72051423R00005 (01) - Attachment 2 - Questions and Answers Document.pdf

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) 72051423R00005

SUSTAINABLE AND ECONOMIC TRANSFORMATION (SET) ACTIVITY

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (Q&A) DOCUMENT

TECHNICAL:

1. Can USAID provide a list of ongoing USAID projects in each region, and the locations where the USAID regional coordinators are based?

The map included at the end of this document provides information about the geographic location of USAID/Colombia Mission activities.

The three USAID/Colombia activities referenced in Section C.5 GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS of the RFP operate in the following areas:

● Equitable Finance is implemented in 193 municipalities in five economic corridors: 1) Bajo Cauca and Nordeste Antioqueño; 2) Catatumbo; 3) Cauca and Nariño; 4) Caquetá and Putumayo; and 5) Meta and Guaviare.

● Destination Nature is implemented in six regions that have strong nature tourism potential and face significant environmental threats. These regions are: 1) central and southern Pacific; 2) Putumayo; 3) Caquetá; 4) Meta and Guaviare; 5) Montes de María;

and 6) Sierra Nevada and Serranía del Perijá.

● Land for Prosperity is implemented in conflict-affected regions in Bajo Cauca, Catatumbo, Meta, Montes de María, Northern Cauca, Southern Tolima, Tumaco, and the vicinity of the Chiribiquete National Park.

The objective of USAID/Colombia Mission's Regional Integration Strategy (RIS) is to achieve deeper regional impacts through enhanced coordination and collaboration. Currently, USAID/Colombia has five prioritized regions with a RIS coordinator:

● Pacífico y Frontera Nariñense (Tumaco)

● Caquetá (Florencia)

● Bajo Cauca Antioqueño (Caucasia)

● Catatumbo (Cúcuta)

● Bogotá

2. Page 13, C.6, results. “At least 400 development proposals presented by CBOs and local supported businesses to government actors...” Please clarify USAID’s definition of “development proposals.”

Does it include business plans?

Given SET’s bottom-up approach, “development proposals...to government actors” refer to advocacy, rather than applying for public funding. This advocacy could consist of strategies, propositions, plans, or actions discussed with public institutions to adopt and implement. For example, changes or adjustments to public investments or provision of services, policy or regulations, administrative changes that would improve the economic operating environment of targeted regions.

This does not include business plans, nor does it refer to the process that CBOs and businesses undertake to obtain permits and licenses or apply for public subsidies or co-financing.

3. On page 121, Section L.7.3, USAID requires offerors to “establish a causal relationship between planned interventions and expected outcomes.” Given the challenges of establishing causal relationships in complex environments, can USAID consider rewording this or defining what it would consider a credible “causal relationship?

A credible causal relationship explains how the proposed technical approach and underlying interventions will facilitate positive change and achieve the expected outcomes. It refers to the anticipated or planned direct effect, at various stages of an intervention, on the issue to be resolved and the results to be obtained. Given the complex environment, assumptions, risks and external factors can be identified and taken into account when articulating the logic of the approach and causal relationships.

4. C.6 “Results,” (p. 13):

a. USAID notes that SET is expected to achieve “At least 62 million dollars of private-public funds leveraged for advancing local development initiatives prioritized by communities.” However, in Attachment J.5 – Performance Indicators (p. 153-154) USAID includes “Value ($) of private resources leveraged for advancing economic development initiatives” and “At least $60 million in public and private leveraged funds” as illustrative indicators for IRs 1.2 and 2.2 respectively. Could USAID please clarify which target is the leverage target for the entire SET Activity and whether funding leveraged under IRs 1.2 and 2.2 will contribute to that goal?

The RFP was amended and sections C.6 and J.5 reflect that the goal is for the entire SET activity to leverage at least USD 46 million of private-public funds. The amount could be larger depending on the technical approach and partnership strategies proposed by the offeror.

This amount is expected to be leveraged from public and private stakeholders to implement and invest in rural development actions aligned with the technical approach to achieve IRs 1.2 and 2.2.

b.USAID also notes that SET is expected to achieve “At least 70% (min. 210) of the businesses supported under objective 1 using formal financial services.” However, in attachment J.5 – Performance Indicators (p. 153), one of the illustrative indicators for Special IR 1.3 is “At least 80% of the businesses supported under objective 1 using formal financial services.” Could USAID please clarify which target Offerors should use for objective 1?

The RFP was amended, and Section J.5 reflects that SET is expected to achieve “At least 70% of supported businesses to use formal financial services.”

5. C.7 “Activity Fund (Applicable to CLIN 001)” (p. 14): USAID states that “SET will use the Activity Fund and work with communities, producer associations, municipal and regional governments, the national government, the private sector and other relevant stakeholder to get the required 1:2 leverage.” On page 30, USAID also notes that the Activity Fund must be, at minimum, 50% of total estimated cost of CLIN 001. Given the leverage target listed on page 13 is higher than a 1:2 leverage of the Activity Fund total, can USAID please clarify that the 1:2 leverage requirement is for the SET activity overall and does not only apply to the Activity Fund?

The goal is for SET to leverage at least 46 million USD of private-public funds overall. Facilitating leverage is not limited to activities under the activity fund. The amount might be larger depending on the technical approach proposed by the offeror.

6. Section C.6, on page 13 states, “At least 70% (min. 210) of the businesses supported under objective 1 using formal financial services,” and Section J.5, on page 153 states, “At least 80% of the businesses supported under objective 1 using formal financial services.” Could USAID please clarify whether the target for this indicator is at least 70% or at least 80%?

The RFP was amended, and Section J.5 reflects that SET is expected to achieve “At least 70% of supported businesses to use formal financial services.”

7. Section F.7 Key Personnel (page 42) states that the deputy chief of party should have “intermediate spoken, written and reading abilities in English (Level III).” Given the technical qualifications necessary for a candidate to be successful in this role and the fact that he or she will be primarily working at the national, departmental, and municipal levels, would USAID consider amending the English language requirement to “proficient or basic spoken, written and reading abilities in English (Level II)”? This would allow the offeror to select from a wider pool of technically strong local candidates who would otherwise be excluded due to the language requirement.

Section F.7 was amended and the new language requirements for the DCOP are: “Fluent spoken, written and reading abilities in Spanish (Level IV) and proficient spoken, written and reading abilities in English (Level II).”. Per Section M.3.2.2, the evaluation will consider “The extent to which the proposed key personnel candidates meet or exceed the minimum qualifications and there is representation by a diverse team of qualified Colombian professionals.”

COST:

8. Section B.5 Other Direct Cost Limitations Under Clin 002 (page 3) states that the amount of ordered Other Direct Costs (ODCs) under CLIN 002 will not exceed $3,000,000. Could USAID please confirm whether offerors may simply use a plug figure for ODCs of $3,000,000 or less?

For budgeting purposes, Offerors can use the $3,000,000 plug figure. If CLIN 002 is activated during implementation, this figure will become a ceiling.

9. Section C.7 Activity Fund (Applicable to CLIN 001) (page 14) of the RFP states “Pursuant to ADS

302.3.4.13 [Grants Under Contracts (GUCs)], USAID must be significantly involved in establishing the selection criteria and must approve the subcontractors/recipients.” However, ADS 302.3.4.13 only applies to grants and not to subcontractors. Therefore, we respectfully request USAID remove the reference to subcontractors from this line and revise it to read “Pursuant to ADS 302.3.4.13, USAID must be significantly involved in establishing the selection criteria and must approve the recipients.”

USAID will be involved in approving subcontractors, depending on the thresholds to be defined by the Contracting Officer in the Designation Letter. However, given the applicability of ADS

302.3.4.13. to grants, the reference to approving subcontractors in this section has been removed.

10. Section C.7.1 Infrastructure Interventions (page 15) states that the contractor must set aside $5,000,000 of the total estimated cost of CLIN 001 for infrastructure subcontracts within the activity fund. Could USAID please confirm whether the $5,000,000 could include the cost for the architecture and engineering firm the contractor is required to engage per Section H.19 of the

RFP?

Yes, the $5,000,000 can include the costs associated with the architecture and engineering firms.

11. Section F.6 Fixed Fee Payment Schedule [CLIN 001] (page 38) of the RFP states that fixed fee under

CLIN 001 will be paid according to completion of project deliverables. 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 kindly 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 non-accepted 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 completion type contract and this language will not be modified.

12. Section H.2 Authorized Geographic Code (page 54) states “Task orders without the same funding source as the basic IDIQ must obtain a separate waiver to the extent a waiver is required.” Could USAID please clarify the referenced waiver’s purpose, the process for obtaining it, and from whom?

A waiver would be required if the contractor needed to procure goods and/or services outside of the authorized geographic code of the Task Order. The process is described in ADS 310.3.4 Waivers.

13. Section L.9 Instructions for Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal (page 129) states that the “Activity Fund must be up to 50% of the TEC of CLIN 001” (emphasis ours). However, section F.5.5 Activity Fund Manual (page 30) of the RFP states that a “minimum of 50% of the Total Estimated Cost of CLIN 001 of this Activity must be spent through an Activity Fund.” Could USAID kindly confirm that according to the language on page 129, a maximum of 50% of the total estimated cost of CLIN 001 must be spent through the Activity Fund?

Section L.9 has been amended. Consistent with Section B.4, it now reads: “The size of the Activity Fund over a five-year period must be at a minimum 50% of the total USAID financed CLIN 001 budget.”

14. Section L.9 Instructions for Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal (page 130) states “This Contract allows the establishment of a Grants Under Contracts (GUCs) mechanism of $10,000,000 of the Activity Fund, as provided in the associated GUCs provisions in this solicitation.” Could USAID please confirm that the envisioned amount of $10,000,000 is a ceiling on what Offerors can propose for GUCs, and not a plug figure that must be included in the proposal?

For budgeting purposes, the $10,000,000 for GUCs is a plug figure. During implementation, this figure will become a ceiling.

15. Section L.9, Part 2.A.10(ii) on page 130 states, “This Contract allows the establishment of a Grants Under Contract (GUCs) mechanism of $10,000,000 of the Activity Fund, as provided in the associated GUCs provisions in this solicitation.” Would USAID please clarify whether the $10 million for GUC is a fixed plug or a ceiling that Offerors should not exceed but may adapt per their proposed technical approach as long as the Activity Fund remains at 50% of CLIN 001?

For budgeting purposes, the $10,000,000 for GUCs is a plug figure. During implementation, this figure will become a ceiling.

16. Section L.9 Instructions for Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal (page 133) of the RFP states that “USAID reserves the right to adjust this fixed fee schedule for the final contract regardless of whether discussions are held or not.” We respectfully ask USAID to consider removing this condition. This potential exclusion of the offeror from final decision-making on the fee schedule

— including both which deliverables are tied to fee, and the fee amounts tied to each deliverable

— will prevent accurate offeror estimations of contractor effort (as defined by FAR 15.404-4) and may incentivize offerors to propose higher fee to account for this risk. Should USAID wish to revisit the fee schedule at award and during implementation, we propose this be done collaboratively as part of annual work planning. This approach would ensure fee-bearing deliverables remain aligned with evolving stakeholder needs and remove risks that may lead offerors to propose higher fee, ensuring that USAID receives a fair and reasonable price for the contract.

Section L.9, Part 2. A.15. Fixed Fee was amended, and the last sentence was removed.

17. Section J.8, Budget Template & Page 134, L.9 Part 2 provides instructions and a framework for budgeting for CLIN 002. USAID has indicated that 20% of total costs are to be attributed to CLIN 002 and requested ceiling daily rates for various positions, but requested an exact amount of person-day and provided a plug figure for ODCs. As indirect and other costs cannot necessarily be assumed based on this information and as CLIN 002 has been requested to be budgeted at a fixed percentage of the budget, would USAID consider adjusting the presentation of CLIN 002 in the budget to a simple plug figure to be accompanied by ceiling daily rates rather than an illustrative budget?

As the Offeror correctly points out, USAID is requesting an “illustrative budget”, as there is no certainty that CLIN 002 will be executed; it will be ordered if and when the need arises. Please follow the budget template provided and the instructions found in Section L.9 Part 2, B. CLIN 002.

18. Page 139, Section M.2, Method of Evaluation indicates that if no competitive range is established that a price analysis will include CLIN 002. As there is no task order to fully develop a budget related to CLIN 002, would USAID consider removing this from the evaluation criteria?

In Section L.9 Part 2, B. CLIN 002, the RFP instructs all Offerors to “set aside twenty (20) percent of the proposed Total Estimated Cost to cover Task Orders to be potentially issued under the IDIQ Contract.” Therefore, inclusion of CLIN 002 in the price analysis would not affect it.

19. Section J.8, Budget Template & Page 127-131 Section L.9 Part 2 describes various budget sections to be included and described in the budget. These sections do not align with the sections for CLIN 001 in the provided template. Can USAID please clarify if:

● Consultants should be budgeted under Salaries and Wages/Short-Term Technical Assistant, another category, or consider adding a consultants section to the budget template?

As instructed on Section L.9, Part 2. b. “The cost proposal must be prepared in a manner consistent with your current accounting system. ”. Offerors may complement the budget template by using their own detailed budget spreadsheet as a separate tab within the excel file.

● Subcontracts under CLIN 001 should be included under Other Direct Costs, another category, or consider adding a contractual section to the budget template?

consistent with your current accounting system. ”. Also, Section L.9 Part 2, A. CLIN 001,

10. Activity Fund, states “Offerors should use the Activity Fund to account for subcontracts to local organizations, Grants under Contract (GUCs) and short-term technical assistance (STTA) contracts that demonstrably assist the contractor in the achievement of the SET’s programmatic objectives and results.” Offerors may complement the budget template by using their own detailed budget spreadsheet as a separate tab within the excel file.

● Equipment and supplies should be included under Other Direct Costs, another category, or consider adding those sections to the budget template?

consistent with your current accounting system. ”. Later, under numeral f., the RFP states “The Offeror must submit a detailed budget and budget narrative that supports item for item the cost estimates proposed in its detailed budget. ”.

20. Regarding the Budget Template in Attachment J.8, could USAID please confirm that Offerors may add standard cost categories to the Detailed Budget tab, such as Equipment/Supplies?

As instructed on Section L.9, Part 2. b. “The cost proposal must be prepared in a manner consistent with your current accounting system. ”. Later, under numeral f., the RFP states “The Offeror must submit a detailed budget and budget narrative that supports item for item the cost estimates proposed in its detailed budget. ”. Offerors may complement the budget template by using their own detailed budget spreadsheet as a separate tab within the excel file.

21. L.9 “Instructions for Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal”:

a. Part 2 - Proposed Costs and Prices/ Detailed Budget Narrative (p. 126-127): USAID notes that “the budget must be completed in the format included in Section J.8 – BUDGET TEMPLATE.” Can USAID please confirm whether Offerors may modify the structure of the tab labeled “Detailed Budget” as needed to align with their specific Cost Accounting

Standards, provided Offerors continue to follow the line item structure identified in the first tab of Attachment J.8 which is labeled “Summary Budget?”

As instructed on Section L.9, Part 2. b. “The cost proposal must be prepared in a manner consistent with your current accounting system. ”. Later, under numeral f., the RFP states “The Offeror must submit a detailed budget and budget narrative that supports item for item the cost estimates proposed in its detailed budget.” Offerors may also complement the information by using their own detailed budget spreadsheet as a separate tab within the excel file.

b. Point 10. “Activity Fund” (p. 129-130): USAID notes that “Offerors should use the Activity Fund to account for subcontracts to local organizations, Grants under Contract (GUCs) and short-term technical assistance (STTA) contracts that demonstrably assist the contractor in the achievement of the SET’s programmatic objectives and results.” USAID also notes that “Offerors must set aside no more than $5,000,000 of the Activity Fund for infrastructure activities.” Since infrastructure costs will come from the Activity Fund, can USAID please clarify if small-scale infrastructure subcontracts can be issued to local and international organizations?

Infrastructure subcontracts can be issued to local or international organizations, as the end of the section referenced by the offeror states: “that demonstrably assist the contractor in the achievement of the SET’s programmatic objectives and results”

22. Page 130, Section L.9 Part 2, Proposed Costs and Prices/Detailed Budget Narrative indicates that offerors must set aside “no more than” $5,000,000 of the Activity fund for infrastructure activities while Page 15, Section C.7.1, Infrastructure Interventions, indicates that the contractor “must set aside $5,000,000.” Can USAID indicate whether contractors must budget $5,000,000 or if this is a maximum amount?

For budgeting purposes, the $5,000,000 is a plug figure. During implementation, this figure will become a ceiling. Section L.9 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF THE COST/BUSINESS PROPOSAL, A.10. Activity Fund, iii. Small-scale Infrastructure Subcontracts was revised and now reads: “Offerors must set aside $5,000,000 of the Activity Fund for infrastructure activities”.

23. Section C.7.1, on page 15 states, “The contractor must set aside $5,000,000 of the Total Estimated

Cost of CLIN 001 for infrastructure subcontracts within the Activity Fund. These projects are expected to average $60,000 per project and rarely exceed $200,000.” However, Section L.9, Part 2.A.10(iii) on page 130 states, “Offerors must set aside no more than [emphasis added] $5,000,000 of the Activity Fund for infrastructure activities…” Would USAID please clarify whether the $5,000,000 is a fixed amount or a ceiling that Offerors should not exceed but may adapt per their proposed technical approach?

For budgeting purposes, the $5,000,000 is a plug figure. During implementation, this figure will become a ceiling. Section L.9 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF THE COST/BUSINESS PROPOSAL, A.10. Activity Fund, iii. Small-scale Infrastructure Subcontracts was revised and now reads: “Offerors must set aside $5,000,000 of the Activity Fund for infrastructure activities”.

24. F.5.4 “Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (AMEL) Plan” (p. 28): USAID notes that the

Final AMEL Plan will be due 20 calendar days after receipt of USAID’s comments. However, on page 39, the Fixed Fee Payment Schedule shows the Final AMELP due 90 calendar days after award. Would USAID please clarify the delivery deadline for the final AMELP?

SECTION F – DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE, F.5.4 Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (AMEL) Plan and SECTION F.6 FIXED FEE PAYMENT SCHEDULE [CLIN 001] were updated to reflect that the delivery date to the Final AMEL Plan is 30 calendar days after receipt of USAID’s comments.

25. H.1. “Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation,” a. “Limitations” (p. 52): USAID notes that all “Cooperating Country Nationals (CCNs) and Third Country Nationals (TCNs) salaries must not exceed the Local compensation Plan (LCP). However, in section H.1.f. “Initial Salaries,” USAID states that “The Contractor must compensate all personnel in accordance with its approved salary scale, staffing plan, compensation package, and consistent with market research and/or data.”

Would USAID please kindly clarify if Offerors can utilize salary rates that differ from the ranges included in the LCP for Colombia if these rates align with the Offerors personnel policies and are supported by market research and/or data?

The language in these sections of the RFP is complementary. One of our office’s roles is to ensure that we are not providing contractor's staff with significantly better benefits than our own locally employed Mission staff to perform similar tasks. It is a matter of fairness and to ensure that we are not creating long term incentives for Mission staff to take jobs in private contractor positions to the USG's detriment. Salaries must not exceed the Local compensation Plan (LCP), unless an exception is approved by the Mission Director in accordance with AIDAR section 722.170(b). Also, an updated version of the LCP is included.

26. H. 10 “Environmental Compliance,” (p. 63): USAID states that “within the first 60 days a social safeguards implementation plan draft will be submitted to the COR.” Can USAID confirm that the contractor may include this plan within its first Annual Workplan due 60 calendar days after contract award?

This document can be submitted simultaneously with the Annual Work Plan (AWP), as the deadline is the same, although it is a separate document.

27. J.20 “Local Compensation Plan” (Attachment J.20): USAID included the LCP from 2021. Can USAID confirm if this is the most recent version of the LCP for Colombia or provide a more recent version if applicable?

A more recent version of the LCP is provided.

28. L.6.o. “General Submission Instructions,” (p. 120): USAID notes that “all information from appendices must be referenced in the technical proposal and summarized and included in the annex section.” Can USAID please confirm that Offerors are not expected to include any annexes/appendices with the Technical Proposal?

Section L.7.2 sets a page limitation for the technical proposal and states “The page limitation stated above for the English-language TECHNICAL PROPOSAL is inclusive of the sections listed below, as well as any other additions (i.e., table of contents, acronyms list, etc.)”. It is up to the offeror to determine how to best structure its technical proposal beyond the specific required sections and decide if annexes/appendices are needed within the page limitation.

29. L.7.2 “Format, Page Limitation and Content,” (p. 121): As with graphs, charts, and text boxes, can USAID please confirm if text used in tables and graphics can also be less than 12 points in size but no less than 8 points?

Instructions in this section of the RFP state: “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.” Please follow them.

30. Section L.7.2, pages 120-121 notes 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.” Please confirm that tables and figures may use legible text less than 12 points in size but no less than 8 points.

Instructions in this section of the RFP state: “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.” Please follow them.

31. Section I.1 on page 74 includes a restriction on severance payments (FAR 52.237-8). Would USAID please consider removing this clause or adding FAR 52.237-9, Waiver of Limitation on Severance Payments to Foreign Nationals?

This clause will not be removed.

32. May Offerors present a brief statement of relevance for the two most recent and relevant Past

Performance references that are included in Government Past Performance Systems, and therefore, not presented in Attachment J.7?

No. Offerors are instructed to follow Section L.8, INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF PAST

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION.

33. Sections L.8.a.2 and M.2.4 on pages 124 and 139-140 respectively, state that “major subcontractors are those that represent 20% or more of the CLIN 001 budget.” Section L.9, Part 2(e) on pages 126-127 states, “The Summary Cost Worksheets provided must include separate worksheets for the prime and all major subcontracts identified at the proposal stage.” Could USAID please confirm/clarify the following items?

a. The Summary Budget tab in the required budget template includes only two budget line items with aggregate costs for CLIN 001 and CLIN 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.

b. Would it be correct to assume that non-major subcontractors identified at the proposal stage are not required to complete separate Summary Cost Worksheets?

Correct. Per section L.9 Part 1(e), “The Summary Cost Worksheets provided must include separate worksheets for the prime and all major subcontracts identified at the proposal stage”. This section of the RFP also mentions “the Offeror assumes full responsibility to ensure that it submits sufficient information to allow USAID to determine the reasonableness and realism of proposed costs in the opinion of the Contracting Officer” and instructs the offeror to “Include in your cost proposal sufficient detail to support and explain all costs proposed, giving figures and narrative explanation”.

34. Section L.9, Part 2(g) on page 127 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 budget 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?

Offerors must fill the budget template provided in Attachment J.8. Offerors may also complement the information by using their own detailed and summary budget separate tabs within the excel file.

35. Section L.9, Part 2.A.10 on page 129 indicates that subcontracts with local organizations are considered part of the Activity Fund. The Detailed Budget tab in Attachment J.8 does not include a separate cost category for Subcontracts, which seems to indicate that all subcontracts could be budgeted under the Activity Fund:

a. Could USAID please provide guidance about where to budget subcontracts with non-local organizations?

As instructed on Section L.9, Part 2. b. “The cost proposal must be prepared in a manner consistent with your current accounting system” Later, under numeral f., the RFP states “The Offeror must submit a detailed budget and budget narrative that supports item for item the cost estimates proposed in its detailed budget. ”

b. Could USAID please confirm that the following international subcontractor costs may be budgeted under the Activity Fund: local STTA and programmatic activity costs?

Offerors should use the Activity Fund to account for subcontracts to local organizations, Grants under Contract (GUCs) and short-term technical assistance (STTA) contracts that demonstrably assist the contractor in the achievement of the SET’s programmatic objectives and results.

Depending on the offeror’s accounting system, international subcontractor costs may not fall under this category; as the RFP also states, “The Offeror must submit a detailed budget and budget narrative that supports item for item the cost estimates proposed in its detailed budget”, Offerors can use the budget narrative to explain their rationale.

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

Please review the definition of Local Organizations included in Section L.9, Part 2. A. 10.i Subcontracts with local organizations.

36. Section L.9, Part 2.A.16 on pages 133-134 states in the first sentence of paragraph two that a security plan is not required as part of the proposal. The fourth sentence of the same paragraph requests a “coherent, overall integrated security plan that demonstrates that the Offeror has undertaken a thoughtful review of their security needs and includes analysis of the various elements of a security system”. Could USAID please confirm that a security plan is not required as part of the proposal?

As stated in this section, a Security Plan is not required as part of the proposal. The entire sentence referenced by the Offeror reads: “The budget must delineate and justify for reasonableness all costs and provide a coherent, overall integrated security plan that demonstrates that the Offeror has undertaken a thoughtful review of their security needs and includes analysis of the various elements of a security system. ”, and therefore refers to the budget plan related to security.

37. Regarding Section L.9, Part 2, B (CLIN 002) on pages 134-135, 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, it must include in its cost proposal sufficient detail to support and explain all costs proposed, giving figures and 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).

In accordance with Section L.9. Part 2. B. CLIN 002, the Offeror must propose ceiling daily rates for each of the illustrative positions. This section also states that for estimating purposes, the Offeror must propose costs for a total of [3,000] person-days equally distributed across all labor categories for each year of the five-year contract. If an Offeror were to propose separate ceiling rates for the same position by levels, it must use the ceiling rate for each level, as long as the mix provides the required LOE.

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

For budgeting purposes, the $3,000,000 is a plug figure. If CLIN 002 is activated during implementation, this figure will become a ceiling.

d. Could USAID please confirm that the ODC limitation of $3M refers to all direct material costs, e.g., travel, subcontracts, ODCs, etc., and not just ODCs as a single cost category?

Per Section B.5 OTHER DIRECT COST LIMITATIONS UNDER CLIN 002, “The estimated cost of this CLIN includes estimates for material, equipment, subcontracts, travel, and training required for performance of the total amount of work that can be ordered by the government under this CLIN during the life of this contract. “