Attachment 11 - QandA.pdf

Attachment 11: RFP No. 72052221R00001_0001

RFP No. 72052221R00001, USAID/ Food Security, Agriculture and Resilient Market Systems (FARMS) Activity Q&A

General Comments:

● Comment: The proposal deadline of January 25th may limit the ability of new entrants to successfully compete on this solicitation. The current timeline for submission, which spans the holiday seasons for both the US and Honduras, will narrow the window of time for bidders to meaningfully co-design and develop partnerships with local actors. Additionally, the recent uptick of coronavirus cases in the US and worldwide has made travel locally and internationally challenging, risky, and imprudent for certain staff members. We have also noted that internet connectivity in Honduras has been impacted by the recent hurricanes. To ensure all bidders have adequate time to work around these challenges and respond to the unique aspects of this RFP, the offeror respectfully asks USAID to consider extending the submission deadline to February 8, 2021.

USAID response: The revised proposal due date is Friday, February 19, 2021 (10am Honduras local time)

● In reference to the cover letter and the proposal deadline, the Government of Honduras has recently issued a communication to close government offices an additional three days over the holidays and has suggested that the private sector do the same. Additionally, the lingering impact of COVID-19 and damage from Hurricanes Eta and Iota continue to create challenges for local travel, particularly in the Western part of Honduras where many local government offices are working remotely and email communications can be limited. Given the critical role of the public and private sectors for information gathering in the early stages of the proposal process and local travel challenges, we respectfully ask if USAID would consider an extension of the proposal deadline.

USAID response: The revised proposal due date is Friday, February 19, 2021 (10am Honduras local time)

● Given the holiday schedule during the time of this RFP in December and January, can an extension be considered to February 2021?

USAID response: The revised proposal due date is Friday, February 19, 2021 (10am Honduras local time)

Cover Page

1. The cover letter sets the proposal deadline for Monday, January 25, 2020 at 10:00am Honduras local time. Please confirm that the year is 2021.

USAID response: Please note the revised proposal due date of Friday, February 19, 2021 (10am Honduras local time).

2. The RFP cover page refers to a five (5) year base period with up to three (3) technical options. RFP Section L.8 (b) (3) on page 103 describes $2 million in Grants Under Contract (GUC) for the base period and $3 million for all three option periods if exercised. The table in Section B.4 on page 6 does not separate base versus option periods and there does not appear to be any other discussion of technical options or option periods elsewhere in the RFP. Could USAID please confirm whether this RFP will, or not, result in a five-year contract with option years and specify the technical scope and budget ceilings for the option periods, as appropriate?

USAID Response: This language has been removed. No options will be used for this opportunity.

3. RFP page 1 states, “The resulting award will consist of a five (5) year base period, and up to three (3) technical option periods that if exercised will run concurrently with the base period.” RFP section L.8(b) (page 100) also states “The Offeror is requested to submit a budget inclusive of all three option periods.” Finally, RFP section L.8(b) (page 103) indicates that $2,000,000 of the GUCs are for the base period and $3,000,000 for “All Three Options Periods (if exercised)”. However, there appears to be no explanation of what is meant by the base vs option periods. Can USAID clarify?

USAID Response: This language is being removed. No options will be used.

4. General question: Page 1, the cover letter of the solicitation states, “The resulting award will consist of a five (5) year base period, and up to three (3) technical option periods that if exercised will run concurrently with the base period”.

a. Does USAID have an estimate for the value of the possible option periods? Or does this amount include both the base period and all three options?

USAID Response: This language is being removed. No options will be used.

PART I. THE SCHEDULE

Section A. SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM (SF-33)

No questions were submitted from offerors on this section.

Section B. SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COSTS

5. General Question: Page 6 under B.4 AWARD BUDGET BY LINE ITEM states “line items amounts may not be adjusted without a written modification signed by the Contracting Officer”.

a. Can USAID confirm that there is only one line item for this Contract, Line Item 0001?

b. Would USAID please confirm that the Total Estimated Cost + Fixed Fee amount indicated is for only the base period?

USAID Response:

a. There is only one line item for this contract.

b. The Total Estimated Cost + Fixed Fee is only for line item 0001.

6. RFP section B.4 (page 6) indicates that the GUC amount is $5,670,000. However, RFP Section L.8(b) (page 103) states “The amount for Grants under Contracts for this activity is $5 million.” Can USAID clarify the total GUC amount offerors are instructed to budget?

USAID Response: The correct amount is $5,670,000.00

7. Cost Questions: Page 6 B.4 AWARD BUDGET BY LINE ITEM lists the Grants under contract amount as $5,670,000 however page 103 L.8 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE COST/BUSINESS PROPOSAL states “The amount of Grants Under Contracts for this activity is $5 million, distributed as follows: Base period: $2 million, All Three Option Periods (if exercised): $3 million.

a. Would USAID please confirm the correct total budget for GUCs as well as the breakdown across base period and option years?

USAID Response: This award will have no options. This language will be removed: “Base period: $2 million, All Three Option Periods (if exercised): $3 million.” The correct amount for GUC is $5,670,000.

8. Page 6, Section B.4, Award Budget by Line Item, includes a Grants Under Contract (GUC) line item of $5,670,000. Further, Page 103, Section L.8.3, Instructions for the preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal: Grants Under Contracts (GUC), states “The amount for Grants under Contracts for this activity is $5 million, distributed as follows:

a. Base Period: $2 million

b. All Three Options Periods (if exercised): $3 million. The offeror has the flexibility to propose the distribution of this amount among the one, two or the three option periods.

Question: The Offeror respectfully requests confirmation from USAID that the Grants Under Contract value is $5M.

USAID Response: This award will have no options. This language will be removed: “Base period: $2 million, All Three Option Periods (if exercised): $3 million.” The correct amount for GUC is $5,670,000.

9. Page 6, Section B.4, Award Budget by Line Item, includes a Grants Under Contract (GUC) line item of $5,670,000. Further, Page 103, Section L.8.3, Instructions for the preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal: Grants Under Contracts (GUC), states “The amount for Grants under Contracts for this activity is $5 million, distributed as follows:

a. Base Period: $2 million

b. All Three Options Periods (if exercised): $3 million. The offeror has the flexibility to propose the distribution of this amount among the one, two or the three option periods.

Question: The offeror respectfully requests USAID to consider the use of other mechanisms (such as subcontracts) for an Activity Fund, rather than exclusively grants under contract (GUC), in order to give offerors the greatest flexibility to engage partners.

USAID Response: USAID expects the Activity to leverage significant contributions from the private sector in order to achieve the desired results, and believes that the GUC mechanism can play an important role to that end. USAID will consider the use of other mechanisms, however, provided that offerors submit a compelling rationale for any such mechanisms or alternative arrangements. As indicated elsewhere, please note that this award will have no options.

10. Section B.4 on page 6 proposes Grants Under Contract in the amount of $5,670,000 and the footnote refers to the GUC distribution under Section L.7 (b), which does not provide additional information. However, Section L.8 on page 103 clarifies the GUC distribution, but the total amount for GUC is $5,000,000. Could USAID clarify the total amount and “distribution” for GUC?

USAID Response: The correct amount for GUC is $5,670,000 on one line item.

11. Section B.8 (g) on page 8 states, “When a Fee Bearing Milestones is not completed or achieved, the portion of the total fixed fee allocated to the Milestone in the Fee Distribution Plan will not be paid,” and Section B.8 (h) on page 8 states, “When a Fee Bearing Milestones is not completed on time, or requires more cost/effort to complete than projected in the WP and/or MEL Plan, the portion of the total fixed fee allocated to the Milestone in the Fee Distribution Plan will be subject to adjustment of the fee by the Contracting Officer.” Since FARMS is a cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) type contract structured to incentivize the contractor to meet certain targets while also maintaining flexibility to adapt implementation to achieve these targets, we request that USAID remove this language from Section B.8, as the language is more in line with a cost-plus award-fee (CPAF) contract in which fee is adjusted based on the contractor’s achievement of results. Should USAID wish to maintain the CPFF mechanism, we also respectfully request the addition of the following language to Section B.8: “The contractor and USAID have the option to re-negotiate targets and the Fee Distribution Plan if there are mitigating external circumstances during the course of Contract implementation.” 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. Any unpaid fee due to the contractor not achieving a certain result beyond its manageable control, such as the changing needs of local counterparts, can be reallocated among other or new deliverables in the work plan of the upcoming year.

Question: Should USAID wish to tie fee to the results as stated in Sections B.8 (g) and B.8 (h), a CPAF type contract would be more appropriate and likely provide better value to USAID. A CPFF type contract with these specifications could result in the contractor forfeiting the fee associated with a deliverable that was not achieved in a certain timeframe, creating a disincentive to devote additional effort and resources to achieve that deliverable, thus inadvertently resulting in lowered results.

USAID Response: Thank you for your feedback. This award remains a Cost Plus Fixed Fee Completion Type contract.

Section C. STATEMENT OF WORK

12. Page 9 C.1 PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW references a recent survey of FTF beneficiaries and states “Evidence of this positive impact comes from a recent survey of over 15,000 FTF beneficiaries in western Honduras which found that the intention to migrate to the U.S. in the next three years (3.6%) was dramatically lower than the rate found in a survey of the general population in those same departments (24%).”

a. Could USAID please share a copy of the survey report?

USAID Response: The survey results can be found in an attachment that has been added to Section J, under applicable documents.

13. Page 10 under C.1 Purpose and Overview section states “the activity will leverage at least an additional 100% of its budget from private sector actors.”

a. Can USAID confirm that this includes both cash and in-kind contributions?

USAID Response: Yes, the leverage includes both cash and in-kind contributions.

14. Can USAID kindly confirm that leverage from private sector actors is expected to be 1:1, with the 25% counterpart contribution (relevant parts highlighted below) not counted as part of this 1:1 expectation? In other words, can USAID confirm that the 100% of the budget from private sector actors is expected to be separate from the counterpart contributions (in-cash or in-kind) from the GOH institutions.

References to question:

C1: Purpose and Overview: p. 10/122) Implementation of the Activity will almost exclusively be through a large number of public and private partnerships co-created with local actors. The Activity will leverage at least an additional 100% of its budget to Private Sector actors.

(C3: Contribution to USG and GOH Objectives: p. 12/122) While the primary focus of the Activity will be on market facilitation engaging the private sector and other local actors, the Activity will take the lead in collecting and documenting a minimum of 25 percent counterpart contributions (in-cash or in-kind) from GOH institutions at different levels. This collaboration and leveraging will not only expand the impact and sustainability of the Activity; it will support the priorities of the GOH and its institutions in effectively achieving their mandates and assisting Honduras on its journey to self-reliance.

USAID Response: USAID expects to leverage significant public and private resources through this Activity, as a means to achieving the Activity’s stated objectives. The minimum 25% counterpart contribution requirement corresponds with a requirement in the USAID-GOH bilateral assistance agreement, so offerors should consider it as separate and distinct from the contributions that USAID expects to see from private sector actors.

15. Page 12 C.3 CONTRIBUTION TO USG AND GOH OBJECTIVES states, “While the primary focus of the activity will be on market facilitation engaging the private sector and other local actors, the Activity will take the lead in collecting and documenting a minimum of 25 percent counterpart contributions (in-cash or in-kind) from GOH institutions at different levels”.

a. Can USAID please define what types of GOH contributions will be counted towards the 25% minimum? For example, can INVEST- H funds be counted? Can contributions that flow from GOH and include donor funding be counted towards this 25% minimum?

USAID Response: The Activity can only count the portion of GOH contributions that are directly related to implementation of the Activity. INVEST-H is a GOH entity and should be treated as a GOH institution, though donor funding channeled through INVEST-H shall not be considered GOH funding. Contributions that flow from the GOH can be counted toward the 25 percent minimum, excluding donor funding.

16. Section C.4 on page 12 states that “USAID/Honduras FTF activities have promoted the use of the VC framework to economic growth and poverty reduction, specifically in coffee and horticulture VCs.” Although the focus of the project will be in coffee and horticulture, would USAID please consider other crops as part of the improved resilience to hunger and malnutrition in the communities and diversification to create jobs?

USAID Response: USAID will consider any crop that demonstrates significant potential to increase incomes and reduce poverty and malnutrition. FARMS is an activity aimed at generating economic growth with significant private sector participation, therefore, USAID encourages Offerors to think beyond staple crops such as corn and beans or home garden farming.

17. Section C.6 on page 14 indicates an estimated start date of performance “90 days after award,” whereas Section F.2 on page 24 indicates a five-year period of performance starting from the date of award. Section F.6 on page 27 states that “the goal is to ensure technical implementation begins in the field within one month of contract award.” Could USAID please confirm that the contract will be effective upon award?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that the contract will be effective upon award. Please note that Section C.6 has been revised to the following: C6. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE The estimated period of performance is five years. The estimated start of performance is the day the award is issued.

18. Technical Question: Page 14 under C.6 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE states “The estimated start of performance is 90 days from the date of award”. However, Page 17 C.8 OBJECTIVES, TARGETS, AND OUTCOMES states “Contractor is expected to have field presence to deliver services within the first 90 days after signing the contract.” and page 32 F.6 REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES / OUTPUTS, Section: Reports, subsection: Grants Under Contract Manual states, “The Contractor must submit a Grants Manual for Contracting Officer approval, through the COR, sixty (60) days after award date.”

a. Would USAID please clarify the timelines for startup and deliverables?

b. Could USAID also confirm whether the award date, contract start date, and first day of performance will all be the same?

c. Would USAID please consider reaching an agreement to allow pre-award costs on this Contract if there will be a three-month gap?

USAID Response:

a) Please note that C 6. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE has been revised to the following: “The estimated period of performance is five years. The estimated start of performance is the day the award is issued.”

b) The implementer is expected to start field implementation within one month of the award and perform in full within 90 days after the award. The Contractor must submit the Grants Manual within 60 days of the award date.

c) The award date, contract date, and first day of performance are the same.

d) USAID will not consider any pre-award costs.

19. Page 15 C.7 GUIDING PRINCIPLES, subsection “Focus on results” states “Illustrative activities for rapid startup are: stand up the grants under contracts component (GUC) within the first 90 days”

a. Can USAID clarify what is meant by “stand up the GUC component”? To what extent does USAID expect the grants program to be operating within 90 days?

USAID Response: The correct wording is “Illustrative activities for rapid startup are: start up of the grants under contracts component (GUC) within the first 90 days”. Please note that this sentence has been corrected in this section.

20. Section C.8 - Page 16 – USAID states: “The proposal is expected to provide a clear interpretation of the differences between TMS and the

Activity, including but not limited to differences in partnership identification and types of partnerships pursued.

Question – In response to the above, will USAID be making available all of the TMS Activity performance, assessments and evaluation reports, including lessons learned and approaches to partnership identification and engagement, especially where this relates to areas of overlap as per Figure 1, and where will these be housed?

USAID Response: Sufficient information regarding the TMS Activity has already been provided in the RFP. Any additional information from the TMS Activity necessary for implementation will be shared with the implementer after the Contract is signed.

21. Section C.8 - Page 17 – “USAID will provide to the Contractor the list of the irrigation systems established under FTF and the list of communities with the number of household clients that have received assistance. USAID will also provide the Contractor with information on migration in the ZOI.” Question – We request USAID make these lists and information available, thank you.

USAID Response: This information will be shared with the implementer after the Contract is signed.

22. Page 18, Section C.8, Objectives, Targets and Outcomes, notes an Objective 2, Agricultural systems that are more Inclusive, outcome as follows: “Outcome 2.1: Increased participation of poor, youth, and vulnerable populations in agricultural systems.”

Question: The offeror respectfully requests confirmation from USAID that it defines “participation in agricultural systems” as including off-farm activities related to agricultural value chains or supporting market sectors.

USAID Response: Yes. Agricultural systems include off-farm activities related to agricultural value chains or supporting market sectors.

Section D. PACKAGING AND MARKING

23. Section D.3 on page 22 states that “the proposal must contain a Draft BIP and Marking Plan in accordance with the Branding Strategy of this RFP.” The list of annexes in Section L.7 (a) on page 92 does not contain the Draft BIP and Marking Plan. Could USAID please confirm that per Section L.7, the Draft BIP and Marking Plan is not required as part of the proposal submission?

USAID Response: As per section D.3, first paragraph: “ The BIP and Marking Plan shall be submitted to the COR 60 calendar days after the award.” (refer to Section J Attachment 3)

Section E. INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

No questions were submitted from prospective offerors for this section.

Section F. DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

24. The Reports chart in Section F.6 on page 25 notes that the Gender and Social Inclusion Strategy and the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Plan are due 60 days after calendar award, whereas the narrative descriptions of these deliverables in Section F.6 on pages 29 and 30 note they are due 90 days following award. Similarly, the chart in Section F.6 on page 26 notes that the Grants Under Contracts Manual is due 90 calendar days after award, whereas the narrative description on page 32 notes it is due 60 days following award.

Question: Could USAID please confirm that the Gender and Social Inclusion Strategy, MEL Plan, and Grants Under Contracts Manual are due 90 days following award?

USAID Response: Yes, the Gender and Social Inclusion Strategy, MEL Plan, and Grants Under Contracts Manual are due no later than 90 days of the award.

25. Section F.6 on page 27 states the Rapid Mobilization and Quick Startup plan spans the initial four months of the contract, whereas Section L.7 on page 98 indicates the same plan should demonstrate a presence and ability to start field work within 90 days of award.

Could USAID please clarify that the Rapid Mobilization and Quick Startup plan included with the RFP should cover FARMS’ initial 90 days?

USAID Response: The Rapid Mobilization and Quick Startup plan shall cover the first four months of the Contract.

26. Contract Terms: Page 29 F.6 REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES / OUTPUTS, subsection Gender and Social Inclusion Strategy, bullet point #3 states MEL Plan indicators includes “b) one or two custom gender-specific indicators or indicators related to social inclusion; or one or two MEL plan indicators with differentiated targets for men, women and/or other marginalized and vulnerable populations.” in regards to the MEL Plan.

a. Would USAID please confirm if these one or two gender-specific indicators should also be included in the Offeror’s indicator list in the proposal or only in the Activity’s Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Plan?

USAID Response: USAID requires to include them in the MEL Plan. The Offeror must decide which indicators will be used to monitor and report results on Gender and Social Inclusion and whether these are included in the Offeror’s indicator list. Offeror’s should use indicator definitions of the Feed the Future Indicator Handbook to make this decision. Attachment has been added to Section J, under applicable documents.

Section G. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

Section H. SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

27. Page 43 H.8 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONNEL COMPENSATION, section (a) (1) states “ If, during contract performance, the contractor proposes salary or wages for a new individual(s) that exceeds 5% ceiling of the individual’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, the Cognizant Contracting Officer’s approval is required.”

a. Would USAID please consider removing this language to be consistent with the changes made on the USAID Biodata form in October 2019?

USAID Response: Although the historical salary information is no longer a requirement, the RATIONALE FOR PROPOSED SALARY needs to be provided in Block 16, including the rationale/justification for proposing a salary higher than 5% of either the current salary or wage received during the preceding year, particularly in accordance with proposed salary escalation rates. Moreover, this provision complements AIDAR 752.7007 and does not preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices.

28. Section H.8 (a) (1) on page 43 requires offerors to ask employment candidates for salary history to determine that their proposed salary does not exceed a 5 percent increase over previous compensation. We respectfully request that USAID remove or clarify this requirement in light of the following considerations: • It is possible to know if a candidate exceeds 5 percent of their previous salary only if the contractor asks the candidate for their previous salary. However, asking a candidate for this information can a) impede contractors from paying fair salaries based on market rates; b) prevent rewarding employees (especially new hires) with appropriate pay increases based on merit; and c) may inadvertently perpetuate salary inequality among various demographic groups. • Further, continued reliance on a candidate’s salary history may conflict with other existing labor laws of individual states and municipalities. For example, several https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H07au_9RAI5LFgznXWz0gs7h4gvRRzLY/view?usp=sharing states (including California, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Oregon) have banned employers from requesting salary history on applications and/or using salary history to determine salary. • USAID’s Biographical Data Form 1420 in the RFP no longer requires candidates to provide their salary histories, reportedly due in part to the concerns identified above. USAID has declared in Form 1420 that it provides sufficient information to determine the reasonableness of compensation granted to prospective candidates without requiring a candidate’s salary history. Specifically, the bottom of the form notes this purpose: to collect, use, and disclose information to determine the qualifications of an individual and to determine the reasonableness of a consultant rate for the services proposed.

USAID Response: Although the historical salary information is no longer a requirement, the RATIONALE FOR PROPOSED SALARY needs to be provided in Block 16, including the rationale/justification for proposing a salary higher than 5% of either the current salary or wage received during the preceding year, particularly in accordance with proposed salary escalation rates. Moreover, this provision complements AIDAR 752.7007 and does not preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices.

29. Section H.8 (d) on page 44 holds offerors to 5 percent annual salary increases. We respectfully request that this salary restriction be removed from the RFP as it appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007 Personnel Compensation, incorporated in the contract under Section H.7. This section stipulates that personnel compensation be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, with reimbursement subject only to the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold. The salary restriction above may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices, as required by AIDAR 752.7007.

USAID Response: Although the historical salary information is no longer a requirement, the RATIONALE FOR PROPOSED SALARY needs to be provided in Block 16, including the rationale/justification for proposing a salary higher than 5% of either the current salary or wage received during the preceding year, particularly in accordance with proposed salary escalation rates. Moreover, this provision complements AIDAR 752.7007 and does not preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices.

30. Contract Terms: Page 49 H.13 SUBMISSION OF DATASETS TO THE DEVELOPMENT DATA LIBRARY (DDL) states, “the contractor must submit the dataset and supporting documentation within thirty (30) calendar days after the Dataset is first used to produce an Intellectual Work or is of sufficient quality to produce an Intellectual Work.” Meanwhile, page 58 H.25 SURVEY DATASETS states, “The Contractor shall submit raw data collected through the activity monitoring and evaluation process in an appropriate format to USAID/Honduras”.

a. Would USAID please clarify if the submission to the DDL satisfies the requirement mentioned on page 58?

USAID Response: No, the submission to the DDL does not satisfy the requirement mentioned on page 58.

31. Contract Terms: Page 54 under H.19 PERFORMANCE MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND LEARNING states “No test program is planned due to the nature of the acquisition.”

a. Could USAID please clarify what is meant by this statement?

USAID Response: There will be no testing in this Activity.

32. Contract Terms: Page 54, H.19 PERFORMANCE MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND LEARNING: “MEL systems should be structured around a clear development hypothesis and experimental or quasi-experimental project designs that control for preexisting differences between beneficiary and comparison groups. The Activity will track impact in implementation areas, i.e. high out-migration areas, high poverty areas and high violence areas.”

a. Could USAID please confirm that offerors are expected to propose and budget for an impact evaluation with counterfactual (comparison group), using either a random control trial or quasi-experimental design?

USAID Response: Offerors should not propose or budget an impact evaluation with counterfactual (comparison group), using either a random control trial or quasi-experimental design.

33. Contract Terms: Page 54 H.19 PERFORMANCE MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND LEARNING states “Additionally, definitions of employment appropriate to the objectives of the Youth Employment for Migration Prevention Activity must be developed and finalized after award with the COR and other USAID MEL staff.”

a. Would USAID clarify whether this should read “definitions of employment appropriate to the objectives of the FARMS Activity”?

USAID Response:

The following language has been removed:

“All indicators must be disaggregated appropriately to provide necessary details for proper analysis. All education and training data, especially under Objective One, must be disaggregated by gender, age, type of training, geographic location, and any other categories required by USAID. Additionally, definitions of employment appropriate to the objectives of the Youth Employment for Migration Prevention Activity must be developed and finalized after award with the COR and other USAID MEL staff.”

The following language has been included:

“All indicators must be disaggregated appropriately to provide necessary details for proper analysis. Offerors shall use as reference the Feed the Future Indicator Handbook for the selection of indicators. However, Offerors can propose other indicators that could be more suitable for the Activity. Additionally, definition of employment appropriate to the objectives of the FARMS Activity must be developed and finalized after award with the COR and other USAID MEL staff.”

34. Section H.23 on page 57 refers to the Youth Employment for Migration Prevention Activity in its discussion of public-private partnerships. Question: Could USAID please confirm whether this RFP requirement applies in the case of FARMS?

USAID Response: Yes, this RFP requirement applies to the Food Security, Agriculture and Resilient Market Systems (FARMS) Activity.

35. Contract Terms: Page 57 H.23 PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP states “Given the importance of partnerships, USAID/Honduras has developed guidance for Implementing Partners (IPs) on due diligence and steps to take prior to entering a partnership. The objective of this guidance is to assist USAID IPs in weighing the benefits and risks associated with partnering with a private sector entity to support an informed decision. The Contractor will be expected to plan and budget for due diligence procedures, and the Chief of Party/Director of the Activity will be required to document the analysis of the due diligence in a memorandum that will require COR concurrence. IPs will be expected to adhere to the due diligence guidance provided post-award.”

a. Would USAID please provide this guidance for our awareness when developing our proposals and corresponding budgets?

USAID Response: The guidance is included as an attachment that has been added to Section J, under applicable documents.

36. Section H.23 - Page 58 – USAID states: “Given the importance of partnerships, USAID/Honduras has developed guidance for Implementing Partners (IPs) on due diligence and steps to take prior to entering a partnership.”

Question – We request USAID make available the Guidance for IPs, thank you.

USAID Response: Please see response to question 35.

37. There are some inconsistencies in the non-USG resource leverage targets. RFP section C.1 (page 10) states: “The Activity will leverage at least an additional 100% of its budget from private sector actors.” RFP section H.23 (page 57) states “While there are no specific monetary requirements for such outside investment under the award, the Activity aims to catalyze overall outside investment of 2 (outside investment): 1 (USAID).” Finally, RFP section C.3 (page 12) states “While the primary focus of the Activity will be on market facilitation engaging the private sector and other local actors, the Activity will take the lead in collecting and documenting a minimum of 25 percent counterpart contributions (in-cash or in-kind) from GOH institutions at different levels.” Can USAID confirm the anticipated amount of leverage from private and GOH sources as a percentage of the USAID contribution?

USAID Response: The sentence “While there are no specific monetary requirements for such outside investment under the award, the Activity aims to catalyze overall outside investment of 2 (outside investment): 1 (USAID).” has been replaced with: “The Activity will leverage at least an additional 100% of its budget from private sector actors.”

38. Contract Terms: Page 60 H.27 CLIMATE RISK SCREENING states “The contractor may be asked to carry out this assessment following USAID guidelines and guidance from the Mission Environmental Officer. Relevant findings from this assessment shall be incorporated into the Activity as inputs to the work plan”.

a. Would USAID please clarify if bidders should budget for this assessment?

USAID Response: An initial Climate Risk Screening for this Activity was done during design. Based on its results,the implementer may be asked to include climate risk mitigation actions as part of its technical approach. Bidders should budget for the implementation of these actions not for the assessment itself.

PART II. CONTRACT CLAUSES

Section I. CONTRACT CLAUSES

PART III. LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

Section J. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

PART IV. REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

Section K. REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS

Section L. INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

39. Instructions for the preparation of the Technical Proposal: Page 93 L.7 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL defines major subcontractors as “those expected to perform at least 20% or a prominent part of the technical effort, and/or whose proposed cost exceeds 15% of the total estimated contract cost”. However, page 98 section (3) Past Performance states “Major Subcontractors" are those subcontractors expected to perform at least 20% of the technical effort under the contract being solicited”

a. Would USAID clarify if past performance can also include major subcontractors whose proposed cost exceeds 15% of the total budget?

USAID Response: Yes, they can be included.

The sentence: ”Major Subcontractors are those subcontractors expected to perform at least 20% of the technical effort under the contract being solicited” has been revised to the following:

“Major Subcontractors" are those subcontractors expected to perform at least 20% or a prominent part of the technical effort, and/or whose proposed cost exceeds 15% of the total estimated contract cost.”

40. Instructions for the preparation of the Technical Proposal: Page 94 (b) CONTENT OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, in reference to #7 requesting a proposed course of action for the horticulture value chain, can USAID please confirm that this exercise should include an explanation of the selection process for one horticulture value chain?

USAID Response: The explanation should refer to the horticulture value chain.

41. Page 93 L.7 OTHER ANNEXES/ DOCUMENTS states “Total number of pages of the entire package will vary depending on the number of Key Personnel proposed.”

a. Would USAID please clarify whether bidders can propose additional key personnel beyond the three indicated?

USAID Response: Offerors can propose additional personnel. However, USAID will only take into consideration the three (3) Key Personnel positions defined in the Solicitation for evaluation purposes.

42. Section L.7 (a) on page 92 states that the technical proposal and identified annexes are limited to forty (40) pages. However, the section and annex page limits that follow add up to a total of 53 pages. Could USAID please clarify the applicable page limits?

USAID Response: The technical proposal and identified annexes are limited to forty (40) pages. The section and annex page limits that follow are being corrected to add up to a total of 40 pages.

43. Page 92, Section L.7(a), Organization of Technical Proposal, states: “The Technical Proposal and the items identified in ‘Annexes’ (below) are limited to forty (40) pages…” However, the page limits listed with the Technical Proposal and included Annex sections total 53 pages.

Question: The Offeror respectfully requests confirmation from USAID that offerors are to allocate pages up to the amounts presented in the detailed breakout, which would result in a total page limit of 53 pages.

USAID Response: The technical proposal and identified annexes are limited to forty (40) pages. The section and annex page limits are being corrected to add up to a total of 40 pages as follows:

● Technical Understanding and Approach (not to exceed 18 pages)

● Personnel and Management (not to exceed 5 pages)

● Past Performance Summary (not to exceed 5 pages)

● Staffing Organigram (not to exceed 1 page)

● Quick Start Up Plan (not to exceed 2 pages)

● Draft Work Plan (not to exceed 4 pages, legal size: 8.5 inch by 14 inch)

● Draft MEL Plan (not to exceed 5 pages)

44. Instructions for the preparation of the Technical Proposal: Page 92 L.7 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL provides page numbers assigned to the Technical Proposals’ three (3) sections and five (5) Annexes.

a. Would USAID please confirm that bidders are intended to make determinations about the division of pages per section given that the individual sections do not add up to 40 pages.

b. Would USAID please confirm that there are two (2) pages dedicated to MEL in the Technical Understanding section and five (5) pages allowed for the MEL Plan Annex.

USAID Response:

a) The technical proposal and identified annexes are limited to forty (40) pages. The section and annex page limits are being corrected to add up to a total of 40 pages as follows:

● Past Performance Summary (not to exceed 5 pages)

● Staffing Organigram (not to exceed 1 page)

● Quick Start Up Plan (not to exceed 2 pages)

b) The requirement of the breakout of the number of pages in the Technical Understanding section has been removed. The draft MEL plan Annex should not exceed five (5) pages.

45. RFP Section L.7(a) (page 92) states that the technical proposal page limit is 40 pages. However, in the list of Technical Proposal and Annexes requirements in the same section, the total page limits for all of these items add up to 53 pages.

Question: Can USAID clarify if some of these items actually do not count toward the 40 page limit, or if the limit is actually 53 pages?

USAID Response: The technical proposal and identified annexes are limited to forty (40) pages. The section and annex page limits are being corrected to add up to a total of 40 pages as follows:

● Past Performance Summary (not to exceed 5 pages)

● Staffing Organigram (not to exceed 1 page)

● Quick Start Up Plan (not to exceed 2 pages)

46. Page 93, Section L.b.1, Technical Understanding and Approach, makes reference to Statement of Objectives (SOO) as follows:

“1. Provide a detailed, clear and logical description of the technical approach to achieve the expected objectives outlined in Section C, Statement of Objectives (SOO). The technical approach should elaborate based on the Statement of Objectives, offering original, critical thinking and analysis, related to each component of the SOO and it should clearly tie the technical approach to the objectives expected to be achieved.” Further, page 2, Table of Contents, refers to Section C as the Statement of Work (SOW). Beginning on Page 9, Section C is also referred to as the Statement of Work (SOW.)

Question: The offeror respectfully requests confirmation from USAID Page 93, Section L.b.1 should be changed from” Statement of Objectives (SOO)” to “Statement of Work (SOW).”

USAID Response: Statement of Work (SOW) is being replaced with Statement of Objectives (SOO).

47. Section L.7 (b) on page 93 and 94 include maximum page limits for the Technical Understanding and Approach sub-sections. Would USAID please consider removing subsection page limits, or offering them as an illustrative guide rather than maximums, while retaining the overall section page limit of 18?

USAID Response: The page limits of the Technical Understanding and Approach subsections have been removed.

48. Item 6 of Section L.7 (b) on page 94 requests an “approach to incorporat[ing] guiding principles, pathways, and questions defined in the SOO” and an “approach to work in coordination and achieve complementarity with other USAID activities in Honduras” in maximum two pages. Item 1 of Section L.7 (b) on page 93 requires offerors address guiding principles and coordination with other USAID activities, Item 4 on pages 93 and 94 requires offerors to address four resilience pathways related to Objective 3, and Items 1, 5, 3, and 4 would address the four SOO questions, respectively.

Question: Would USAID please allow offerors to eliminate Item 6 as a subsection and redistribute the allocated two pages to address these topics in earlier sections to allow for improved readability and flow?

USAID Response: The page limits of the Technical Understanding and Approach subsections have been removed.

49. Section L, Page 95 (b) CONTENT OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, (2) PERSONNEL AND MANAGEMENT states, “The Contractor must provide the following three Key Personnel at 100 percent level of effort (LOE) for the performance of the USAID/Honduras contract.”

a. Can USAID clarify what is meant by 100% LOE for the performance of the contract? Is this meant to indicate that USAID wants consistency of personnel across the entire Activity and would not welcome, for example, a phasing out of a COP to be replaced by a local COP? Or is this simply to affirm that these staff will be dedicated full time to the project?

USAID Response: The Key Personnel must be dedicated full time during the five years of Activity implementation.

50. RFP Section L.7(b) (page 96), DCOP qualifications, indicates first that the DCOP “must have at least seven years of national, regional/international experience”, then states that the DCOP must have “A minimum of a Master’s degree in a relevant discipline or a Bachelor’s degree with more than ten years of relevant experience as described in the previous with an additional eight years’ experience to the required minimum above.” This language regarding years of experience if the candidate only has a Bachelor’s degree is unclear.

Question: Can USAID confirm whether a DCOP candidate with a Bachelor’s degree requires a minimum of 10 years of relevant experience, or an additional eight years to the minimum of seven years (i.e. 15 years total)?

USAID Response: A DCOP candidate with a Bachelor’s degree should have at least 15 years of experience, of which at least ten years should be of relevant experience.

51. Page 100, Section L.8(b)(1), Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal, states: “The Cost Proposal must be submitted in Excel using the Budget Template included in Section J Attachment 2. The Offeror is requested to submit a budget inclusive of three option periods.” Upon review of the Section J, Attachment 2, neither the “Summary Budget” nor the “Detailed Budget” show option years. Further, Section C, Statement of Work, does not provide information concerning option periods.

Question: The offeror requests conformation that option periods listed in section L.8 are not required for pricing purposes.

USAID Response: This language has been removed. There are no option periods for this opportunity.

52. RFP Section L.7(b)(3) (page 101), Past Performance, states that the offeror must provide up to four of the most recent and relevant

“contracts” as Past Performance References, but then indicates that “the most relevant indicators of performance are contracts and cooperative agreements, of similar activities in terms of scope, size, and complexity.”

Question: Can USAID confirm that cooperative agreements are acceptable to demonstrate relevant past performance?

USAID Response: Cooperative Agreements are acceptable.

53. Page 102 L.8 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE COST/BUSINESS PROPOSAL, USAID requests separate budget categories for International Short-Term Technical Assistance, Local-Short Term Technical Assistance, and Consultants.

a. Would USAID please confirm these need to be segregated budget categories given that neither category of personnel is considered an employee and they are both treated as procurement action?

USAID Response: The template provided must be used as defined in Section J, Attachment 2

54. Page 103, Section L.8.3, Instructions for the preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal: Grants Under Contracts (GUC), states “The amount for Grants under Contracts for this activity is $5 million, distributed as follows:

a. Base Period: $2 million

b. All Three Options Periods (if exercised): $3 million. The offeror has the flexibility to propose the distribution of this amount among the one, two or the three option periods.

Question: The offeror requests conformation that option periods listed in section L.8 are not required for pricing purposes.

USAID Response: This has been removed. There are no option periods for this opportunity. The GUC amount is $5,670,000.00

55. Page 105 L.8 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE COST/BUSINESS PROPOSAL (c) Part 3 states “(1): Offerors and proposed subcontractors must ensure they are registered in the System for Award Management (www.sam.gov) per FAR part 4.”

a. Would USAID please consider allowing submission of registration in SAM before an award is issued to further inclusion of local organizations who may not yet be in SAM?

USAID Response: According to: Exceptions to Contract Reporting in the Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 4.6 A Mandatory Reference for ADS Chapter 302: SAM Registration (FAR 52.204-7; FAR 52.204-13) - Offerors must register in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to submitting an offer for USAID’s consideration. Contractors must maintain an active SAM registration while they have an active award. Subcontractors are not required to register in SAM. Entities wishing to do business with the US Government can register on SAM.gov.

56. The offer respectfully requests USAID to provide an Exchange Rate to be used for the pricing of this proposal.

USAID Response: The budget should be provided in USD. The Exchange Rate is not applicable to this Cost Proposal.

Section M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Additional questions submitted:

57. Question: Does the incumbent plan to retain its position for the rebid?

USAID Response: This is a new opportunity. There is no incumbent.

58. Will there be any special considerations such as sole source?

USAID Response: This is a full and open competitive opportunity.

59. Who might be a direct point of contact for further assistance?

USAID Response: Email: oaahonduras@usaid.gov