in the RFP. Please find it under Section C.7.2, however the link is available to USAID personnel only; as such, this section states “the COR must complete the required risk screening 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/ads/policy/200/201maw. The successful offeror will be required to provide information to the COR so that the COR may accurately complete the tool.

53. ADS 201maw (Management of Construction Risk) is not listed as a reference, and it is not clear in the RFP if this directive will govern the design and implementation principles for the engineering and construction tasks of the infrastructure component. Please confirm if ADS 201maw is a reference for this procurement action. Additionally, could USAID please provide Offerors direction other contractual requirements or guidance for the infrastructure component envisioned under Colombia DNA?

USAID Missions are bound by the policies found in the ADS when applicable. Offerors are encouraged to perform their own due diligence on these topics.

54. Per Section L.8. CLIN 001, Page 133, Grants under Contract (GUCs), USAID 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.” Since the grants manual will be approved post-award, could USAID please confirm that a plug figure may be included in the proposal submission and a general description of the type of activities anticipated under GUCs many be included in the budget narrative?

Yes, a plug figure may be used. 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.” The amount budgeted and the description of GUC usage found in the budget narrative and the technical proposal will be compared for realism analysis purposes.

55. Section C.7.1 states that the “…GUCs mechanism does not have a fixed budget amount but will not exceed $5,250,000 within CLIN 001.” Could USAID please confirm that Offerors may budget these GUCs at less than $5,250,000?

Please review Section C.7.1 and L.8.Part 2. A.10.ii.

56. In Section L.7.4, page 126, the RFP states that “USAID expects that Offerors will have equal access to all local organizations needed for this contract, and strongly discourages exclusivity agreements with local organizations”; Could USAID please provide a list of key Colombian local organizations and government and quasi-government institutes that all offerors should have access to for this contract?

It is up to each offeror to perform their own research and clearly present a Partnership Plan to meet the requirements in Section L.7.4.2.

57. The submission of past performance information is due on Monday, May 30th. Would USAID consider amending the due date since the 30th falls on a US federal holiday/Memorial Day?

https://www.usaid.gov/ads/policy/200/201maw

The deadline to submit the Past Performance Information has been extended from May 30th, 2022, to May 31,2022. See the modification document to the RFP for the change to the Past Performance Due Date.

58. Section B.2, page 1, and Section L.8.B, page 137, state that CLIN002 needs to represent 20% of the TEC. Considering the critical importance of DNA’s sustainable nature tourism activities to be delivered using technical assistance under CLIN 001, would USAID consider allowing offers to represent CLIN 002 at a percentage lower than the 20% specified?

No.

59. Section L.8, page 131 instructions for CLIN 001 Direct Labor Salary and Wages includes

AIDAR 752.7007 but this is not included in Section I of the solicitation. Could USAID please confirm that this should be included the Direct Labor Salary and Wages instructions?

Please see Section H.2.

60. H.18 requires the contractor to report in the Performance Management Information System through the Portal (MONITOR). How frequent will this reporting be? Will it replace F.5.14 Quarterly Reports, F.5.11 Monthly bullets, F.5.17 Annual Performance Report, or supplement them?

It will supplement these reports. Contractors are required to enter data into MONITOR as needed.

61. The front page of the RFP denotes that USAID “is seeking proposals from U.S. or non-U.S., non-profit or for-profit organizations”. On this:

● Can a Swiss NGO apply as Prime in a consortium?

In accordance with H.4 of the RFP, the authorized geographic code for this contract is 937.

22 CFR 228.03 states “Code 937 is defined as the United States, the cooperating/recipient country, and developing countries other than advanced developing countries, and excluding prohibited sources.” Switzerland is not included in that definition. While a waiver process exists (22 CFR 228.30) it is unlikely that any of the bases for a waiver would be applicable for this procurement.

● Can a Swiss NGO apply as Sub in a consortium?

The same guidance provided above applies to subcontractors as well.

● Does a non-U.S. organization, specifically a Swiss NGO, require a waiver to participate as Sub in a consortium?

See previous responses and the bases for a waiver found at 22 CFR 228.30

62. Regarding Attachment J.5 Budget Guidance and Template – Would USAID allow offerors to add a cost category to the CLIN 002 for Fringe Benefits?

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”

63. Regarding the Budget Template in Attachment J.5, could USAID please confirm that Offerors may add standard cost categories to the Detailed Budget tab, such as Equipment/Supplies?

Please see response to Question 30.

64. Section J, Page 100, references attachment “J.19 Local Compensation Plan – Pay Scale included as a separate pdf document”. However, this attachment was not provided with the rest of the solicitation materials. Could USAID please share the LCP offerors are expected to use for this proposal?

The attachment will be uploaded into SAM.gov with the amended RFP

65. Section D.2 (page 26) indicates that Attachment J.3 contains the Branding and Marking Plan Attachment J.3 containing the Branding and Marking Plan template, but the attachment is not included. We respectfully request that USAID provide A.

Please see Attachment J.3 of the RFP. (Page 155)

66. Can USAID please provide an estimated contract start date for estimating purposes?

Full and open procurements can take anywhere from five months to nine months from the release date of the solicitation. USAID/Colombia anticipates this timeframe will likely be accurate.