Attachment 11 - QnA Document.pdf

RFP No. 72052221R00007

ATTACHMENT 11

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS DOCUMENT

Q No.

Section

Ref Page Ref

QUESTION/COMMENT USAID's RESPONSE

1 B.2 6 Can USAID confirm it will issue cost-plus-fixed-fee task orders only under the IDIQ CLIN? Yes, the supplemental technical assistance may be ordered by only CPFF Term (LOE) Task Orders under the IDIQ CLIN of the contract.

2 B.8 9 Section B.8 (g) 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), “When a Fee Bearing Milestone 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 may be subject to adjustment of the fee by the Contracting Officer.” Since the Activity 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 these clauses from 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.

We also respectfully request the addition of the following language to 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 amongst other or new deliverables in the work plan of the upcoming year.

Payment of fee will be managed in accordance with the terms of the RFP. Deviations, if any, associated with approved modifications to the WP, MEL Plan and/or due to Excusable Delays (FAR 52.249-14), may be evaluated by CO on a one-to-one basis after award.

3 B.8 9 Section B.8 and Section L.9.(b) page 117, indicate that Offerors are to propose a Fee Distributions Schedule that will be finalized at award and attached to the contract. Further, Section B.8.e requires that the fixed fee deliverables be tied to the draft MEL Plan and Year 1 Annual Work Plan, and in L.9.b.

4, page 117, also points out that the fixed fee schedule verification cannot put undue burden on the Offeror to implement. However, Section B.8 paragraph (g) goes on to state: “As a condition for the payment of the portion of the total fixed fee associated with a specific goal, target and/or deliverable, the Contractor must complete the goal, target and/or deliverable. 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.”

We respectfully note that this type of inflexible deliverable payment arrangement seems contrary to the best practices of adaptive management, and may not be in USAID’s best interests. It requires Offerors to select specific milestones at the proposal stage that may not be implemented until 4 or 5 years after award, without consideration for changes in environment, for trial and revision, and adaptation to select the most impactful activities. We also note that, most frequently, when outputs are not delivered, it is because they have been replaced with alternate milestones or outputs that are agreed to represent effort that is more effective. Determining deliverables for outputs or milestones at the outset for the full program means that either the contractor will be punished by having its fixed fee reduced for adapting to changing circumstances, or is locked into delivering what may not be the most effective outputs several years from now.

Refer to Question No.2

4 B.8(e) 9 RFP says “Performance Indicators are generally not an appropriate Fee Bearing Results.” Would USAID consider allowing achievement of performance indicator targets to be included as Fee Bearing Results?

Refer to Question No.2

RFP No. 72052221R00007 Attachment 11

Ref Page Ref

QUESTION/COMMENT USAID's RESPONSE

5 B.8(h) 9 Section 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 may be subject to adjustment of the fee by the Contracting Officer.” Adjusting the fee payment based on costs incurred for a milestone is not consistent with the FAR 16.306 requirements for a fixed fee contract, which specifically states that “The fixed fee does not vary with actual cost…” We respectfully note that adjusting the fee in this manner would be consistent with a cost-plus-incentive fee contract type (adjustments based on costs), or a cost-plus-award fee contract type (adjustments based on performance). We also note that the specific timing of milestone completions is often entirely outside the control of the contractor, related to local government operations, national issues, such as elections, or global issues such as the ongoing pandemic. We respectfully request that Section B.8 paragraph (h) be deleted.

We therefore respectfully request that USAID consider requiring a Fee Delivery Schedule associated with Fee-Bearing Deliverables only for Year 1, with the fee amounts for each subsequent year specified, but for deliverables and milestones for each of those years to be determined annually based on the Annual Work Plans and MEL Plan in force. This will ensure both that USAID is paying for results it desires and that that the program can adapt during implementation and adopt the most successful strategies that have the greatest impact.

Refer to Question No.2

6 B.8(i) 9 Please confirm that GUC should be only budgeted under CLIN 1 and not under CLIN 2 as Section B.4 only incudes GUC in CLIN 1 (the Cost Reimbursement Contract) and not in CLIN 2 (the IDIQ). Also, please revise Section B.8(i) accordingly or clarify.

Yes, the GUC mechanism only applies to CLIN 0001.

Section B.8(i) is hereby deleted; additionally, Section L.9(b)(3) is hereby amended to DELETE the following sentence:

"The ceiling on the proposed fee amount for GUCs is 2%"

7 B.8(i) 9 Section B.8(i)(1), page 9, states: “In no event may the amount of fixed fee (if any) applicable to GUCs in any individual task order exceed [X] percent (Offeror proposes ceiling percentage) of the task order GUC cost.” However, Section L.9 (b) (3), page 117, states: “The ceiling on the proposed fee amount for GUCs is 2%.”

We respectfully request that the 2% ceiling fixed fee on GUCs be removed, and that Offerors be allowed to propose a ceiling fee on GUCs, as seems to be the intent in section B.8 (i)(1). Implementing Grants under Contracts carries a high degree of complexity, management effort and risk. Awarding GUCs in volatile environments and program areas, such as the Honduras justice sector, require considerable Contractor effort to ensure that funds reach the target recipients and are spent properly. In addition, the large GUC set-aside (up to 20% of CLIN 001, and the program’s extended geographic coverage, make it necessary for Contractors to set aside considerable resources and establish procedures to ensure compliance and prevent corruption. Based on these considerations, we request that Offerors be allowed to propose a fee on GUCs based on the risks involved, which would then be evaluated competitively as part of the overall pricing.

Refer to Question No.6

RFP No. 72052221R00007

Ref Page Ref

QUESTION/COMMENT USAID's RESPONSE

8 C.5 14 DESCRIPTION, second paragraph, states: “For the purposes of this Activity, the core institutions that comprise the criminal justice system are: the Judiciary (including Public Defense), Public Ministry, and Police.” Can USAID please clarify how the Activity will work with the Police given potential restrictions for USAID awardees to work with police organizations, as referenced in ADS Reference 308mab – Standard Provisions - RAA.3 Prohibition on Police Assistance (April 2011). While this provision is required for agreements with PIOs when part of a larger activity which includes police assistance or where specific activities are not identified at the time of obligation, but could include police assistance, we would appreciate if USAID could provide further information regarding its vision for how the Activity will undertake assistance to police organizations in Honduras.

As required and allowed under U.S. Government policies, USAID/Honduras requests appropriate notwithstanding authorities to work with law enforcement forces, including police and prosecutors, to advance programmatic objectives. The work with the police under is this Activity is envisioned as part the criminal justice system.

9 C.6 15 In Section C.6 Objectives, Results and Outcomes, could USAID please confirm that offerors are allowed to propose discrete activities that engage the Honduran National Police as a key actor of the criminal justice system to achieve some of JECCC’s objectives?

Yes, as stated in page 14 the Honduran National Police is considered a core institution of the criminal justice system.

10 C.6 15 Objective 4 mentions that the contractor will have responsibility for “marshalling criminal justice stakeholders.” Will the Government provide a comprehensive list of stakeholders offices and responsibilities?

No, the Contractor should identify the relevant stakeholders to advance the expected outcomes and that are pertinent to the proposed technical approach. In page 20, the Government offers an illustrative but not exhaustive list of institutions.

11 C.6 17 Objectiv 1 suggests focusing on geographic areas defined by USAID. Could USAID please identify these priority geographic areas?

As stated in Section C.10 of the RFP, "throughout the implementation of this contract, USAID/Honduras will provide relevant guidance regarding the specific target locations that will be prioritized and provide the final approval of the exact locations. USAID expects the contract may work in up to eight departments, including approximately 15 to 20 municipalities, which respond to criminal justice institutions’ regional offices, cross-referenced with other factors such as criminality rate, impunity rate, migration levels, and service providers, among others."

12 C.6 17 Objective 1 - One of the listed expected outcomes is “Annual improvement in institutional/organizational performance index for targeted criminal justice institutions.” Does USAID have a specific performance index in mind or is the contractor to develop the index?

There is flexibility for the Contractor to propose either an existing index that covers the described expectations or develop a custom index.

13 C.6 19 Objective 3 - One of the listed expected outcomes is “Application of Open Justice Principles.” As there are a number of definitions of open justice principles, does USAID prefer that offerors adhere to a specific understanding of this? If so, please provide further guidance.

The Offerors may propose the Open Justice principles, definition, model or standards that they asses to be most relevant and applicable to the Honduran criminal justice system. USAID does not require adherence to any particular understanding of the open justice principle, but can refer Offerors to the open justice principles under the Open Government Partnership, which are inclusive to different tools and guidance made available by organizations around the world.

14 C.6 20 Objective 4 - Implementation of the new joint police/prosecutor investigation manual is defined as an Objective 4 expected outcome. Will the contractor be allowed to work with the police immediately upon award?

Refer to Question No.8

15 C.10 25 The RFP states that USAID has already invested heavily in five municipalities which may require less level of effort. Could USAID please identify these five municipalities?

USAID has been working in the following municipalities under the previous CDCS Development Objective 1: Distrito Central, San Pedro Sula, Choloma, Tela and La Ceiba.

16 C.11 25 Intern program. Must all interns work on site in Honduras as local W2 equivalents? Should we assume if the answer is yes that any company hiring local will need a Honduras business license, as described in the language under F.8.

As stated in Section C.11 the internship program will be paid, payment to interns and the corresponding tax must follow the local labor law, as applicable. Contractors require a business license/permit to operate in Honduras.

RFP No. 72052221R00007

Ref Page Ref

QUESTION/COMMENT USAID's RESPONSE

17 C.11 25 Intern program. Does the prime require a Honduras business license? Yes, Contractors require a business license/permit to operate in Honduras.

18 F.6.1 32 Rapid Mobilization and Quick Startup Plan - Does this plan count toward the 30-page limit for the technical proposal?

No, it must be included as an Annex, refer to the list in Section L.8(a), Annexes. Due to an inadvertent error different names were given to the same plan. It appears as Rapid Mobilization and Quick Start Up Plan in Sections C.12 and F.6 and as Mobilization Plan in Section L.8.

Section L.8(a), ANNEXES, and Section L.8(b)(2) are hereby amended to DELETE: "Mobilization Plan" and REPLACE WITH: "Rapid Mobilization and Quick Startup Plan".

19 F.6.16 40 Will the Government please clarify the naming convention they would prefer to use? In the table provided on page 32 of the RFP, it is referred to as the "Demobilization Plan," but it is referred to here as the Demobilization and Disposition Plan and then referred to as the Demobilization/Transition Plan.

The correct term is Demobilization Plan.

Section F.6.16 is hereby amended to DELETE: "demobilization/transition plan" and REPLACE WITH: "Demobilization Plan".

20 F.7 44 The RFP states that “five years of experience (in addition to the year of experience requirement – 12 for the Chief of Party and eight for the Deputy Chief of Party) may be substituted for a Master’s degree if the candidate only possesses a Bachelor-level degree.” Would USAID please consider quantifying the additional years of experience to substitute for a Masters’ degree if the candidate only possesses a Bachelor-level degree for the other three Key Personnel positions, namely the Criminal Justice Coordinator, the Knowledge Management Specialist, and the Operations Director, as well?

The Master's degree is a preferred qualification for all positions, therefore it is not a mandatory requirement.

21 F.7 44 In Section F.7 Key Personnel (pages 44-48), the RFP includes language proficiency requirements for all key personnel positions. Would USAID consider adjusting the preferred English ILR requirements from Level 4 to Level 3 for the Criminal Justice Coordinator and Knowledge Management Specialist to attract a larger pool of strong candidates?

Level 4 is the preferred language proficiency level, therefore it is not a mandatory requirement.

22 F.7 44 Key personnel. Is it up to the contractor to designate non-key personnel? Yes, it is up to contractor to designate non-key personnel.

23 F.7.2 45 These sections include contradicting instructions as to who will supervise the “individual in charge of MEL” (p.45)/”the monitoring and evaluation specialist” (p.48). Please clarify.

Section F.7.2, General Responsibilities, is hereby amended to DELETE:

"individual in charge of MEL" and REPLACE WITH: "Knowledge Management Specialist".

24 F.7.2 45 Under the Deputy Chief of Party (DCOP) general responsibilities (P.45), the RFP states that “The DCOP will supervise the individual in charge of MEL.” However, the Knowledge Management Specialist position (P.48) general responsibilities state that “This position will lead an interdisciplinary team consisting of the monitoring and evaluation specialist, and other relevant positions to ensure an adaptive approach is maintained through evidence-driven practices.” Given the cross-cutting nature of the MEL specialist role, would USAID consider allowing offerors to determine the reporting structure for this role that best aligns with their approach?

Refer to Question No.23

RFP No. 72052221R00007

Ref Page Ref

QUESTION/COMMENT USAID's RESPONSE

25 F.7.5 48 The RFP lists out the general responsibilities of this Key Personnel position, including organizational development, institutional capacity building, monitoring, evaluation, and learning. In listing the required skills and experience, the RFP also mentions experience in monitoring and evaluation and experience in organizational and institutional development. While MEL is an important aspect of institutional capacity-building, we believe that MEL and institutional capacity-building are two very distinct areas of professional specialization which may limit the pool of strong candidates. Would USAID please consider removing the requirements and general responsibilities related to organizational/institutional development for the Knowledge Management Specialist and instead allow offerors to present a staffing plan that addresses institutional capacity- building?

The Knowledge Management Specialist would lead a multidisciplinary team that has expertise in the mentioned areas. The required skills for this position is 6 years in monitoring and evaluation and experience in general with institutional capacity-building. The requirements for this position does not limit the Offeror to present a staffing plan that addresses institutional capacity building as best seems fit under their approach.

26 F.7.5 48 The qualifications for the Knowledge Management Specialist require “General understanding of criminal investigations, prosecutions, and adjudications” and prefer “at least 3 years of experience supporting criminal justice reform” as well as “experience promoting government transparency, integrity and accountability, working with marginalized populations, with victim services, advocacy, and analysis and reporting.” This excludes a number of qualified candidates who may have applicable experience in MEL and knowledge management of complex projects, but not necessarily in the criminal justice sector. Would USAID consider removing or reducing these requirements?

The required qualifications will be evaluated in accordance with the terms of the RFP; the preferred qualifications are not mandatory requirements. The required and preferred qualifications do not exclude or restrict the offeror from proposing additional qualifications and/or responsibilities to support the proposed staffing plan.

27 H.8 57 The RFP states that “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.” However, based on the latest biodata procedures, offerors and implementing partners are not to request previous salary information from new recruits. Hence, we would kindly suggest removing this requirement.

USAID’s revision of bio data form 1420 does not mean that USAID relinquishes its right to request information to make reasonable rate determinations and CO approvals of those proposed rates during contract performance. USAID reserves the right to request any information (i.e. market data, salary history) related to justifying the salaries proposed at that time. Salary increases will be managed in accordance with the terms of the RFP; deviations, if any, may be evaluated by the CO on a one-to-one basis upon award. Moreover, offerors are not precluded from establishing a LCP based on the market value, duties and responsibilities of the position, and locality of contract performance.

28 H.8 57 Section H.8 instructs: “One annual salary increase (includes promotional increase) of not more than 5 percent may be granted after the employee's completion of each twelve-month period of satisfactory services under the contract.” Considering that employees who provide STTA support to a project are inherently unable to meet the 12-month period of satisfactory services requirement, can USAID confirm this requirement only applies to employees who are 100% dedicated to the project?

The twelve-month period refers to the period of employment, regardless if the employee supports the activity partially (STTA) or full-time (LTTA).

29 H.8(a) 57 Section H.8 states that CO approval is required for any salary 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.” As this would require us to collect salary history information, which would contradict USAID’s current policy, please provide further guidance or new contract language.

Refer to Question No.27

30 H.8(a) 57 Section H.8(a)(2) references Section H.6; please confirm that this reference should be to Section H.7. This is an inadvertent error, Section H.8(a)(2) is hereby amended to DELETE: "Section H.6" and REPLACE WITH: "Section H.7".

RFP No. 72052221R00007

Ref Page Ref

QUESTION/COMMENT USAID's RESPONSE

31 H.15 65 “If the Contractor determines that any information technology will be necessary to meet the Government’s requirements or to facilitate activities in the Government’s statement of work, the Contractor must request prior written approval from the Contracting Officer.” Can USAID clarify if the Information Technology included in the selected offeror’s cost proposal will be considered approved upon award?

If the proposed IT complies with the terms of Section H.15 and the costs are determined be be fair and reasonable, then the contract will include the list of items approved for purchase. If not, upon award, after the corresponding information is provided by Contractor, the Contracting Officer will provide written approval to the Contractor through a modification to the contract expressly specifying the information technology equipment, software, or services approved for purchase.

32 H.20 68 Please confirm that offerors are not required to name in the proposal prospective local organizations that would be eventually eligible for transition awards per Section H.20 and that such local organizations may be identified later through a JECCC GUC process or a different mechanism.

Offerors are not required to name prospective organizations, but may propose based on their technical approach. During implementation, USAID/Honduras may determine to make a transition awards to a local organization, approved during implemenation as a subawardee (GUC) under the prime award and that meets the conditions stipulated in this Section.

33 H.20 68 Please confirm that offerors are not required to propose procedures for making the direct award as the FAR/AIDAR shall apply.

As indicated herein, contractors will be required to propose the procedures for making the transition award, which may include FAR/AIDAR policies and/or regulations.

34 H.20 Please clarify the meaning of "USAID funding of the initial award for activities of the sub-recipient" in the last bullet. Is this referring to USAID funding of the transition award to a local organization as a prime or to USAID funding of a sub-award (grant) to a local organization under JECCC?

It refers to the initial funds that USAID/Honduras will grant directly to the local organization when making transition award.

35 J 86 Attachment 1 (Applicable Documents) indicates that reports and other deliverables from relevant Activities can be found published on the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC). However, there are no recent JHRSS/Unidos por la Justicia progress reports on the DEC. Could USAID provide all annual and quarterly reports to offerors?

The JHRSS reports are uploaded and updated in the DEC.

https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/search/FusionSearchResults.aspx?q=JHRSS

36 J 86 Could USAID provide information about the scope of JHRSS/Unidos por la Justicia program for the remainder of its period of performance and how planned activities will complement/overlap with the JECCC program?

JHRSS/Unidos por la Justicia Activity has a February 11, 2023 end date.

Please refer to Question No. 35 regading the Activity's documents published on the DEC. Overall JECCC will be expected to engage and collaborate with all ongoing activities to complement efforts instead of having duplicative roles.

37 J 86 Could USAID provide information about the scope of the Anti-corruption and Impunity Activity under implementation by the Consejo Nacional Anticorrupción for the remainder of its period of performance and how planned activities will complement/overlap with the JECCC program?

Support to CNA activity has a June 12, 2024 end date. Their reports can also be found published on the DEC. Overall JECCC will be expected to engage and collaborate with all ongoing activities to complement efforts instead of having duplicative roles.

38 J 86 Attachment 2 (Budget Template), tab d_LOE Summary. Please clarify if HO labor should be built into the “STTA – USN/TCN” row or if a new row should be added.

Home Office support must be included under the STTA - USN/TCN row.

RFP No. 72052221R00007

Ref Page Ref

QUESTION/COMMENT USAID's RESPONSE

39 J 86 Attachment 8 (Sample Work Plan).

a. The examples provided in the “Resources” column include cost information. Please confirm that the Draft Year 1 Work Plan shall not include cost information.

b. Please provide guidance about and examples of the type of information and level of detail that should be included in the “Involved” column.

c. Please provide examples of the type of information and level of detail that should be included in the “Process & Outcome Measures” column.

Please be advised that is a sample document, provided as REFERENCE ONLY, to guide prospective offerors on how to structure their Work Plan. Use of this document is optional.

a. The Draft Year 1 Work Plan, which must be submitted as an Annex to the Technical Proposal, should NOT include costs. Notwithstanding, in accordance with Section F.6.2, upon award all AWP must include a schedule of the activities and tasks with their respective costs.

b. "Involved" refers to the person(s), office(s) and/or entity(ies) responsible for completing each task.

c. "Process & Outcome Measures” refers to the steps/processes required for completing each task, and how will progress and completions be tracked or measured.

40 J 86 Attachment 9 (USAID/Honduras LCP) uses an exchange rate of L. 25.00 = $1.00. Please confirm if offerors should use this exchange rate for converting all local quotes/costs into USD. The current oanda.

com average ask price based on the past 30 days to 6-months of data is L.24.25 or 24.33, respectively = $1.00.

This rate is provided for reference purposes ONLY. Each offeror may choose to use this rate or the current exchange issued by the Central Bank of Honduras (or an average of the later). The rate used must be specified in the cost proposal.

41 J 86 Attachment 2 – Budget Template:

a. Can USAID please clarify if the budget template tab “c. Detailed Budget” is to include costs for CLIN 0001 only, and should not include costs for CLIN 0002?

b. Can USAID please confirm if tab “b. LOE Summary” should include LOE and LOE costs for CLIN 0001 only, or should offerors include LOE and LOE costs for CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002?

c. Can USAID please provide instructions for the CLIN 0002 budget, such as instructions on determining labor categories to inform ceiling daily rates, plug figures for travel and ODCs, etc.?

Attachment J.2 is hereby amended in its entirety (refer to revised attachment), in summary:

Tab "a_Award Budget by Line" has been updated to remove duplicative Fixed Fee row under CLIN 0002.

Tab "b_Summary Budget" has been updated to include additional rows for CLIN 0002 summary budget.

Tab "c_Detalied Budget_0001" only applies to CLIN 0001 costs.

Tab "d_LOE Summary" has been updated to include additional rows for CLIN 0002 summary LOE.

Tab "e_Detailed Budget_0002" has been added to include CLIN 0002 estimated costs.

Additionally, Section L.9(b) is hereby amended to include the above mentioned updates and additional guidance to prepare the budget for

CLIN 0002.

42 J 86 Attachment 2 template contains the TAB labeled “a. Award Budget by Line Item” that itemizes the major Line Items for CLINs 0001 and 0002. The Table for CLIN 0002 contains two separate rows for “Fixed Fee” and one row for “Estimated Cost”. Can USAID please confirm that Offerors can eliminate the second Fixed Fee row (as it is duplicative); and that the row “Estimated Cost” should be renamed “Total Estimated Cost”?

Refer to Question No.41

43 K 87 Please confirm that a detailed budget and other cost annexes/parts (NICRA or indirect rate documentation, Section K, evidence of responsibility, etc.) are only required for major subcontractors at the proposal phase. Given the tight proposal timeframe, it would be an excessive burden to new partners, local organizations, and small businesses to provide this information if they plan to join as non-major subcontractors.

Section K applies to major subcontractors, and to minor subcontractors that the offeror intends to have consent approved prior to award.

Additionally, the budget and narrative must be provided in sufficient detail to allow complete cost realism, allowability, and reasonableness analysis of the proposed subcontractors. This must include a complete breakdown of those costs associated with any proposed subcontract.

RFP No. 72052221R00007

Ref Page Ref

QUESTION/COMMENT USAID's RESPONSE

44 L.8 108 The RFP includes strict page limitation for each of the annexes. In the case of the Staffing Plan annex, would USAID give greater flexibility to offerors to organize the content of this annex as long as the overall page count does not exceed 8 pages?

Yes, the Offeror can consider a total of 8 pages for the Staffing Plan Annex. It must include information on the Staffing Plan, Key Personnel Plan and Organizational Chart, organized as desired within the total page limit.

Refer to Question No.58 for the specific change in the Section L.8(a).

45 L.8(a) 108 Technical Proposal - Please confirm that using the past performance chart (Attachment 7) is optional and that offerors may utilize a different format to present past performance information.

Please be advised that is a sample document, use of this document is optional.

46 L.8(a) 108 Per Section L.8(b)(4) Past Performance, please confirm that Section L.8(a) Annexes should also include an annex for presenting past performance information (up to four contracts for the prime and up to two for each major subcontractor) and for presenting performance in using small business concerns.

The Past Performance Section, including information regarding performance in using SB Concerns, must be included under the Technical Application 30-page limitation, not as an additional Annex.

Section L.8(b)(4)(a)(1) is hereby amended to read: "List in the Past Performance Section of the Technical Proposal"

47 L.8(a) 108 Past performance is to be provided on legal paper (8.5 by 14 inches). Are all of the other required sections to be provided on 8.5 by 11-inch paper?

The Past Performance Section must not to exceed 2 pages, for this Section offerors may use legal size paper (8.5 inch by 14 inch). Unless otherwise stated, for all other Sections and/or Annexes offerors must use 8.5 inch by 11-inch paper.

48 L.8(a) 108 In the body of the technical proposal, are we to include Attachment 7 only? Refer to Question No.45 through Question No.47

49 L.8(a) 108 The Draft Year 1 Work Plan is to be provided on legal paper (8.5 by 14 inches). Are all of the other required sections to be provided on 8.5 by 11-inch paper?

The Draft Work Plan Annex must not to exceed 5 pages, for this Annex offerors may use legal size paper (8.5 inch by 14 inch). Unless otherwise stated, for all other Sections and/or Annexes offerors must use 8.5 inch by 11-inch paper.

50 L.8(a) 108 Can the annex list on pages 108–109 be amended to include a Past Performance Supplemental Information annex to satisfy the requirements on pages 111–112 (such as quality awards and performance in using small businesses)?

Refer to Question No.45 through Question No.47

51 L.8(a) L..8(b)

The RFP asks for a “Draft MEL Plan (not to exceed 5 pages)” that “must highlight no more than ten (10) illustrative impact or outcome level indicators with summarized Performance Indicators Reference Sheets (PIRS).” If each PIRS is half a page long, there will not be any additional space to “describe how it will measure starting points, progress and results achieved in reaching the expected outcomes of the program; including innovative approaches to measuring local systems change.” Would it be possible to not count the PIRS towards the page limit of the Draft MEL Plan?

Yes, the Draft MEL Plan page limit can be extended to 8 pages, including the summarized PIRS.

Section L.8(a), ANNEXES, second bullet is hereby amended to read:

"Draft MEL Plan (not to exceed 8 pages, including summarized PIRS)"

52 L.8.a 109 OTHER INFORMATION, requires a Draft BIP and Marking Plan. However, the same section, on page 108 does not indicate this as one of the Annexes to be submitted in the Technical Proposal. Can USAID please confirm that the draft BIP and Marking plan constitutes one of the Annexes to be included in the Technical Proposal?

The BIP and Marking Plan will inform and support the evaluation of the Technical Proposal as well as the Cost Proposal for realism of the Branding Costs included in the Budget.

Section L.8(a), ANNEXES, is hereby amended to add "Draft BIP and Marking Plan (not to exceed 5 pages)", and to delete it from Section L.8 (a), OTHER INFORMATION.

53 L.8(a) 109 Is a cover letter required for every volume?

Is an acronym list required for every volume?

Is an executive summary required for every volume or just the technical?

Cover letters, acronym lists, executive summaries are optional, and will NOT be considered for evaluation purposes.

RFP No. 72052221R00007

Ref Page Ref

QUESTION/COMMENT USAID's RESPONSE

54 L.8(a) 109 In which volume shall we include the Draft BIP and Marking Plan? Is it supposed to be an annex or within the body of the proposal?

Refer to Question No.52

55 L.8(a) 109 To which sections of the SOW should the offeror write (assuming C.6 through C.12)? The Offeror should consider the section C as well the RFP in its entirety.

56 L.8(a) 109 Should we use 8.5x14 paper for the Draft Year 1 Work Plan and 8.5x11 paper for the MEL Plan? Refer to Question No.49

57 L.8(b)(2) 110 Can the Government please clarify if the Contractor is required to stand up a field office in Honduras for this effort?

The Offeror can propose the management structure considered most adequate, this includes standing up a field office or not in Honduras.

58 L.8(b)(2) 110 In L.8(b)(2), the Government provides the following order: Draft Mobilization Plan, Key Personnel, Staffing Plan.

In L.8(a), the Government includes the following order: Staffing Plan, Key Personnel Package, Mobilization Plan.

Which takes precedence? Please provide clarification on the order of the items requested in the proposal and order of the items in the annexes and their corresponding page limitations.

The bullets in Section L.8(b)(2) describe the information that must be included in each Annex; and, Section L.8(a) states the page limitation of each Annex. There is no particular order of precedence to submit each Annex.

Notwithstanding, for clarity purposes, the order of these three Annexes in Section L.8(a), ANNEXES, is hereby amended to read:

"▪ Rapid Mobilization and Quick Startup Plan (not to exceed 5 pages)

▪ Key Personnel Package (not to exceed 20 pages). Page limitation of each document per Individual is distributed as follows: Resume (2 pages); List of References (1 page); and Letter of Commitment (1 page).

▪ Staffing Plan (not to exceed 8 pages): must include information on Staffing Plan, Key Personnel Plan and Organizational Chart"

59 L.8(b)(4) 111 Will the Government please confirm that past performance references must have been performed within 3 years of the RFP release date of September 10, 2021?

Yes, most recent, in the last 3 years from the RFP release date.

60 L.8(b)(4) 111 How many prime past performances may we include?

How many subcontractor past performances may we include?

As stated in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, up to four for the prime offeror AND up to two for each major subcontractor; the total will depend on the number of major subcontractors proposed.

61 L.8(b)(4) 111 Does this mean four total past performances, or four from the prime and four from two subcontractors for a total of 12 past performances?

Refer to Question No.60

62 L.8(b)(4) 111 Do we only have to include a past performance writeup for those past performances that do not have a

CPARS?

Is this information required for every past performance submitted, including those with and without a

CPARS?

As stated in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the information listed herein must be provided for the contracts that are NOT in CPARS. If the contract is in CPARS it is optional to provide these information;

notwithstanding, you must list the contract number and state that is in

CPARS.

63 L.8(b)(4) 111 The RFP states that (a) The offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself, the contractor teaming arrangements, if any, and each major subcontractor […].”

Can USAID please clarify if “the contractor teaming arrangements” is referring to teaming arrangements with partners under a joint venture? · If not, can USAID please clarify what is intended by “contractor teaming arrangements” and what past performance information should be included for these arrangements?

A Contract Teaming Arrangement is an arrangement between two or more GSA Schedule contracts to work together to meet an agency's requirements.

Joint ventures are contractual partnerships that two companies or entities form to accomplish a specific project or task. Joint ventures allow companies to share costs and risks and gain mutual benefits, such as new skill sets, increased capital, or entry into new markets.

64 L.9 112 Can USAID please clarify if CLIN 0002 task orders can extend beyond the end date of the project? No, task orders, if any, issued under the IDIQ CLIN 0002, will be within the Period of Performance indicated in Section F.2.

RFP No. 72052221R00007

Ref Page Ref

QUESTION/COMMENT USAID's RESPONSE

65 L.9(b)(1) 113 Are subcontractors required to submit a sealed cost proposal package directly to the Government? As stated in Section L.6(a) the Technical and Cost/Business Proposals must be submitted by the Prime Offeror ONLY, subcontractors should NOT submit their individual proposals to USAID.

66 L.9 113 The RFP states that “The Offeror is requested to submit a budget inclusive of the IDIQ CLIN.” Could USAID please clarify how it would like Offerors to budget the IDIQ funds?

Refer to Question No.41

67 L.9(b) 113 PART 2- PROPOSED COSTS/PRICES (1), page 113, 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 the IDIQ CLIN.” The RFP also requires Offerors to submit an Award Summary by Line Item that separates CLINs 0001 and 0002, and an LOE Summary specifically for CLIN 0002. We have the following questions pertaining to this requirement:

a. Can USAID please confirm that Offerors should submit a separate detailed budget for CLIN 0002 (IDIQ CLIN) using the template in Attachment 2, in order to comply with the requirements indicated above?

b. Can USAID please confirm that Offerors must propose 6,000 person-days for CLIN 0002, as this constitutes the maximum ceiling that the Government can order under this CLIN?

Refer to Question No.41

68 L.9 113 As it’s not realistic to accurately price upcoming task orders that will be purely focused on demand-driven work, we kindly request that USAID instruct all offerors use the same plug figure for CLIN 2 with direct, indirect costs and a fixed fee to be determined upon award of a task order.

Refer to Question No.41

69 L.9(b) 113 In case the answer to the question above (Q.68) is "NO": Section L.9(b) Part 2 (1) (p.113) states: “The Offeror is requested to submit a budget inclusive of the IDIQ CLIN.”

a. Considering that we only have a budget range ($4 to $4.525M), maximum days ordered (6,000), and this CLIN is meant to be demand-driven, can USAID confirm that only the summary information as presented in RFP Section J Attachment 2, worksheet “a_Award Budget by Line Item”, is needed for CLIN 0002?

b. Assuming only a summary budget is required for CLIN 0002, will USAID consider consolidating “Direct Costs” and “Indirect Costs” for this CLIN into one row “Total Costs Before Fee”? We do not have enough information at this time to properly determine how much employee labor is needed versus subcontract or consultant labor, which for some offerors have different indirect rates applicable with each direct cost. This would also affect the line items in Section B.4 (p 7).

c. Alternately, if USAID requires a detailed budget of IDIQ CLIN costs, could they be shown in a separate detailed budget or a separate section of the overall detailed budget, instead of combining them with the CPFF costs throughout? And should the IDIQ budget include only the STTA LOE indicated in Section B.3.2(c)A. and associated costs, or can it also include other types of costs such as grants, subcontracts, procurement, ODCs, etc.?

Refer to Question No.41

70 L.9(b)(3) 114 Are the Biographical Data Sheets required in the Cost/Business volume? As stated in the instructions on how to prepare the Cost/Business Proposal (refer to Section L.9(b)(3), Sub-Section Salaries), Biographical Data Sheets are only required for Key Personnel.

71 L.9 114 Are contractors required to follow the USAID LCP for CCN employees, or may we develop our own salary scale that takes the LCP into consideration?

USAID/Honduras' LCP is provided for your guidance. Offerors may choose to use it or develop their own LCP, however it must comply with Section H.10.

RFP No. 72052221R00007

Ref Page Ref

QUESTION/COMMENT USAID's RESPONSE

72 L.9(b) 115 Part 2 (3) Salaries: International Short-Term Technical Assistance (Int STTA) (p.115). The cost instructions ask for management plan/staffing/technical information (see last two sentences of referenced paragraph). Please remove this as it is already covered in the technical volume – see RFP Section L.8 (b) (2) MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND STAFFING PLAN (page 110).

Section L.9(b)(3), Sub-Section Salaries, paragraph International Short- Term Technical Assistance (Int STTA) is hereby amended as follows:

DELETE: "The offeror will explain how local and field staff including key personnel will receive needs-based support from Home Office counterparts. Given the complexities of the project, the offeror will explain how all management and technical skills needed by the activity will be provided based on the offeror’s approach."

73 L.9(b)(3) 115 Please confirm that both Honduran nationals and non-Honduran nationals may be proposed as LTTA. Offerors may propose USN, TCN or CCN as LTTAS.

Section L.9(b)(3), Sub-Section Salaries, paragraph Permanent Staff/Employees (LTTA), last sentence is hereby amended to read:

"For permanent staff local Honduran nationals should be considered."

74 L.9(b)(3) 117 This section states “the ceiling on the proposed fee amount for GUCs is 2%.” We are concerned that this is inconsistent with FAR 15.404-4 and ADS 302.3.6.9, which state, inter alia, that pre-negotiation fee objectives must be determined according to a structured approach that considers contractoreffort, risk, and other special factors. International development projects require significant effort to administer and carry risks for the contractor. In most cases, providing these services to USAID also requires the contractor to incur unallowable financing costs which, in and of themselves, often cost more than 2 percent of the cost of the contract. Thus, a fee of larger than 2 percent is needed merely for cost recovery, before considering any appropriate compensation for effort and risk.

Additionally, we would kindly like to bring your attention to FAR 15.404- 4(a)(3), which states “Negotiation of extremely low profits, use of historical averages, or automatic application of predetermined percentages to total estimated costs do not provide proper motivation for optimum contract performance.” We respectfully request that USAID remove the ceiling of 2 percent for fixed fee from the RFP, allowing offerors to charge a fee that is reasonable and consistent with federal regulations.

Refer to Question No. 7

75 L.9(c)(2) 118 Are we to include subcontractors' Section K in the prime's Cost/Business Volume? Is this for all subcontractors (major and minor)?

This section applies to major subcontractors, and to minor subcontractors that offer intends to have consent approved prior to award.

76 L.9(c)(2) 118 Are we to include Section K in the proposal even if we are registered and up to date in SAM? Please refer to Section K.3(d), if applicable, please state so in your proposal. However, this does not preclude offerors to complete and provide other relevant information requested in Section K.

77 L.9(d) 118 If we have federal contracting experience, are we exempt from providing this information? As stated in Section L.9(d) if the Offeror does NOT have prior Federal contracting experience they submit a copy of its personnel policies.

78 L.9(e) 118 a. Does this apply to all subcontractors (major and minor)?

b. Is it acceptable to include these descriptions in the prime's proposal?

a. This section applies to major subcontractors and, to minor subcontractors that the offeror intends to have consent approved prior to award.

b. Yes, as long as you indicate or differentiate what information corresponds to the prime and what corresponds to the subcontractors.

RFP No. 72052221R00007

Ref Page Ref

QUESTION/COMMENT USAID's RESPONSE

79 L.9(j) 120 Section states: "USAID/Honduras discourages signing exclusivity agreements with local partners." In spite of this admonition, we have found well-qualified local organizations indicating that exclusive pre- Teaming Agreements from some Offerors are impeding them from working with multiple bidders. Can USAID please provide additional guidance to Offerors, instructing them that all local organizations will be able to work with the selected implementing partner, and that any exclusive agreements with local organizations submitted by Offerors will not be evaluated positively as part of the the Technical Proposal evaluation factors.

USAID does not have privity of contract with subcontractors, therefore we cannot mandate or have authority over the relationship between a prospective offeror and its proposed subcontractors.

80 M.5(b) 125 Please confirm that the reference to ceiling daily rates is erroneous. It refers to the USAID CST ceiling on the reimbursable base salary or wage (refer to Section H.7 and H.8) and/or the daily ceiling rates proposed under the IDIQ CLIN 0002, as applicable.

81 n/a CP Considering the lack of JHRSS/Unidos por la Justicia progress reports on the DEC and the importance and complexity of the JECCC program, we’d like to request an extension of the proposal submission deadline.

Refer to Question No.35. Given all reports have been in the DEC, the proposal submission deadline remains the same.

82 n/a CP Given the difficulties with travel to Honduras and other proposal-related challenges due to COVID 19 restrictions and necessary precautions, will USAID consider a one-week extension for the submission of the proposals, to October 25, 2021?

At this time USAID will not grant an extension for proposal submission deadline since this Activity was included in the Business Forecast, industry had opportunity to respond to an RFI posted in SAM.gov, and the corresponding presolicitation notice was posted in SAM.gov.

83 n/a n/a Is this considered a new requirement or is there an incumbent? If there is an incumbent, would you be able to share the incumbent Vendor Name and Contract ID so that I may identify it in FPDS?

This is a new requirement, there is no incumbent contractor for this procurement.

RFP No. 72052221R00007