Questions and Answers_72052122R00004.pdf

Questions and Answers

Request For Proposal (RFP) 72052122R00004

USAID/Haiti Environment – North Activity

1. RFP Section C III, Guiding Principles (page 12) requires that offerors build on the USAID/Haiti

Reforestation Project. A search of the Development Experience Clearinghouse for the USAID

Reforestation Project’s reports yields only its FY 2018 progress report. Could USAID please provide any of other project reports that would be relevant to the design of USAID/Haiti Resilient

Environment-North?

USAID Response: USAID has attached the annual reports and updated the DEC.

2. Section L.8.5 B. Management/Staffing (page 96): Would USAID please confirm that an organogram may be submitted as an annex, not subject to the page limitation?

USAID Response: Yes, an organogram may be submitted as an annex, not subject to page limitation

3. Section L.8.5 A. AMELP (page 96): Would USAID please confirm that the table of indicators and targets may be submitted as an annex, not subject to the page limitation? This would allow offers to comply with section B.7(b), Payment of Fixed Fee.

USAID Response: Yes, a table of indicators may be submitted as an annex and not subject to the Page limitation.

4. Section L.8.5 A. AMELP (page 96), states that offerors are required to align the AMELP to the

“Economic and Food Security Enhanced Project”. Can USAID please confirm if this is required and if so, provide the AMELP, project description, and other relevant documentation for this project?

USAID Response: The AMELP should be aligned with the USAID/Haiti Strategic Framework (in attachment) and referred to in Section VIII Relationship to USAID/Haiti Strategic Framework on page 16 and the results framework. In addition, we have attached the indicator list for the PMP (see answer to question #35).

5. Section XII. General Requirements – Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (Page 24) states that

“a USAID-funded performance evaluation will be required for this Activity.” Will the funding for that evaluation be separate from the Haiti Resilience award, or should funds be reserved for this evaluation in the project budget?

USAID Response: The USAID-funded performance evaluation is separate from the Haiti Resilience award.

6. Section L.8.6 Past Performance (Page 97): Please confirm that Cooperative Agreements may be included as Past Performance References.

USAID Response: At lease three (3) Past Performance References for contracts must be included beyond those, Past Performance References for Cooperative Agreements may be included.

7. Regarding attachment J.1 Initial Environmental Examination (IEE): In light of the environmental review being deferred, could USAID share information about what type of determination is expected when the IEE is complete?

USAID Response: The determination of the IEE will depend on the specific activity proposed by the winning offeror.

8. Could USAID please clarify the implementing partner’s responsibility for PMP indicators? Can

USAID clarify if a third party will collect data for the following indicators at the Zone of Influence

(ZOI) level:

a) 1.1.1: Resil-a: Ability to Recover from Shocks & Stresses Index;

b) 1.1.3 Custom: Percentage of USAID activity participants with improvement in targeted resilience capacities; and

c) 2.2-4 Custom: Household asset ownership index

USAID Response: Yes, USAID will fund a baseline study in the Zone of Influence at the zone level.

However, this activity should have a robust M&E Plan to be able to contribute to both performance, PMP, custom and standard indicators. See response to question #9.

9. Page 18, table 1: Can USAID please provide a Performance Indicator Reference Sheet (PIRS) for the custom PMP indicators:

a) 1.1.3 Custom: Percentage of USAID activity participants with improvement in targeted resilience capacities; and

b) 2.2-4 Custom: Household asset ownership index

USAID Response: USAID has attached the PIRS for the two custom indicators.

10. Section F.3 (page 30) provides an estimated period of performance but not an estimated start date.

We respectfully ask that USAID provide an estimated start date for this project.

USAID Response: The activity is estimated to begin in July 2022.

11. Page 9 and 25 of the solicitation USAID mentions incorporation of a Crisis Modifier. Could USAID please indicate whether a crisis modifier is a required component of the project? If so, would

USAID recommend a percentage of the budget for offerors to set aside for the Crisis Modifier?

USAID Response: On page 25 of the solicitation, it states that “The Contractor must build in programmatic and operational flexibility into their activities to allow quick response to unanticipated challenges which consistently occur in Haiti.” Immediately following, the solicitation states that one of the ways to accomplish this is through a crisis modifier. Thus, a crisis modifier is not a required component, however, building programmatic and operational flexibility that allow for quick response to shock and stressors is.

USAID does not recommend a budget set aside for the Crisis Modifier, rather the above requirement should be incorporated into the activity budget.

12. In section H.22 (d) (page 53) of the solicitation the Annual Salary Increases is limited to 5%;

anything above the mentioned percentage would require advance written approval by the CO.

However, based on data from multiple sources, the average inflation rate for Haiti for the years

2016 – 2021 is 16.23% and the projected average for the years 2022-2026 is 13.6%. Capping annual salary increases for local employees at 5% would put them at financial disadvantage and is effectively a pay cut. Considering the projected average inflation rate of 13.6% for 2022-2026, can

USAID confirm the 5% may apply to merit increase, on top of a cost-of-living adjustment aligned with annual inflation’?

USAID Response: Offerors may consider an annual increase based on merit of no more than 5%. If the

Offerors’ corporate policies and procedures allow a COLA for local employees, Offerors may budget for a

COLA aligned with estimated inflation, but the awardee will have to calculate the COLA annually based on actual inflation rates per year.

13. Haiti’s currency has fluctuated dramatically since August 2020. Could USAID propose an average exchange rate for all applicants to use in their proposals?

USAID Response: Offerors may assume 103 Haitian Gourdes per 1 US Dollar.

14. Page 100-101 of the solicitation states that USAID required biographical data forms for all staff:

“Biographical Data Sheets are required for all long term; short term expatriate personnel and all-long cooperating country personnel being proposed” and Completed biographical data sheets, https://docs.google.com/document/d/15450f5u1nfwSpzkyKec_EJxT3RS0glf6T6yO-W7oTZM/edit https://www.google.com/url?q=https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gmrmI20lRHO37M2rU4tI48N1FeVk-Dxy/edit&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1639670215117000&usg=AOvVaw1pVUXuJiWN2e55SQ_8AsL6

Form AID-1420-17 must be provided for all consultants”. At the proposal stage could USAID please clarify that biodata forms are only required for the three named key personnel positions?

USAID Response: Confirm. Biographical Data Sheets are only required for named key personnel at the time of proposal submission.

15. Page 47 and 102 of the solicitation indicate that the USAID mission does not want implementing partners to apply fee on Grants under Contract (GUCs) as the fee will not be reimbursed. Based on the high number of risks associated with issuing and managing GUCs, can USAID kindly reconsider and allow offerors to apply a fixed fee on GUCs?

USAID Response: Fixed fees will not be allowed on GUCs.

16. In the excel budget template provided by USAID, the budget categories/description are: Salaries and Wages, Fringe Benefits, Travel and Per Diem, Allowance, Other Direct Costs, Equipment and

Supplies, Subcontracts/Consultants, Grants, Indirect Costs and Fixed Fee. However, on page 100-

102 the budget categories/description are: Direct Labor – Salaries and Wages, Fringe Benefits, Travel and Per Diem, Equipment and Supplies, Subcontracts & Consultants, Allowances, Other

Direct Cost, Grants Under Contract (GUCs), Environmental Cost, Indirect Costs, Fixed Fee. To best align with USAID’s requirements:

a) Should Offerors use the naming convention and sequence of cost categories as shown in the

MS Excel budget template or in the solicitation?

b) On page 101 of the solicitation, USAID asks for Environmental Costs. Could USAID please provide more details about what would included in this category? Is the environmental costs budget required as a separate tab?

c) Are offerors required to use the budget template provided by USAID? May offerors use their own budget template provided it is in compliance with the format provided in the solicitation?

USAID Response:

a) Yes, Offerors should use the naming convention and sequence as shown in the template

b) These are costs associated with complying with and monitoring for the IEE and the EMMP. The environmental costs do not have to be in a separate tab

c) See Response to sub-question 1

17. Should offerors expect any equipment transfer (vehicles, generators, etc.) from other USAID projects that are ending in the country?

USAID Response: Offerors should not assume transfer of any equipment, including vehicles, when constructing a cost proposal.

18. Section B.2 (page 6) states that the contract will be a cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) completion type.

Under such a type, the fee is fixed and can be adjusted only through a contract modification based on changes to the “Description of services to performed.” (FAR 52.243-2) Therefore, we respectfully request the following paragraphs of B.7. “[w]hen a Fee Bearing Milestone is not completed or achieved, the portion of the total fixed fee allocated to the Milestone in the Fee

Distribution Schedule shall not be paid. When a Fee Bearing Milestone is not completed on time, or requires more cost/effort to complete than projected in the Performance Work Statement, Work

Plan and AMELP, the portion of the total fixed fee allocated to the Milestone in the Fee Distribution

Schedule shall be subject to adjustment of the fee by the Contracting Officer…” to be supplemented with a statement that allows the corresponding portion of the total fixed fee to be rolled over to the next evaluation period or to another milestone as approved by the contracting officer, so as to ensure the fee under this contract remains fixed and is only adjusted as a result of changes in the work to be performed.

USAID Response: The following subparagraph has been added to Section B.7: “Any portion of fee left over from situations arising as described in paragraphs g and h of this section will roll over and be available for pay out in subsequent evaluation period(s) and from other Milestones in the Fee Distribution Schedule.”

19. Since the contract will be a CPFF completion type, a ceiling can be established only at “total costs” and not at CLIN level. (FAR 16.301-1) Therefore, we respectfully request that the following sentence is removed from Section B.4. “Contractor will not bill any amounts against this contract in excess of the amounts specified for each line item.”

USAID Response: The sentence has been removed from Section B.4

20. Section F.3 (page 30) provides an estimated period of performance but not an estimated start date.

We respectfully ask that USAID provide an estimated start date for this project.

USAID Response Please see the response to question 10

21. Section H.10 (page 47) and L.9 (page 98) of the RFP state that fee many not be taken on grants under contract (GUCs). This is inconsistent with FAR 15.404-4 and ADS 302.3.6.9, which state, inter alia, that pre-negotiated fee objectives must be determined according to a structured approach that considers contractor’s effort, risk, and other special factors. Grants require significant effort to administer and carry risk for the contractor, including the cost of financing grants, which must be recouped through fee. Additionally, the statutory underpinnings of fixed fee at 10 USC 2306(d) and 41 USC 254(b) discuss fee definitions and limitations in terms of total estimated cost, which would include grants in this case. Given this, we respectfully request that USAID revise the solicitation to allow offerors to propose a GUC fee that is reasonable and consistent with federal regulations.

USAID Response: USAID/Haiti is aware of the effort contractors undertake to administer grants and appropriately bill the government the direct labor and indirect costs associated with that administration, of which the contractor can realize profit/fee for its efforts. Contracts that include GUCs must conform to

ADS 303, which prohibit profit/fee.

22. Section H.22 (f) (page 53) states that contracting officer’s approval is required for initial starting salaries of all employees “whose salaries are charged as a direct cost to this contract.” Would

USAID consider removing this requirement for local support personnel salaries?

USAID Response: USAID will not remove this requirement.

23. Section H.22 (1) (page 53) states that “…Nor may any individual salary or wage, without approval of the Contracting Officer, exceed the employee’s current salary or wage, or the highest rate of annual salary or wage received during any full year of the immediately preceding three (3) years.”

We respectfully ask for this requirement to be removed since the new biodata form does not allow contractors to ask candidates about past salary history.

USAID Response: This sentence in Section H.22 (1) has been removed.

24. Section H.10 (page 47) states that “no funds will be provided through grants to government partner entities. All grants issued under the contract must be to local non-governmental organizations.”

However, USAID regulations allow contractors to execute solely in-kind grants to government entities. Would USAID confirm that solely in-kind grants to government entities will be allowed under this contract, pursuant to ADS 302.3.4.13?

USAID Response: Per ADS 302.2.4.13, in-kind grants to government entities will be allowed under this contract, however USAID/Haiti will not authorize the contractor to issue such grants to any central government entity but will consult with the contractor when it foresees in-kind grants to local government entities.

25. Section L8.4 (page 96) mentions that “Indicators listed and described in the SOW must be included in the Offeror’s Technical Approach. The Offeror must also propose additional standard and custom indicators tailored to the proposed development approach. Offerors must propose yearly targets for all indicators and clearly describe the results and outcomes to be achieved.” Could

USAID kindly confirm that offerors may include this information in the AMELP section?

USAID Response: Yes, offerors may include this information in the AMELP section.

26. In section L.9c. (page 101), we would like to note that the cost categories do not match the summary provided in attachment J.3 – Budget Template. We would respectfully ask that USAID remove

“Environmental costs” as a separate cost category to better align with the budget summary provided in attachment J.3 or adjust the budget template accordingly.

USAID Response: See response to question #16.

27. Section L.9c (page 102) states that “no fee/profit can be tied to the amount of GUC issued under this contract.” This appears to be inconsistent with FAR 15.404-4 and ADS 302.3.6.9, which state, inter alia, that pre-negotiation fee objectives must be determined according to a structured approach that considers contractor effort, risk, and other special factors. Grants require significant effort to administer and carry risks for the contractor. Additionally, the statutory underpinnings of fixed fee at 10 USC 2306(d) and 41 USC 254(b) discuss fee definitions and limitations in terms of total estimated cost, which would include grants in this case. Given this, we respectfully request that

USAID reconsider its agency pre-negotiation fee objective of zero percent on grants and allow offerors to charge a fee that is reasonable and consistent with federal regulations.

USAID Response: USAID/Haiti is aware of the effort contractors undertake to administer grants and appropriately bill the government the direct labor and indirect costs associated with that administration, of which the contractor can realize profit/fee for its efforts. Contracts that include GUCs must conform to

ADS 303, which prohibit profit/fee.

28. Would USAID consider allowing offerors to include the organizational chart as an annex, excluded from the page limit?

USAID Response: Please see question #2.

29. Section B.2, Page 6. Section B as well as Section H.28 (page 66) refer to Performance Work

Statement. Please confirm the reference to Performance Work Statement in Sections B and H should be Statement of Work.

USAID Response: Yes, the Performance Work Statement is the Statement of Work.

30. Section L.8.4, Page 96. USAID states: Avoid use of qualified phrases such as “will, as required”, “will, as necessary”, “will, periodically” and ensure the Offeror/Contractor responsibilities are stated in terms of the Offeror/Contractor “must …”. Please confirm that offerors are not to prepare the technical approach using contractual language (i.e., “Offeror/Contractor must”).

USAID Response: Yes, offerors do not prepare the technical approach using contractual language, but the

Statement of Work must avoid qualified phrases that leaves room for ambiguity.

31. Section C. Page 13. Sections C and L (page 95) call for a “community-led watershed and landscape management approach” while Section M calls for a “watershed management approach.” Could

USAID please clarify what approach it would like offerors to use in their proposals?

USAID Response: It would be a watershed management approach that places community input and needs at the forefront of its interventions, thus community-led.

32. Section C,Page 21. USAID states “…USAID recommends the following USAID standard indicators (see Attachment 33) to be used to monitor progress for the Resilient Environment

Activity.” Attachment J.33 is the USAID Proland Payment for Ecosystem Services - Case Study.

Can USAID please confirm this is the correct attachment?

USAID Response: This is referring to the attachment titled “List of all Standard Foreign Assistance

Indicators”.

33. Section C, Pages 23-25. Given the breadth of requirements for the Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (AMELP) in Section C, could USAID please provide more detailed evaluation criteria in Section M to be used against the draft AMELP?

USAID Response: The AMELP must propose a robust monitoring, evaluation and learning plan that includes appropriate indicators, both standard and custom, along with clear and implementable plans to deal with shocks and stresses.

34. Section C, Pages 23-25. In light of the requirements for the AMELP, would USAID consider allowing offerors to include the indicator table as non page-counting annex to the technical proposal?

USAID Response: Yes, USAID will allow offerors to include the indicator table as a non-page counting annex to the technical proposal.

35. Section L, Page 96. USAID states “The Offeror must propose a thorough Draft Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (AMELP) that will contribute to the Mission-wide Performance

Monitoring Plan (PMP) and the Economic and Food Security Enhanced Project.” Would USAID please provide the Mission-wide Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP)?

USAID Response: USAID’s PMP is not yet publicly available. However, we have attached the PMP indicators for the new Strategic Framework.

36. Section C, Page 18, Table 1 Performance Monitoring Plan Indicators. Can USAID provide the

PIRS for 1.1.1 RESIL-a: Ability to Recover from Shocks and Stresses Index and 1.1.3 Custom:

Percentage of USAID activity participants with improvement in targeted resilience capacities?

USAID Response: See response to question #9.

37. Section L, Page 96. USAID states “The Offeror must propose a thorough Draft Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (AMELP) that will contribute to the Mission-wide Performance

Monitoring Plan (PMP) and the Economic and Food Security Enhanced Project.” Can USAID clarify the reference to the Economic Food Security Enhanced Project?

USAID Response: See response to questions #4 and #35.

38. Section C, Page 15. Would USAID like a full organogram included in the Management Approach?

USAID Response: Yes, see response to question #2 regarding page limits.

39. Section C, Page 15. If offerors are allowed to include a full organogram, would USAID consider allowing it to be included as non page-counting annex to the technical proposal?

USAID Response: See response to question #2.

40. Section F.4, Page 30. USAID states “The following composition of staff identified below is illustrative in nature and does not preclude the Contractor from proposing alternative structures or mixes of expertise.” However, in Section L.8.5.B, page 96, USAID states “The Offeror must propose key personnel that meet the minimum requirements stated in Section F.” Please confirm the three provided Key Personnel positions and minimum requirements are not illustrative.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DkxxK9UyErvcq2MKxX86vBUHqKgTG86N29zgPQfPTDc/edit%23gid%3D0&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1639670215115000&usg=AOvVaw1DEfquwv3kUMrRr2PPglrl https://www.google.com/url?q=https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DkxxK9UyErvcq2MKxX86vBUHqKgTG86N29zgPQfPTDc/edit%23gid%3D0&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1639670215115000&usg=AOvVaw1DEfquwv3kUMrRr2PPglrl

USAID Response: The minimum requirements for the three Key Personnel positions are not illustrative.

41. Section F.4, Page 31. The Deputy Chief of Party (D/COP) minimum requirements appear to be the same as the Chief of Party (COP), stating “The COP shall have…”

a) Would USAID please clarify if this was an error?

b) Would USAID please provide updated minimum requirements for the D/COP?

USAID Response

a) This is not an error.

b) The two positions have the same minimum requirements. Not all educational backgrounds and experience are the same and it is expected that the COP will have work experience that demonstrates superior skills.

42. Section F.4, Page 31. Given that 15 years of experience is required for the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Specialist, would USAID consider a more senior title to Specialist, such as Manager or Director, to reflect the seniority of this position?

USAID Response: Yes, USAID could consider a more senior title to reflect the seniority of this position.

43. Section F.4, Page 31. To allow for a larger pool of Haitian and international candidates for the

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Specialist, would USAID consider reducing the required years of experience to from 15 to 10?

USAID Response: No, this is a senior level position and key personnel to highlight the importance of monitoring, evaluation and learning for the activity.

44. Section L.8.6, Page 97. Please confirm that the paper size, font size, page size, and software requirements do not apply to the Past Performance Matrix.

USAID Response: Confirmed that the paper size, font size, page size, and software requirements do not apply to the Past Performance Matrix.

45. Section L.7, Page 95. Please confirm that all other required past performance information (for instance, quality awards and performance in using small business concerns) can be included in an annex to the technical proposal that does not count toward the 30-page limit.

USAID Response: Confirmed that all other required past performance information can be included in an annex to the technical proposal that does not count toward the 30-page limit.

46. Section L.7, Page 95. USAID states that “Resumes, references, and tables that summarize detailed qualifications of proposed Key Personnel” are not included in the page limitation. However, on page 96, USAID states that “Resumes are not to exceed three pages in length.” Can USAID confirm that the references and tables that summarize detailed qualifications are not included in the three-page resume limit?

USAID Response: Resumes should not exceed three pages in length. This page limit does not include the references and tables that summarize detailed qualifications.

47. Section L.7, Page 95. For Key Personnel references, please confirm that by “description of the project on which the person worked” offerors are meant to include the name of the project, not a narrative description.

USAID Response: The description of the project could include a short 1-2 sentence summary of the activity.

48. Section L.8.6, Page 98. Can USAID confirm the narrative summary of use of small business concerns over the past three years, contacts, and references should be included as an annex to the technical proposal?

USAID Response: Confirm, all past performance information in Section L.8.6 of the original solicitation

(L.8.7 of the conformed RFP issued with this amendment) should be included as an annex to the technical proposal.

49. Section L.8.6 (a), Page 97. USAID states “(a) The offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself, the contractor teaming arrangements, if any, and each major subcontractor (one whose proposed cost exceeds 10% of the offeror’s total proposed cost).” Can USAID clarify what is meant by “contractor teaming arrangements?”

USAID Response: Information on contractor teaming arrangements can be found in FAR 9.6.

50. Can Offerors include an annex with Letters of Association from resource organizations not to be counted against the 30-page limit?

USAID Response: Yes, offerors can include an annex with Letters of Association from resource organizations not to be counted against the 30-page limit.

51. Section L.6, Page 94. What is the maximum file size per submission email?

USAID Response: USAID has a 25mb limit on individual emails with attachments.

52. Section L.7, Page 94. As is the case with charts, tables, and graphics, please confirm offerors may present textboxes using 10-point font.

USAID Response: Confirm, Offerors may use a 10-point font for charts, tables, graphics and text boxes.

53. Can Offerors include an Executive Summary not to be counted in the 30-page limit?

USAID Response: Yes, Offerors may include an Executive Summary that does not count toward the 30-page limit.

54. Would USAID please provide an exchange rate to be used for this proposal?

USAID Response: Please see the response to question 13.

55. Reports for the current USAID Reforestation Project are not up-to-date on the USAID DEC. In order for offerors to effectively build on activities and lessons learned, can USAID ensure all reports are either uploaded on DEC or shared on sam.gov as an amendment to this solicitation?

USAID Response: Please see the response to question 1.

56. Along these lines, can USAID please provide the latest version of the Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan for the USAID Reforestation Project?

USAID Response: USAID will not share the latest version of the AMELP for the USAID Reforestation project but recommends offerors to read the annual reports for the project that outlines the MEL process and indicators for the same project. The Annual Reports are attached to this solicitation.

57. As the Haiti Resilient Environment - North Activity did not appear on the USAID Business

Forecast, Offerors do not yet have access to the USAID Reforestation Project reports, and many

Haitian organizations close for the last few weeks of the year, would USAID please consider an extension so Offerors have more time to prepare quality proposals?

USAID Response: This activity does appear on the USAID Business Forecast. Regarding USAID

Reforestation Reports, please see the response to question 1. USAID/Haiti took into consideration the holiday time of year and provided six weeks for Offerors to prepare proposals at the time the RFP was solicited. USAID/Haiti will extend the deadline for receipt of proposals to January 20, 2022 at 3:00 p.m.

Haiti time.

58. Section C, Page 22. Geographic code 935 promotes efficiency in the procurement of commodities and services, particularly in implementing environments with a high likelihood of unforeseen circumstances. Would USAID consider assigning the 935 geographic code in place of the 937 code assigned in the RFP?

USAID Response: USAID would consider changing the geographic from 937 to 935 after an award is made and if a compelling case is presented by the awardee, but not pre-award.

59. Is it possible to form a consortium? With local and/or international NGOs?

USAID Response: Traditionally, a “consortium” has consisted of a prime offeror and numerous subcontractors with teaming arrangements. However, a true consortium would consist of a separate business entity consisting of all organizations that has registered in SAM and has a unique DUNS number.

Offerors are welcome to contemplate either arrangement with a combination of local and international

NGOs. However, an arrangement that mirrors the former, traditional consortium will be treated as if

USAID/Haiti will have a direct relationship with the prime Offeror only, and not the subcontractors.

60. Is it mandatory to have co-funding?

USAID Response: No, additional funding, cost share or leveraging funds are not required from the

Offeror(s).