Q&As.pdf

RFP No. 72052218R00001 / QUESTIONS & ANSWERS DOCUMENT

Q No. SECTION PAGE QUESTION ANSWER

1 General

Due to recent issues submitting electronic proposals to a lone email address (i.e., server problems), could USAID please provide offerors with an additional email address to ensure timely submissions?

The official e-site for receipt of proposals is oaahonduras@usaid.gov. Offerors may( but are not required to also proposals to: koviedo@usaid.gov.

2 General Please confirm that offerors may include a cover letter with the technical proposal that does not count against the page limit.

This is correct. The cover letter does not count against the page limit.

3 General

The composition, focus, size, and timing of anticipated task orders (to follow the Inception Phase) will have a large impact on offerors’ ability to design an effective work plan and develop a staffing pattern and management approach to meet the goals and objectives of the overall Transforming Markets Activity. If possible, would USAID kindly provide more information regarding future task orders anticipated under this IDIQ?

At this point no further level of specificity can be provided on subsequent task orders, as their specific scope, objectives, activities, staffing LOE and composition will be determined in the future and will be informed by work done under Task Order No.1.

4 General

It is highly likely that a proposed subcontractor could provide more than 25% of total IDIQ costs, but they may perform those targeted services in response to the implementation of subsequent task orders (i.e., not part of Task Order No. 1 and the core management tasks it represents). Please confirm that offerors may present past performance references for any subcontractor expected to contribute 25% or more of the IDIQ ceiling.

Yes, offerors must provide past performance references for any expected subcontractor that contributes with 25% or more of the IDIQ Ceiling.

5 General

Given the heavy engagement anticipated during the Inception Phase, and the need for subsequent pilot activities to take place in earlier years during the life of the activity, please confirm that the Task Order No. 1 budget, LOE, and associated fee do not need to be allocated evenly across each year of implementation

This is correct. The fee does not need to be allocated evenly across each year. The TO will have a total amount of fee and offerors must propose a fee ceiling for the IDIQ.

6 General

Cover Letter: USAID states the deadline for receipt of proposals is Tuesday, December 5, 2017. Since this activity requires that technical and cost information be provided for both the overall IDIQ and Task Order No. 1, and given that IDIQ solicitation periods are typically 60 days, would USAID consider changing the deadline for receipt of proposals to Tuesday, December 19, 2017? This would take into account not only typical IDIQ solicitation periods, but would also consider the Thanksgiving holiday.

The deadline remains for receipt of proposals on Tuesday, December 5, 2017.

7 General Would USAID please provide an exchange rate to be used for the business proposal?

The business proposal must be prepared in US$. The business proposal does not need to include amounts in local currency.

8 General

Would USAID please consider extending the closing date to December 18, 2017 to allow additional time to prepare comprehensive offers and incorporate any changes based on responses to questions?

The deadline remains for receipt of proposals on Tuesday, December 5, 2017.

9 General Please confirm that offerors are not to provide a draft Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan as an annex to their technical proposal submissions.

As part of the Technical Approach section included in the Technical Proposal, Offerors have been requested to demonstrate their understanding of an approach that monitors Activity implementation utilizing appropriate tools and indicators (not the Draft MEL Plan, but rather a description of the CLA and MEL approach). This is included in the 26 page maximum for the technical approach and must not be submitted as an annex.

10 General

I am hoping to find out if there is an incumbent contractor currently performing these services or if this is a new requirement. If there is an incumbent, could you please provide the contract number?

This is a new requirement. There is no incumbent.

Section B.2.

Section F.6.2

p. 7

p. 58

In section B.2. (p. 7), the RFP indicates that USAID will issue CPFF (completion or term) or fixed-price task orders under the IDIQ. There are also numerous references to CPFF task orders throughout the RFP. However, in section F.6.2 (p. 58), the RFP makes an isolated reference to potential CPAF and CPIF task orders issued under the IDIQ. Can USAID please confirm that task orders issued under the RFP shall be limited to CPFF (completion or term) or fixed-price type?

The second sentance of Section B.2 revised as follows: "Task orders issued under this IDIQ contract may be either Cost-Plus- Fixed-Fee (CPFF) (term or completion), Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF), Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee (CPIF) or any Fixed-Priced type."

Section B.2, Section L.2, 52.216-1 Section F.6.2

p. 7

p. 137

p. 58

Part I, Section B.2, Contract Type and Services, page 7; Part III, Section L.2, 52.216-1, Type of Contract, page 137. Both indicate that task orders that are either Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) (term or completion) or Fixed- Priced type will be issued under the IDIQ. However, Part I, Section F.6.2, Task Order Limitations/ Performance Based/ Award Types, page 58. Indicates that Task orders issued under this IDIQ contract may be either Cost-Plus- Fixed-Fee (CPFF) (term or completion), Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF), Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee (CPIF) or any Fixed-Priced type.

Question: The Offeror requests that USAID/Honduras confirm that a broad range of task order types, including incentive fee, are anticipated under this IDIQ.

See response to question 11.

Section B.7(a)

p. 8

Part I, Section B.7(a) LABOR, page 8. Central management costs will be handled through the following method: The Contracting Officer has determined that a full-time key personnel position is not necessary or required to administer the IDIQ. Contractors will not be authorized to bill USAID directly for IDIQ management costs under this IDIQ or under task orders.

Contractors must adopt a centralized management structure that allows for recovery of IDIQ management costs as part of its indirect costs.

Question: Based on our organization cost structure and in accordance with CAS 418 – Allocation of direct and indirect costs, the cost of IDIQ manager is considered direct. We respectfully request that we can follow our indirect cost structure in this submission. Please refer to CAS 418 for more information.

This language in B.7(a) is revised as follows: "The Contracting Officer has determined that a key (full-time) technical manager is not necessary or required to administer the basic IDIQ. Contractors will be authorized to bill USAID directly for IDIQ management costs as specified in a task order issued to the Contractor or may propose a centralized management structure that allows for recovery of IDIQ management costs as part of its indirect costs."

Section B.7.(d)

pg. 8

Regarding Section B.7.(d) on pg. 8: a. Please confirm that actual daily rates for personnel will be approved at the task order level.

b. Will USAID consider removing the CDR requirements and revert in lieu there of to salary approval requirements per AIDAR 722.170, 752.7007, and Contractor Salary Threshold (CST)? c. Will USAID consider adding a senior level Administrative category as certain administrative positions (e.g., security, operations manager, etc.) may be at the senior level?

a. Actual Salaries are going to be approved at the task order level. b. CDR requirements will remain. c. Yes. A senior level administrative category may be added to the proposal.

15 Section B.7(d)(2) p. 9

Section B.7(d)(2) (page 9) of the RFP states that “each labor category/grouping is included in the contract to provide more flexibility under task orders.” Could USAID confirm that offerors need to submit only one senior-level and one mid-level rate to cover all technical specialists outside of the Chief of Party position?

Yes. There should only be one senior-level and one-mid-level ceiling daily rate to cover all technical specialists outside of the COP position.

16 Section B.7(d)(2) p. 10

Section B.7(d)(2) (p. 10), Note 1 under the table indicates that unburdened ceiling daily rates apply to any task order awarded under the contract, whereas Note 4 states that Unburdened Ceiling Daily Rates do not apply to fixed-price task orders. Can USAID kindly confirm that unburdened ceiling daily rates do not apply to fixed-price task orders?

Correct. As stated in the RFP, unburdened ceiling daily rates do not apply to fixed-price task orders.

Section B.7 (3) Section F.4

p. 12 - 13

p. 183

Part III, Section B.7 LABOR (3) Definition of labor categories, page 12-13; and Attachment One, Task Order One, Section F.4, Key Personnel, Chief Financial Officer, Qualifications, page 183, identify the Roles and Responsibilities of the CFO. Of the five areas of responsibility, only the first require financial and contractual compliance of the Activity with USAID regulations.

Four additional requirements address strategic thinking and design of activities of public-private alliance building and management in economic growth. These requirements seem to require conflicting experience and education.

Question: The Offeror requests USAID to identify the emphasis of the qualifications required for the CFO – ie., the first area of responsibility (financial and contractual compliance) with the remaining four areas of responsibility (strategic design and implementation in public – private alliance building) and revise the RFP to reflect the clarification.

As stated in the RFP, the primary responsibility of the CFO for this Activity will be to ensure the financial and contractual compliance of all activities under this Activity. However, the CFO will also be responsible for overseeing and fostering alliances with the private and public sector under this activity.

The RFP accurately reflects the roles, responsibilities and qualifications for the CFO; hence, no edits are made.

18 Section B.7(e) p. 14

Part I, Section B.7(e), Minimum Qualifications, page 14, Provides a table of Education and Experience Requirements. The table establishes for the Senior Specialist 8 years of relevant work experience when a candidate holds a Master’s degree. Similarly, it requires the same 8 years for a holder of a Bachelor’s degree.

Question: Please confirm that the requirement for the Senior Specialist when a candidate holds a Master’s degree is 5 years of relevant work experience.

The Minimum Qualification Table remains the same, there is no change to the number of years required.

19 Section B.7(f) p. 15

Part I, Section B.7(f), Subcontractor Rates, page 15, allows submission of fully burdened rates proposed by a Subcontractor to the Prime contractor should the Subcontractor’s accounting system only process fully burdened rates.

Question: If the Subcontractor chooses to submit fully burdened rates to the Prime for reasons of confidentiality of proprietary data, will a simple certification of compliance with the proposed CDRs by the Subcontractor suffice for determining the reasonableness of the Subcontractor’s proposed fully burdened rates? If not, will USAID accept and treat confidentially, the Subcontractor’s unsealed bid directly submitted to the

USAID/CO?

Under Section B.7(f), Subcontractor Rates, USAID provides the procedures for subcontractors with accounting systems that only process fully burdened rates. These procedures apply to TO No. 1 as well as subsequent task orders. If subcontractors choose to submit fully burdened rates to the prime contractor for purposes of confidentiality, those subcontractors must submit the explanation, per Section B.7(f) to USAID. USAID will accept subcontractor's supporting information directly submitted to the USAID/CO and will treat it as confidential.

20 Section B.7 (f) p. 15

Section B.7 (f) p. 15. The RFP discusses adding subcontractors that “may or may not have a different cost accounting system that only processes fully burdened rates.” Can USAID confirm that the Prime can include subcontractors that only process fully burdened rates at the bid stage on TO No.1? If so, what is the process for doing so?

See response to question 19.

21 Section B.9 and B.10 p. 15 - 17

Part I, Section B.9, Indirect Costs and Advanced Understanding on Ceilings, and B.10, Ceiling on Indirect Cost Rates, pages 15 - 17, incorporate a requirement for the provision of an indirect cost rate ceiling.

Question: We request that the requirement for a ceiling indirect rate be deleted in its entirety based on the following:

1. FAR 42.703-1 “Policy” specifically states the Negotiated Rate agreement “shall be binding on all agencies and their contracting offices”.

2. USAID’s “Best Practices Guide for Indirect Costing” policies do not support USAID requiring the Bidders to establish ceilings on Indirect Cost rates in an RFP.

3. Neither does the internal policy enable a procurement office to negotiate a different rate or base of application for an individual cost reimbursement contract or program.

Indirect cost rates ceilings are viable for situations when the practice is prudent. The requirement for offerors to propose a ceiling on indirect cost rates remains.

Section C.2

p. 20

Section C.2 p. 20. The RFP notes that “Annex documentation includes a description of USAID/Honduras ongoing and future activities.” Attachment J.2 provides a list of current and anticipated awards. On Page 2 of Attachment J.2, the document states: “These activities are further described in section 1.3”.

However, Section 1.3 appears to be missing from the document.

Would USAID please consider including Section 1.3 as part of an Amendment to this solicitation?

A document titled "Honduras Country Fact Sheet with A4P alignment" that contains this information has been added to this amendment as Attachment J.20.

23 Section C.5 p. 30 & P. 32

Section C.5 (p. 30 and p. 32) of the RFP provides illustrative indicators for Results 1 and 2. In Section L.6.3(b) (p. 143), USAID indicates that offerors should demonstrate awareness of CLA and MEL approaches, including appropriate indicators for IDIQ and Task Order No. 1. Does USAID have preferred CLA/overall IDIQ indicators and, if so, should offerors propose targets for them? We ask to ensure this is consistent with the following sections.

In L.6.3(c), USAID notes that:

a. Offerors should use illustrative indicators provided in C.5;

b. Final indicators will be selected during the Inception Phase;

and

c. Offerors should NOT propose targets for these indicators or any additional indicators.

Please clarify that no additional indicators should be proposed beyond what USAID presents in Section C.5 and that these indicators do not need targets in the technical proposal.

USAID included illustrative examples of indicators that may be used to measure progress in achieving the Activity’s ultimate goals. If the offeror believes these should be edited or dropped, or that different indicators would better measure Activity results, then USAID welcomes and expects the Offeror to include them in their proposal. On the second point, USAID does not expect any indicators included in the proposal to include targets. Targets on the final indicators agreed upon by the Contractor and USAID will be set during the inception phase after the award has been made.

24 Section C.7

p. 37

Part I, Section C.7, Collaboration and Integration to Support Sustainable Results, How this Activity Contributes to the USAID/Honduras Strategy, GOH Priorities and a Broader Development Landscape, page 37, “Both in Task Order No.1 and in subsequent Task Orders, the Contractor will be required to collaborate with other USAID activities. This collaboration will be achieved through, among other things, integrated work plans, common indicators, shared site selection criteria, and joint activities.”

Question: The offeror respectfully requests where and how it can access the most up to date approved work plans and indicators of the other USAID activities.

Activity work plans are not public documents. Offerors may look at the indicators that are being tracked by other Activities in the USAID Honduras portfolio. This information is at this link: www.dec.usaid.gov

25 Section C.9

p. 40 – 46

Part I, Section C.9, CLA, Monitoring, and Evaluation, Evaluation, Geographic Data and Cartographic Product Reporting Requirements, page 40 – 46.

Question: From the RFP, it seems that USAID/Honduras is interested in obtaining highly sophisticated geographic information. Please clarify which is the level of detail and sophistication USAID would like for this information in order to budget the proper resources (staff, licenses and equipment).

The use of GIS in the execution of the activity can facilitate the decision making process, the management of databases and base intervention in terms of spatial analysis. For GIS products, USAID/Honduras will request that all the geographical products that are collected, and that the results of the analysis, be submitted. The quality of the data is essential and USAID/Honduras will consider only data that has be validated, cleaned, and within area of interest and related to the analysis. USAID/Honduras recommends that to ensure data that will be collected, managed, and analyzed properly, a GIS staff is important and will be the point of contact with the USAID GIS Specialist. USAID/Honduras cannot recommend the licenses and equipment needed, since this is up to the Offeror and they only need to make sure that information is managed in the universal GIS standards. Following is our details of geographic data:

a. Geographic Data must be submitted in industry standard formats such as Shapefile (.shp) or GeoTIFF, or in a File Geodatabase.

b. Geographic Data submitted shall include metadata following the XML schema, ISO 19139, which was developed to provide a consistent manner for presenting the ISO 19115 standard.

c. Geographic Data must be projected to the Geographic Coordinate System World Geodetic System 1984 (GCS WGS 1984). All data must use the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 1984) datum.

Section C.9 Attachments, C.2, Step 3

p. 41

p. 172

Part I, Section C.9, CLA, Monitoring, and Evaluation, Monitoring, page 41. “The Contractor must conduct baseline and end line surveys and data sets from these surveys will be made available to USAID along with the baseline and final reports, respectively.”

Attachments, C.2, Program Management, Step 3: Baseline Assessment of Selected Value Chains and Interventions Areas, page 172. “The Contractor must develop a method and conduct baseline assessments of the selected BEE and value chains intervention areas, including proposed targets. A baseline survey collects quantitative and qualitative data that presents an analysis of the situation prior to the Activity’s interventions, which permits an analysis of the changes in the baseline situation and the impact of the Activity in subsequent years.”

Question: The Bidder requests clarification on the number of baseline assessments required – is an over-arching baseline surveying all initially proposed value chains sufficient or does USAID anticipate a baseline survey for each of the value chains under consideration?

A: USAID is not seeking baseline data for value chains tentatively proposed or used as illustrative examples by Offerors in their proposals. Baseline data will be collected for the 4-5 value chains proposed as priority value chains during the inception phase of the award.

27 Section C.9 p. 41-43

Section C.9 p. 41-43. It is clear that the project will coordinate with MESCLA for monitoring, evaluation, and learning activities as well as data collection and aggregation. Is MESCLA also intended to support impact assessments?

No. MESCLA will not be performing an impact assessment/evaluation for this Activity. MESCLA may provide support and complement Activity’s efforts in conducting learning activities and their dissemination.

28 Section C.9 p. 43

Part I, Section C.9, CLA, Monitoring, and Evaluation, Evaluation, page 43. The solicitation indicates: “The Contractor is also expected to collaborate and interface with the MESCLA activity to identify additional opportunities for evaluative (and associated learning) approaches throughout the inception and implementation phases.”

Question: The Bidder respectfully requests USAID/Honduras to clarify what, if any resources – technical, operational, and financial – are available to the contractor/recipient through MESCLA for other evaluative or learning activities.

MESCLA is the USAID/Honduras mechanism that offers Mission-wide support to M&E and learning processes. The Contractor for Transforming Market Systems will come to know MESCLA’s ongoing learning and evaluation activities, and will think creatively during implementation as to how MESCLA and Transforming Market Systems Task Order #1 can interact and complement one another. But the Contractor under the present RFP will propose and carry out all interventions they deem necessary to inform their market systems approach, without relying on MESCLA to carry out core learning functions.

29 Section C.9 p. 43

Part I, Section C.9 CLA, Monitoring, and Evaluation, Geographic Data and Cartographic Product Reporting Requirement, page

43. The solicitation indicates: “USAID/Honduras has a dedicated Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Specialist who will develop a GIS database.”

Question: The Bidder respectfully requests USAID/Honduras to clarify what additional type and level of support the project can anticipate receiving from the USAID GIS specialist so that the Bidder can develop an adequate staffing pattern to ensure effective collection, management, and analysis of GIS data.

USAID/Honduras will provide all the guidance needed in order to define the standard levels of geographical data to be collected, validated and submitted as geographical products.

The GIS Specialist can help to facilitate geographical information that is public and already available to facilitate the planning process, under the specific request that Offerors anticipates they need. The analysis and management of this information is responsibility of the Offeror and USAID/Honduras through the GIS Specialist can support the process under request.

30 Section C.10 p. 46

Part I, Section C.10, Social Inclusion, Gender Analysis and Gender Inclusion Strategy, page 46. “3. A total of two to three indicators that will measure progress to the accomplishment of the gender strategy. This includes: a) at least one standard indicator from the attached list”

Question: The Offeror respectfully requests USAID/Honduras to identify and provide the referenced list mentioned above.

Below is the list of standard gender indicators for FY 2017:

GNDR-1 Number of legal instruments drafted, proposed or adopted with USG assistance designed to promote gender equality or non-discrimination against women or girls at the national or sub-national level

GNDR-2 Percentage of female participants in USG-assisted programs designed to increase access to productive economic resources (assets, credit, income or employment)

GNDR-4 Percentage of participants reporting increased agreement with the concept that males and females should have equal access to social, economic, and political resources and opportunities

GNDR-5 Number of legal instruments drafted, proposed, or adopted with USG assistance designed to improve prevention of or response to sexual and gender based violence at the national or sub-national level

GNDR-6 Number of people reached by a USG funded intervention providing GBV services (e.g., health, legal, psycho-social counseling, shelters, hotlines, other)

GNDR-8 Number of persons trained with USG assistance to advance outcomes consistent with gender equality or female empowerment through their roles in public or private sector institutions or organizations

GNDR-9 Number of training and capacity building activities conducted with USG assistance that are designed to promote the participation of women or the integration of gender perspectives in security sector institutions or activities.

GNDR-10 Number of local women participating in a substantive role or position in a peace building process supported with USG assistance.

31 Section C.10 p. 46

Part I, Section C.10, Social Inclusion, page 46, states that “Additionally, due to violence levels in Honduras as measured by the 2011/2012 Demographic and Health Survey and the number of femicides in recent years, the Agency has designated Honduras as a ‘priority country for gender-based violence (GBV)’. As a result, USAID/Honduras’ activities are required to make active efforts to increase gender equity, reduce GBV, and increase participation of marginalized populations as relevant to the particular activity and its results.”

Question: The Bidder respectfully requests USAID/Honduras to clarify what they mean by active efforts to reduce GBV.

The Offeror is to intentionally incorporate elements into their design with reduction of GBV to be the specific intended outcome. Grounding these activities in current literature on GBV and gender equity will be critical. The activity should reflect an understanding of the causes of GBV, including gender power dynamics, and present an approach that mitigates and addresses those causes.

32 Section F.6.2.2(b) p. 61

Section F.6.2.2(b) (p. 61) of the RFP indicates that all TMA task order “cost/price proposals must include, as a minimum, a complete Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), which coincides with the detailed technical approach, and provides proposed labor categories, hours, wage rates, direct/indirect rates, ODCs and fee.” These details are not provided as part of Section L.7, Instructions for the Preparation of the Business Proposal. Please confirm that a WBS is not required as part of our response to Task Order No. 1. Should USAID indeed require a WBS, would USAID please provide offerors with a template ?

For purposes of the proposal to this RFP, including TO No.1 please follow the instructions on breaking out the costs per section L.7 of the RFP. A specific WBS is not required for TO No. 1.

33 Section F.7 (c) p. 63

In section F.7 (c) (p. 63), the RFP states that “[i]f both the Government and the Contractor agree, a Task Order can be converted from a term contract to a fixed-price completion performance based service contract after the initial period of performance.” Could USAID please provide an example of what circumstances would warrant this change in contracting mechanism?

During the performance of a task order if the prepondance of future cost elements become certain to the point that a cost type contract is no longer merited or it becomes clear that a different type of award is more effective for the work being performed, USAID and the contractor can convert the task order to a more appropriate type.

Section H.4

p. 70

Part I, Section H.4, Authorized Geographic Code, page 70. “The authorized geographic code for procurement of goods and services under this contract is 937 for the prime contract and its subcontractors or as specified in task orders.”

Question: The Bidder respectfully requests an incorporation of Geographic Code 935 to enable cost efficient procurement of goods and services from countries in the region which are excluded by Geographic Code 937 and which goods and services may not be available in Honduras.

Geographic Code 937 is the required code for Honduras.

Clause H.22

p. 81

Clause H.22 (Compliance with Section 508 of the rehabilitation Act of 1972, as amended) (p. 81) flows from AAPD 16-02 and is not applicable, because the contractor is not required to procure and deliver IT supplies or services directly to or for USAID that adhere to Section 508 standards (see C.4 of the 508 FAQs for commodities, and Section B.1.i. of the 508 FAQs for services). This is a contract to provide development assistance implementation services, and any IT hardware or software purchased would be incidental to the provision of the outputs and deliverables under the program, and not a specific required element of the prime contract. Therefore, we request that this clause be removed from the contract.

Clause H.22 (Compliance with Section 508 of the rehabilitation Act of 1972, as amended) is removed from this RFP and subsequent contract.

36 Section I.1 p. 99

Part II, Section I.1, Notice Listing Clauses Incorporated by Reference, AIDAR Clauses, Page 99, incorporates AIDAR 752.245-71, Title to and Care of Property, in which Non-expendable property, is defined as property which is complete in itself, does not lose its identity or become a component part of another article when put into use; is durable, with an expected service life of two years or more; and which has a unit cost of more than $500.

Question: Please confirm that the Non-Profit Cost Principles regarding the asset definitions of property will apply to a successful non-profit organization for reporting purposes. This definition is a unit cost of $5,000 and a shelf life of one year.

As stated in AIDAR 752.245-71, the unit cost of non-expendable property is $500.00 and unit cost of $5,000 applies for assistance instruments with Non Governmental Organizations.

Section J

p. 119

When attempting to access the following links in Section J (p.

119), we received an error message. Can USAID please provide an updated link where we can access the following documents:

Attachment 9, Key Individual Certifications Narcotics Offenses and Drug Trafficking; Attachment 13, Local Systems and Market Systems; and Attachment 16, Plan Honduras 2020?

Yes. The links have been updated. Attachment 13: https:

//microlinks.org/library/local-systems-and-market-systems

38 Section L.5 p. 140

Part III, Section L.5, Proposal Submission, first paragraph, page 140, requires the technical proposal be accompanied by a cover letter on official organizational letterhead.

Question: Please confirm that this cover letter is distinct from the cover page included within the technical proposal, and that is does not fall within the page limitations of the technical proposal.

Per section L.5 Proposal Submission cover letter of official organization with letterhead and signed by a person with signature authority does not count toward the technical proposal page limitation.

Section L.6

p. 141

In Section L.6 (p. 141) of the RFP lists Past Performance as a substantial element of the technical proposal, yet, on page 142, Past Performance References are listed as an annex. Can USAID please confirm that Past Performance information and references should appear only as an annex?

Yes, as stated in Section L.6 of the RFP, past performance information and references can be incorporated as an annex.

Section L.6.3

p. 143

Section L.6.3 of the RFP (p. 143) calls for the MEL approach (including indicators), and a detailed work plan for Task Order No. 1 in the 26-page Technical Approach. Would USAID consider allowing offerors to include these sections in an annex?

No. The MEL approach and work plan are part of the proposal's page limit.

41 Section L.6.3.c p. 143

Part III, Section L.6.3.c, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, page 143. Part of the necessary actions under Task Order No.1 Work Plan must be the establishment of the core team needed to carry out these studies and pilot activities.

Question: Please clarify the expectation of USAID/Honduras about the timing of the core team establishment during the Inception Phase.

The Inception Phase is part of the studies and pilot activities covered under Task Order #1. Hence the core team should be established as early as possible in the implementation of Task Order #1, to carry out the Inception Phase and all other elements of the Task Order.

42 Section L.6.3.c

p. 143

Part III, Section L.6.3.c, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, Technical Approach, page 143. Requires a detailed Work Plan for Task Order 1 as part of the Technical Approach.

Question: Offeror kindly requests that the Work Plan be presented as an additional Annex in the Technical Proposal that does not count towards the page limits.

Please see the response to question 40

43 Section L.6.3.c Pg. 143 Pg. 143, Section L.6.3.c requires a “detailed work plan for Task Order No. 1 actions…” Would USAID consider allowing the work plan as an annex, excluded from the 40 page limit?

Please see the response to question 40.

44 Sections L.6.2-5 P. 143-147

Pgs 143-147, in Sections L.6.2-5, describes the page allocations for each section of the technical narrative. However, Section L.

6.5 on Past Performance does not specify a page limit while Executive Summary (2 pgs), Technical Approach (26 pgs) and Management and Personnel (12 pgs) encompass the 40 page total limit. Therefore, please clarify the page allocations that would include past performance in the technical narrative.

Alternatively, please confirm that all past performance information may be annexed, and not included in the technical narrative page limit.

As stated in section L.6, Annexes, Past Performance References do not count toward the 40 page limit.

Section L.6.3.c Section F.5.8

p. 143

p. 189

Similarly, Section L.6.3(c) (p. 143) of the RFP requests a detailed work plan for Task Order No. 1 activities “beginning after the Inception Phase and continuing throughout the life of the Activity.” USAID lists several required elements for this work plan, including “equipment and staff LOE.” However, Attachment 1, Section F.5.8 (p. 189) of the RFP states, “During year 1 and 2 of implementation, the work plans may cover a six month time frame to allow for the shorter iterative cycles of learning and adapting that will be required during the inception phase and the early piloting phase of project implementation.”

In recognition of the CLA-driven approach to implementation of Task Order No. 1, and the importance of the Inception Phase in setting direction for the task order, we respectfully suggest that USAID limit the work plan requirement to Year 1 of implementation.

The work plan submitted by Offeror should include the actions foreseen under Task Order #1, as well as the estimated resources (LOE, staff profiles, equipment, etc.) required to carry them out. This is the level of detail requested by the

RFP.

46 Section L.6 p. 144

Section L.6 p. 144. The RFP discusses the creation of a Fee Distribution Schedule for “fee bearing results or deliverables”, to be included as an annex. Would USAID please confirm that offerors are only to create the Fee Distribution Schedule for TO No. 1, and not for the full IDIQ?

The Offeror should only prepare a Fee Distribution Schedule for Task Order No. 1.

47 Section L.6.4.1 p. 145

Section L.6.4.1 on Personnel (p. 145) states that the Offeror must provide resumes (limited to three pages per individual) for each candidate proposed as key personnel. It also states that the Offeror must provide no less than three and no more than five references. Can USAID please clarify that references are not included in the three-page limit for resumes?

Per Section L.6, Annexes, Key Personnel Resumes and References do not count toward the page limit of L.6.4.1 Personnel (Section M.2.B.i). Also, inside his section it says" The Offerors must provide resumes (not counted in the page limit) for each candidate proposed as key personnel.

48 Section L.6.4.1 Pg. 145

Pg. 145, Section L.6, Item 4.1 states “Individuals proposed as Key Personnel may be offered in more than one proposal. The Offeror must not require exclusivity agreements from Key Personnel.” Will USAID confirm that exclusivity agreements may be required by offerors for non-local staff for Key Personnel positions such as COP?

No. USAID does not want Offerors to have prospective Key Personnel sign exclusivity agreements.

Section L.6, Item 4.1 is revised to add the following: "The letter of commitment signed by each individual should have explicit language to the effect that the commitment is non-exclusive and that they are free to sign letters of commitment with other offerors under this RFP."

S ection L.6.4.2 Section L.6.3(c)

p. 145

p. 143

Section L.6.4.2 (p. 145) of the RFP instructs offerors to present a “management approach that includes staffing/recruitment and minimizes management costs, and reserves the highest possible level of funding for implementing this activity.” Section L.6.3(c)

(p. 143) states that “part of the necessary actions under Task Order No.1 must be the establishment of the core team needed to carry out these studies and pilot activities.” Please confirm that the staffing plan and budget for Task Order No. 1 (i.e., proposed organizational chart and associated positions and levels of effort) should include all core staff that the offeror anticipates will be required to provide technical leadership and project management oversight to all subsequent TMA task orders (in addition to the studies and pilot activities).

No. The staffing plan and budget for Task Order No. 1 must include the five key personnel positions identified in the RFP in addition to any other core staff that the offeror anticipates to support the implementation of TO1, but it should not include staff exclusively dedicated to subsequent task orders.

Members of the core staff hired under TO1 may be designated as core staff under subsequent task orders, however their LOE allocation would have to be shifted accordingly.

50 Section L.6.4.1 p. 146

Part III, Section L.6.4.1, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, Personnel Section, page 146. Limits the Key Personnel CVs to three pages, while including 3 – 5 references per Key Personnel.

Question: The Offeror kindly requests that the references be allowed as a fourth page to each CV.

CVs should be three pages maximum. References are separate from CVs.

51 Section L.6.4.2 Pg. 146

Pg. 146, Section L.6.4, Item 4.2 states that “The Offeror must prepare an Organizational Chart which establishes the supervisory and support relationships between all staff included in the proposal.” Would USAID consider allowing the organizational chart as an annex, excluded from the 40 page limit?

No. The org chart is to be incorporated into the body of the technical proposal.

52 Section L.6.4.2 p. 146

Part III, Section L.6.4.2, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, Management, page 146. “The Offeror must prepare an Organizational Chart which establishes the supervisory and support relationships between all staff included in the proposal.”

Question: Offeror kindly requests that the Organizational Chart be presented as an additional Annex in the Technical Proposal that does not count towards the page limits.

See response to question 51.

53 Section L.6.5 p.146

Please confirm that a past performance narrative should be included as part of the technical proposal in order to summarize the information presented in the past performance annex. If a narrative section is to be included, please clarify page allocations for the 40-page technical proposal.

Please follow the instructions as stated in Section L.6 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, 5.

Past Performance Information. Past performance is an annex of maximum 10 pages that does not count toward the 40 page technical proposal.

54 Section L.6.5 p. 146

Part III, Section L.6.5, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, Past Performance Information, page 146.

We note that no page allocation is allowed for a Past Performance Information narrative section in the Technical Proposal.

Question: Please confirm that all three subsections should be provided within the Past Performance References Annex, and that both subsections b) awards, and c) Small Business Utilization, are excluded from the 10-page limit of the subsection a) PPRs.

See response to question 53.

Section L.6.5 Section L.7.2.xii

p. 146

p. 155

Part III, Section L.6.5, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, Past Performance Information, page 146 and L.7, Part 2.xii. “Major Subcontractors” are those subcontractors expected to perform at least 25% of the technical effort under the contract being solicited.”

Question: The Offeror kindly requests USAID/Honduras consider establishing a definition of major subcontractor more commonly used by USAID worldwide as 15% of the total contract value.

Per L.7 major subcontractors are those expected to perform at least 25% of the technical effort. However, nothing prevents Offerors from submitting as part of their proposal any subcontractor that will perform less than 25% of the technical efffort.

Section L.6.5 Section L.7.2.xii

P. 146 P. 155

Pg. 146, Section L.6.5 states that “‘Major Subcontractors’ are those subcontractors expected to perform at least 25% of the technical effort under the contract being solicited.” However, Pg. 155, Section L.7, Part 2.xii states that “Major subcontractors are those whose total estimated cost plus fixed fee exceeds 25% of the contractor’s TO1 total estimated cost plus fixed fee.”

Please confirm that Major Subcontractors are those who perform at least 25% of the technical effort under the contract.

Yes, major subcontractors are those expected to perform at least 25% of the technical effort under the contract.

Section L.6

p. 146-147

Section L.6 p. 146-147. Could USAID please confirm that the Past Performance in Using Small Business (SB) Concerns section is not required to fit within the 10 page limit allocated for the “Past Performance References (PPR)” annex?

Past Performance in Using Small Business (SB) concerns section does not count toward the page limit for Past Performance References Annex.

58 Section L.6.5 (c) p.146-147

In Section L.6.5 (c) (p.146-147), will USAID please confirm that the 10-page limit refers only to the Past Performance References (PPRs) and not to the Past Performance in Using Small Business (SB) Concerns part of the annex?

See response to Question No.57.

Section L.7 Section H.3

p. 148

p. 69

Section L.7 p. 148. The RFP states that offerors must include “ceiling on salary increases per RFP section H.3” for the IDIQ.

However, in section H.3, the ceiling value is listed as TBD. Does the Mission plan to set a ceiling on salary increases for this opportunity?

Offerors must propose a ceiling on salary increases. The value proposed and accepted would be incorporated in the contract in place of the "TBD" that is in section H.3.

60 Section L.7.2.v p. 151

Part III, Section L.7, Instructions for the Preparation of the Business Proposal, Part 2.v, Procurement, page 151. Requires specific details on the make, model and procurement of non-expendable property.

Question: The Offeror kindly notes that such detailed procurement information is not available at the time of budget development, and we request estimated unit costs based on historical averages and/or market research.

Offerors must provide specific information to the extent possible, if the offeror presents estimates for any item they must explain and justify their estimates.

61 Section L.7. 2 (xi) p.154 p.155

Please confirm that the fixed fee table provided as an example in Section L.7, Part 2 (xi) (pp. 154–155) of the RFP is illustrative and that offerors may adjust the number of line items under each year of implementation to match the technical approach.

In recognition of the large number of deliverables under Task Order No. 1 that would be associated primarily with the Inception Phase, we request that USAID amend the instructions in Section L.6.3(f) (p. 144) to allow offerors to propose more than five deliverables for the first year of the TMA IDIQ.

The fixed fee table provided is only an example. Section L.6.3

(f) is revised as follows: "(f) Include, as an annex, (not included in the page limit) a proposed Fee Distribution Schedule which identifies, describes, and provides rationale for all Fee Bearing Results or Deliverables for the life of the award. Offerors may identify up to ten Fee Bearing Results or Deliverables per year.

Actual monetary fees must not be discussed in the Technical Proposal." The phrasing Section L.7, Part 2 (xi) is revised as follows: "Any proposed fee must be supported with the Offeror’s supporting budget documentation, including profit/fee policy, to substantiate all proposed costs. The Offeror must take the total fee proposed for this award and distribute across all years of the task order. For year one of the task order the offeror must break out the fee aginst the proposed Fee Bearing Results or Deliverables associated with this activity, indicating the amount of fee associated with the timely completion of each Fee Bearing Result or Deliverable.

Offerors may identify up to ten Fee Bearings or Deliverables per year."

62 Section L.7.10 p. 157

Part III, Section L.7, Instructions for the Preparation of the Business Proposal, Part 10, Letters of Commitment (Major Subcontractors), page 157. “The Cost/Business Proposal must include a letter, on subcontractor letterhead, and signed by an authorized representative of each subcontractor, which specifically indicates the subcontractor's agreement to be included in the Offeror's proposed teaming arrangement.”

Question: The Offeror kindly requests that letters of commitment from minor subcontractors and letters of support from resource organizations also can be included in this annex without page limitation.

Letters of comittment from minor subs and letter of support from resources organizations may be submitted.

63 Section L.10 p. 159

Part III, Section L.10, Instructions for Preparation of Branding Implementation and Marking Plan, page 159. “Offerors must submit a Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) and Marking Plan (MP) as part of the Annex documents.”

Question: Request that the Branding and Marking be developed and submitted at the time the Apparent Awardee is identified.

Branding Implementation and Marking Plan must be included in the Annex.

64 Section M.2 p. 160

Part IV, Section M.2, Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria, page 160 states, the criteria are presented in descending order of importance.

Question: The Offeror respectfully requests USAID to share the maximum obtainable mark or the relative weight of each evaluation criterion.

The relative weighting in Section M.2 are sufficient and remain unchanged.

Section B.5 Section C.1 Section L.6.3(c)

p. 166

p. 169

p. 143

The RFP appears to provide contradictory instructions regarding the identification and selection of goals, targets, and/or “fee-bearing” deliverables. In Attachment 1, Section B.5 (page 166), the RFP states that goals, targets, and/or deliverables must emphasize “development results.” However, Attachment 1, Section C.1 (p. 169) describes the indicators provided as “illustrative” and states that “final indicators and their corresponding targets will be set during the Inception Phase once priority value chains and BEE leverage points have been proposed by the Contractor and approved by USAID.” The RFP goes on to acknowledge that “many of the results achieved under Task Order No. 1 will be related to processes and deliverables.” Further, Section L.6.3(c) (p. 143) states that “the offeror is not expected to propose targets for these indicators or any additional indicators they propose to adequately measure systemic change …” Given these instructions, it will be very difficult for offerors to propose any fee-bearing goals, targets, and/or deliverables associated with development results, particularly beyond the Inception Phase. We respectfully suggest that USAID limit the selection of fee-bearing deliverables to Year 1 of implementation, with fee-bearing deliverables for development results in outlying years to be determined during annual work planning.

See response to question No. 61 .

66 Section F.4 P. 178

Pg. 178, Section F.4 states the language requirements for the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Senior Specialist (MEL Coordinator) are as follows: • SPANISH: Advanced Professional Proficiency in Reading, Speaking, Listening and Writing is required. • ENGLISH:

Advanced Professional Proficiency in Reading, Speaking, Listening and Writing is required.

To ensure offerors have access to the largest possible pool of local candidates for Key Personnel positions, would USAID consider changing the language requirement for these positions to:

• ENGLISH: Advanced Professional Proficiency in Reading, Speaking, Listening and Writing is preferred.

Section F.4 is revised to adjust the English requirement for the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) position to “preferred”. The English requirement for the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Senior Specialist (MEL Coordinator) will remain as “required”. The MEL Coordinator will need to be up to date in the latest breakthroughs in CLA and MEL related to market systems transformation and given that the community of practice for this fields resides predominantly in the US and Europe, therefore it’s imperative for this individual to have professional level fluency in English.

67 Section F.4 p. 178-186

Section F.4 (pp. 178-186) lists, among others, the following key personnel: Value Chain Senior Specialist (VC Coordinator); and the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Senior Specialist (MEL Coordinator). Can USAID please clarify whether the title in parentheses needs to be used in the organizational chart and other pertinent sections of the proposal?

Yes. The title in parenthesis may be used as shorthand to refer to those positions.

Section F.4 p. 183

Attachment One, Task Order One, Section F.4, Key Personnel, Chief Financial Officer, Qualifications, page 183, requires “At least ten 10 years of progressive experience in financial management of international development projects of similar size and complexity as this Activity, preferably focusing on economic growth and / or business development, including MSME…