72051422R00012 Productive Ecosystems Q and A.pdf

RFP 72051422R00012 - Productive Ecosystems Activity Questions and Answers (Q&A) Document

Technical:

1. Regarding RFP 72051422R00012, we would be interested in understanding whether the resources available could be used to cover the rate spread? Which in turn would allow us to provide a differentiated line of credit for the business sector to help meet the objectives of the call for proposals.

USAID believes this question is requesting to use the identified funding for loan guarantees to provide lower rate loans to the business sector. If so, this funding is not available for that option.

2. RFP Section C.4.1 (page 12) states: “Enabling the conditions for the private sector to invest in NbS in compliance with regulation or the companies’ business plans or environmental programs, will allow the Contractor to leverage more than USD $10 million from the private sector for implementation of NbS with local communities. The composition of this leverage must be approximately 60% in kind and 40% in cash.”

Additionally, C.5.8, Activity Fund (page 28) states: “For commercial entities, MSME and MNC there should be a correspondent leverage match in funds that is adequate depending on the companies’ size and capabilities. MNC/larger firms will be encouraged to engage with and include MSME local firms in their value chains. Funds to commercial entities should be administered on a milestone-based or pay for results-based agreement. The MNC/larger firm will be encouraged to develop innovative technologies to address local needs. All GUCs are intended to leverage third party resources; depending on the size and capability of partners, leverage contributions will range from 30-70%.” Could USAID please confirm this leverage requirement refers to commercial partners only? If not, would USAID consider making the leverage requirement highly recommended versus mandatory to allow for organizations with lower capacity to still apply? While we will strive to include a mandatory leverage amount in all the grants, we fear it may be a disincentive for the participation of smaller partners such as indigenous groups.

GUCs are also expected to leverage funds, thus the requirement of leveraging funds is not only for commercial entities.

The overall leverage of the activity is a composition of in kind (60%) and in cash (40%).

USAID based these amounts on previous successes and views them as achievable and reasonable.

Business/Cost:

3. Given the short timeline and Labor Day holiday in the US, would USAID consider an extension for Offerors to submit proposals?

The deadline for this RFP will not change.

4. Would USAID consider changing the contract type from a hybrid Cost Plus Fixed Fee - IDIQ to a hybrid Firm Fixed Price - IDIQ, allowing the award of FFP task orders under

CLIN 002?

The award type will not change.

5. Regarding Section F.2, a., page 32, would USAID please clarify the period of performance (PoP) for the full contract, considering the PoP for CLIN 002 task orders may extend up to two years after the end of the PoP of CLIN 001?

The POP for the contract is 5 years from time of award, however TOs issued under IDIQ in CLIN 002 may extend for up to 2 years beyond the overall POP for the contract.

6. The cover letter (page 1) provides a total estimated cost-plus fixed fee range of $40 million to $47.5 million, but RFP Section L.8 (page 135) provides an estimated cost range of $41 million to $47 million. Could USAID please confirm which total estimated cost range is correct?

The correct range is $40 million to $47.5 million.

7. RFP Section B.4 (page 7) requires 50% of CLIN 001 be allocated to an Activity Fund.

Further, C.5.8 states that the Activity Fund can include grants under contract (GUCs), subcontracts to local organizations, and subcontracts to local consultants (local short-term technical assistance). Can USAID please confirm that the costs directly allocable to the implementation of these elements — such as long-term grants specialists and indirect costs applied to these direct costs — count toward the 50% allocation? This will provide greater flexibility to offerors to ensure the proposed CLIN 001 costs include not only a robust Activity Fund, but also the necessary operational underpinnings to ensure timely and compliant implementation to maximize results.

No. Only the identified categories are attributable to the Activity Fund.

8. Regarding Section C.5.8, page 27-28, could USAID please confirm that the criteria and procedures for considering local subcontractors and grantees should be developed during implementation, i.e., in the development of the Activity Fund Manual? Similarly, could USAID please confirm that the approach to differentiate GUCs for MSMEs and MNCs will also be developed during implementation?

Correct. This language was included in Section C as it will be a requirement of the contract. It was not included in Section L as a required submission for the technical proposal. Lack of inclusion in Section L signifies it is not required in the proposal but neither does it exclude an Offeror from including it in their proposal if they deem it beneficial to their offer.

9. Section C. Statement of Work. C.5.8. Activity Fund. The RFP states that “the activity fund can include Grants under Contract (GUC´s), subcontracts to local organizations and subcontracts to local consultants (local STTA).” Based on the previous, can USAID confirm whether the Activity Fund can also be used for consulting projects under a Firm Fixed Fee arrangement?

If the consulting work is done through a subcontract to a local individual or a local organization then use of the Activity Fund would be allowable. Please see FAR 52.244-2 found in Section I.11 of the RFP for the definition of subcontract.

10. RFP Sections F.7 (page 53) and B.2 (page 6) state that fixed fee under CLIN 001 will be paid according to completion of project deliverables, targets, or outputs. However, deliverables/targets/outputs 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.7: “The Fixed Fee Schedule may be adjusted during annual work planning to reprogram any unpaid fees from partially completed or non-accepted deliverables/targets/outputs 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.

No. If there needs to be a change in the Fixed Fee Schedule this would require a bilateral modification to the contract. CORs of USAID do not have the warrant authority to approve such a change to the contract. The proposed additional language would violate basic contracting principles.

11. Section F.7 (page 53) states the table represents 30% of the fixed fee but the deliverables sum up to 36%. Could USAID kindly confirm that the offeror must propose the remaining 64% of fixed fee payments?

Offeror’s must propose the remaining amount when considering the sum total identified in F.7.

12. Per RFP Section H.3.a (page 65), “All Cooperating Country Nationals (CCNs) and Third Country Nationals (TCNs) salaries must not exceed the Local compensation Plan (LCP).

Approval of the Contractor’s budget does not absolve the Contractor’s duty to request and receive Mission Director’s approval prior to hiring CCN and TCN personnel whose salaries are above the LCP.” We respectfully request that this salary restriction be removed from the RFP as it appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007, Personnel Compensation, incorporated in the contract under Section H.2, 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 752.7007.

Section H.3 is in compliance with the requirements of AIDAR 722.170. This question has been asked on multiple RFPs and the response will not change.

13. In RFP Sections F.8(a)(2) (page 55) and F.8.2 (page 56) the deputy chief of party is called the “Deputy Chief of Party and Objective 1 Lead,” whereas Table 1 and Section C.4.1 (page 11) refers to “components” rather than “objectives.” Could USAID kindly confirm that the key personnel position will be referred to as Deputy Chief of Party and Component 1 lead and the objectives will be referred to as “components?”

Correct. The use of Objective 1 Lead should read as Component 1 Lead.

14. RFP Section L.8B (page 144) states that “For estimating purposes, the Offeror must propose costs for a total of 11,500 person-days equally distributed across all labor categories for each year of the five-year contract.” Could USAID please confirm that this does not mean 11,500 person-days per year must be budgeted within CLIN 002 (for a total of 57,500 person-days), and that offerors are required to budget a total of 11,500 person-days within CLIN 002 for the entire five-year period of performance (resulting in 2,300 person-days a year, distributed equally across all labor categories)?

The 11,500 refers to the total amount across all 5 years for CLIN 002.

15. Per Section L.8.B, CLIN 002, page 143, USAID asks offers to propose ceiling daily rates for each of the positions listed. Is it USAID’s intention that the CDR would apply to both international and local labor? Or should Offerors propose CDRs for each group separately?

Please provide ceiling rates for local labor. USAID/Colombia promotes localization efforts which includes encouraging the use of all local staff.

16. In addition to budgeting the Ceiling Daily Rates of named positions in CLIN 002 and related indirects, does USAID anticipate that offerors would budget any additional support? J.6 Budget Template has lines for ODCs and in Section C.6, page 29 and in Section F.10, page 58, the RFP states that supplemental capacity may be required in any of the subject areas covered by the contract and any subsequent modifications and lists illustrative activities. Could USAID provide additional guidance on how to budget for CLIN 002 to ensure fair and competitive budgeting?

ODCs would likely be needed for individual task orders. The budget for each task order would be negotiated prior to issuance while staying within the finalized ceiling rates.

Please see responses to Questions 22, 23, 25, and 26 on further guidance for budgeting

CLIN 002.

17. Could USAID please confirm offerors may budget LOE under CLIN 002 using estimated daily rates below the respective proposed ceiling daily rates? Ceiling daily rates are priced with consideration of the highest potential rate offerors will need to pay personnel for highly specialized technical work. However, it is realistic to assume that personnel at multiple levels of seniority will be engaged over the life of the project. Therefore, if the ceiling daily rates are used for building up the CLIN 002 budget, offerors will be presenting an unrealistic amount that assumes engagement of only the most senior — and expensive — personnel. Alternatively, use of estimated rates for each category will reflect a more realistic cost build-up for CLIN 002, as it will account for routine engagement of junior and mid-level personnel as appropriate and at lower cost.

Offerors must use the ceiling rates in their estimate to provide parity in any cost evaluation. The budget for CLIN 002 sets the ceiling amount for that CLIN and is used in the cost evaluation. Ultimately the proposed detailed budgets provided in the offers are not relevant to actual implementation of task orders under the IDIQ CLIN.

18. Regarding Section L.8, Part 2, B., pages 143-144, please clarify the following items:

a. The last sentence of paragraph two states, “For each of the positions, qualifications include at least five 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 Cooperating Country Nationals (CCNs), respectively?

Provide ceiling rates for one level that would have qualifications that include at least five years of relevant experience.

b. Would USAID please clarify how the labor category “Short Term Technical Experts in complementary areas” should be treated? Is this one separate labor category, so a total of 11, among which the LOE should be divided?

This is one separate labor category.

19. The positions listed in Section L.8.B, CLIN 002, page 143, do not match those in Attachment J.6’s LOE tab. Could USAID please confirm that the illustrative positions for which USAID would like Offerors to propose ceiling daily rates are those in Section L.8.B and not those in Attachment J.6, LOE tab?

The correct list is in L.8.B.

20. Regarding the Budget Template in Attachment J.6, would USAID please confirm that Offerors may add standard cost categories to the detailed budget tab, such as equipment/supplies?

Offerors may add categories but must strive to stay as close to the template as possible.

Equipment and Supplies are ultimately a form of other direct costs and doesn’t seem to require a separate category rather than being included as individual line items under ODCs.

21. The Travel line in J.6’s Detailed Budget only includes line-items for International Travel, Local Travel, and Per Diem. Where would USAID like Offerors to budget other travel related costs such as airport transfers, medical exams, and passport/visa related costs?

Offerors can add additional line items under Travel or ODCs as is most accurate for the individual offeror’s costing structures.

22. Regarding CLIN 002, Section B.6, page 8, lists an LOE ceiling of TBD persons-days, while Section L.8 on page 144 mentions that the Offeror must propose costs for a total of 11,500 person-days equally distributed across all labor categories for each year of the five-year contract. Would USAID please confirm that 11,500 person-days is the LOE ceiling for CLIN 002?

Correct.

23. Per Section L.8.A.10, regarding Activity Fund, the solicitation says “Any costs for local organizations and local personnel MUST include a US$ equivalent column.” Section L.8 also says Offerors must propose costs in US dollars. Does USAID expect local budgets to be submitted in both Colombian Pesos and US Dollars?

No. If they are provided in Pesos there must be a US$ equivalent also provided.

24. Per Section L.8.A.10 and L.8.A.11, international/non-local subcontracts do not qualify as part of the Activity Fund and should be budgeted separately; however, J.6 does not have a section for international/non-local subcontracts. Can Offerors add a budget section after J.6, Section F titled “G. Non-local subcontractors”?

Offerors can add appropriate sections in the budget template for international/non-local subcontracts.

25. Per Section L.8.A.10, local consultants make up part of the Activity Fund; however, local consultants are listed in L.8.A.4 and in L.8.A.10. Could USAID confirm if they would like offerors to budget all local consultant labor under the Activity Fund, Line Item 10 (J.6, Section F) or if should they be budgeted under Consultants, Line Item 4 (J.6, Section A)?

If the Offeror uses a local consultant subcontractor to further the objectives of Section C, the Offeror may ascribe those to the Activity Fund but are not required to. If a local consultant subcontractor is used for support purposes (e.g. technical writer or editor for

Section F deliverable, an attorney to help the Offeror legally register or review leases, etc) these consultants would not be attributable to the Activity Fund.

26. Section L, Part 2 (g), page 137, states that the summary budget must reflect summary cost information for each of the major budget categories for each of the contract years separately. The summary budget provided in Section J.6 only includes high level totals per CLIN per contract year. Could USAID please confirm if they would like Offerors to use the J.6 summary budget or to add major budget categories?

Offerors must aggregate the costs found in their detailed budget tab into the categories listed in the summary budget tab without adding additional categories to the summary budget tab.

27. Section L.8, Part 2, g., page 137, 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?

Confirmed.

28. While we understand that line-items listed in Section L.8.A, CLIN 001, are a minimum, per this statement, “The Offeror’s cost proposal must at a minimum include the following information and be organized in the manner described below,” there are inconsistencies.

For example, many line-items in Section L.8.A do not match the line items listed in J.6 Detailed Budget Template. Would USAID please confirm that Offerors should use their own judgement when aligning the costs outlined in Section L.8.A to the appropriate line item in J.6?

Offerors may use their best judgment but have an affirmative duty to provide a clear complete, reasonable and realistic budget proposal to USAID.

29. Per Section L.8.A, CLIN 001, Communications is listed as its own line item (8.

Communications, page 138) but are also listed in Other Direct Costs (13. Other Direct Costs, page 140). Could USAID please clarify that Communications costs should be budgeted and addressed under ODCs, which would match the J.6 Budget Template?

Please budget them under ODCs.

30. RFP does not provide line-item descriptions for Allowances; however, there is a section for Allowances in J.6 Budget Template. Are Offerors allowed to budget for line-items not included in the list, such as Allowances?

Per Section L.8, Part 2, g., “The Offeror’s cost proposal must at a minimum include the following information…”

31. Section L.8, Part 2, A., 10., page 139, indicates that subcontracts with local organizations are part of the Activity Fund. The Detailed Budget tab in Attachment J.6 does not include a separate cost category for subcontracts, which seems to indicate that all subcontracts could be budgeted under the Activity Fund:

a. Would USAID please provide guidance on where to budget international subcontract funds, given they are not part of the Activity Fund? If this is incorrect, please clarify whether certain international subcontractor costs could be budgeted under the Activity Fund (e.g., local short-term technical assistance, programmatic activity costs, etc.).

Offerors may add a separate line item for international subcontractors. The RFP clearly states what can be included under the Activity Fund in Sections L.8 and C. 5.8.

b. Would USAID consider subcontracts with Locally Established Partners (LEPs) as qualified within the New Partnership Initiative (NPI) to count toward the 50 percent Activity Fund total under CLIN 001?

Yes. Locally Established Partners may be included under the Activity Fund.

32. Could USAID please clarify that Cost Worksheets are only required for major subcontractors per Section L.8, Part 2.e? Other sections of Section L.8 (i.e. Part 2.c) seem to suggest that budgets are required for all proposed subcontracts.

Detailed budgets are only required for the prime and any major subcontractor.

33. Section L.8, Part 2, e., pages 136-137, 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?

There must be a detailed budget similar to the prime’s for any major subcontract.

34. Would USAID consider removing the requirement for Major Subcontractors to provide cost information?

No. This is a required submission.

35.

36. Per Section L.8.A.11, “the cost and pricing proposal must describe all potential subcontracting arrangements.” Offerors are not likely to know the arrangement of potential subcontracts, as they would be determined during implementation. Could USAID please provide more clarification about what information they are seeking? Is

USAID asking offerors to describe potential subcontracting mechanisms, which are outlined in U.S. Government regulation, FAR Part 16?

Offerors must list the yearly amounts for any identified non-major subcontractor in this section but are not required to give a separate detailed budget for them in another tab. If a lump sum is provided, the Offeror has an affirmative duty to provide sufficient information in their budget narrative to demonstrate reasonableness and realism of the proposed amount.

37. Could USAID please consider the activity fund to be 40-50% of the TEC of CLIN 001?

No.

38. In Section L.7.1, Page 130, 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 8-point font can also be used for tables?

Per Section L.7.1. “Text in graphs, charts, and textboxes may be less than 12 points in size but no less than 8 points and must be legible” The description does not include tables.

39. Would USAID consider allowing Offerors to include an Acronyms section and Table of Contents that do not count against the 50-page limit?

No.

40. Section L.7.1, page 130, says, “No part of the technical proposal is excluded from the page limitation except key personnel resumes.” However, Section L.7.4 Past Performance, c., on page 134, in reference to quality awards and certifications, says, “This information may be included in an annex and is not included in the page limitation.” Please confirm that quality awards and certifications do not count against the page limit.

Correct. This is a second exclusion from the page limit not identified in L.7.1.

41. Section L.7.4(d)(3) Past Performance (page 134) states “To supplement the narrative summary in (A), provide a list of the contracts for which you submitted subcontract reports to eSRS (FAR52.219-9(d)(10) over the past three years and a copy of any similarly recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to the eSRS. Our list of recent contracts with subcontract reports submitted to eSRS, and full hardcopy subcontracting reports (SF-294s) for the past three years would exceed the page limit for the technical volume. Given that Past Performance Information is due on the same date as questions are due, would USAID consider discounting the pages used to provide this information from the page limit to the technical volume stated in L.6(a)?

This data would not count against the page limit.

42. Section L.7.4 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.6.”

Can USAID confirm whether non-major subcontractors may also submit past performance information?

The Offeror (including all partners of a joint venture or consortium) and all major subcontractors must provide 2 past performance references.

43. Section L.7.4 Past Performance. Since the Past Performance submission date is on August 18, which is 19 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 non-major subcontractor in the full proposal stage?

Past performance is due by the deadline indicated in the RFP L.7.4 states which organizations must submit past performance. Offers that do not comply with the submission requirements of the RFP are found to be non-responsive and not evaluated or considered for award.

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

No. Each proposal is considered on its own merits. If two proposals offered the same Chief of Party (COP) but proposal X did not submit the resume, it would be unfair to proposal Y to use their submission of the same COP resume in evaluation of proposal X.

The same is true for past performance. Furthermore, past performance references are part of the page limit for the RFP. Allowing the suggested method would give an unfair advantage to the organization that didn’t submit the information for a consortium member or major subcontract because they knew the same information was submitted separately by another offeror. They would essentially be getting extra pages in their proposal.

44. F.6.7, Bimonthly Newsletters, page 43, says that the newsletters should be distributed via email and “available on the Contractor’s activity website.” Could USAID please confirm that the contractor should budget for an activity website?

F.6.7 does not create an obligation to create an activity website. If the contractor has an activity website, they would be required to post the bimonthly newsletters to it. Each offeror must determine whether an activity website is appropriate for their technical approach and worth the associated cost.

45. 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…. if the Offeror or major subcontractor does not have a cognizant Government Audit Agency, the proposal must include…audited balance sheets and profit and loss statements... and…the 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?

Each Offeror must follow the instructions in this RFP to be considered compliant, including requirements as applicable for proposed major subcontractors.

46. RFP Reference: Section M.3.2 Page Number: Page 150 Relevant RFP Language: Section Heading: M.3.2 Management Approach – CLIN 001 and 002

Question: USAID includes CLIN 002 in the Evaluation Criteria for the Management Approach, but CLIN 002 is not mentioned in the Section L or Section M evaluation criteria subfactors. Could USAID confirm if Offerors should describe how they will manage CLIN 002 in the Management Approach section?

As identified in M.3.2, the Management approach is considered for both CLIN 001 and CLIN 002. Offerors must determine how to write their best proposal.