Attachment 5 Amendment 1 - Q and A RFP No. 72052322R00001 SURGES.pdf

Request for Proposal 72052322R00001 Southern Mexico – Generating Employment and Sustainability

Amendment 1, Attachment 5

Attachment 5 – Questions and Answers Southern Mexico- Generating Employment and Sustainability (SURGES)

RFP No. 72052322R00001

GENERAL QUESTIONS

1. The DBA waiver for Mexico will expire over the course of the proposal timeline (2/27/2022).

Should offerors assume an extension will likely occur, or does USAID prefer to see DBA budgeted for all CCN personnel and consultants?

A1. The DBA waiver for Mexico has been renewed with expiration date of February 24, 2027.

2. USAID/Mexico’s CDCS does not mention tourism as a focal sector. Is USAID interested in working in tourism under SURGES?

A2. Although tourism is not explicitly mentioned in the CDCS, offerors can propose to work in the nature tourism or ecotourism space to the extent that it will contribute to SURGES’ objectives.

3. Page 103, Annex G - Environmental Management Approach states that this annex should include “the Offeror’s illustrative budget for implementing the environmental compliance activities.” Please confirm that the costs in this budget should also be included in the cost proposal and that this Annex would include a simple budget that outlines the estimated costs.

Can USAID also confirm if any specific breakdown of costs is required for the budget and the level of detail, e.g. annual cost vs. cost over duration of project, if line by line narrative is required for each cost.

A3. All cost and budgetary notes should be in the Cost Proposal and not in the Technical Proposal.

4. Would USAID be amenable to a Contractor modifying the past performance matrix presentation while preserving the desired information presented, with the goal of fitting the matrix within the proposal narrative annex?

A4. The matrix presentation may be modified as long as it includes the information required in the template

5. Page 98 of the RFP states “The page limitation excludes the Annexes, the cover page, the list of acronyms and the executive summary (not to exceed five pages), dividers and the table of contents.” Please confirm the five-page limit is referred only to the executive summary.

A5. This section has been revised with this amendment, the executive summary should be one to two pages.

6. Kindly note per Active DBA Waiver records, Mexico’s DBA expires on 02/27/2022. Please confirm if Offerors should budget for DBA.

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/owcp/dlhwc/dbawaivers/dbawaivers https://www.dol.gov/agencies/owcp/dlhwc/dbawaivers/dbawaivers

A6. See answer to question 1.

7. Will USAID kindly provide a copy of the local compensation plan?

A7. No, USAID will not provide the local compensation plan for Mexico. Local employees should be compensated based on the local market for similar positions.

8. Would USAID consider changing the geographic code to 935 to enable a wider range of expertise and cost-effective support from within the LAC region (such as Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, and Argentina)?

A8. Not at this time. A waiver may be considered post award, if necessary, but is not guaranteed.

9. The cover letter instructions on page 99 of the RFP seem the same as what Offerors would normally provide on the title page. Will USAID please confirm the title page is the same as the cover letter?

A9. Offerors may submit only the cover letter instead of a title page plus a cover letter. See revised Section L.6.c Content.

10. Page 1 of the RFP states, “USAID/Mexico intends to award a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Completion type contract for five years from the date of award…” while page 106 states, “In summary, the following budgets must be provided using the attached budget template all of which must show costs for all five years (the base period of four years with one-year option period) of contract performance.” Will the project have a one-year option period in year 5 or will it be for the full 5-years?

A10. The reference to an option period has been deleted within this amendment.

11. Please confirm offerors should use a start date of September 30, 2022 for budgeting purposes, as the day is not specified in section F.2 (a), on page 16.

A11. We are unable to predict an exact date for the start of the period of performance. The contract will be awarded prior to September 30, 2022.

12. It is noted in the list of countries with active DBA waivers that Mexico’s exemption ends on 2/27/2022. May offerors assume this exemption will be renewed?

A12. See answer to question 1.

13. Would USAID consider providing their LCP and relevant local allowances information?

A13. See answer to question 7.

SECTION C – STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES

14. In Attachment J.1 Section C, under C.2, the RFP states “While proposed states, market systems and a framework for analysis must be included in the PWS, final selection will be negotiated with USAID post-award.” Questions:

a. By “market systems” does USAID mean “value chains”?

A14.a No. A market system includes but goes beyond value chains. According to USAID’s Framework for Market System Development: “A market system is a dynamic space—incorporating resources, roles, relationships, rules and results— in which private and public actors collaborate, coordinate and compete for the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services.”

b. Can the offeror summarize their framework for analysis in the PWS, and annex the actual framework?

A14.b No, the offeror should not annex the actual framework. Offerors are only expected to summarize their framework for analysis in the PWS.

15. Attachment J.1. Section C.5. Page 4. In the introduction to the Activity Goals and Objectives, the SOO states “SURGES will establish no fewer than 30 public-private partnerships in selected value chains and/or market systems. For the purposes of this solicitation, a public-private partnership is defined as an arrangement between two or more public and private sectors of a long-term nature that involves the mobilization of public or private capital towards the financing of projects or services.” While USAID applies a broad definition of public sector in footnote 5, the language seems to imply that USAID requires public sector participation in all partnerships and alliances offerors may facilitate to advance USAID’s objectives. This seems unusually restrictive and could undermine the sustainability of partnerships that may be viable without the participation of non-private sector actors. Would USAID consider revising this language (and related results indicators) to read “SURGES will establish no fewer than 30 partnerships in selected value chains and/or market systems. For the purposes of this solicitation, a partnership is defined as long-term arrangement between one or more private sector actors and organizations in the public or private sector that involves the mobilization of public or private capital to finance investment in productive projects or services.”

A15. We have modified the language in the SOO to: “SURGES will establish no fewer than 30 partnerships in selected value chains and/or market systems. For the purposes of this solicitation, a partnership is defined as a long-term arrangement between one or more private sector actors and organizations in the public or private sector that involves the mobilization of public or private capital to finance investment in productive projects or services.”

16. Attachment J.1. Section C.5. Page 5. Objective 1. The SOO includes four minimum required results. However, Annex J.1. Section C.6. Page 6. Includes a table of “Outcomes, Indicators and Targets”. We note that some results align with the indicators and targets, but one result (at least 30 public private partnerships established) is not included as an indicator, and two indicators are not included as results. Would USAID consider either aligning the results with the indicators and targets, or clarify why they are different?

A16. We have modified Sections C.5 and C.6 to ensure consistency.

17. Attachment J.1. Section C.5. Page 5. Objective 2. The SOO indicates that “SURGES will also aim to facilitate more direct linkages to input and output markets (buyers)…” [emphasis added]. Would USAID elaborate on why this expectation is included under Objective 2, which is understood to be focused on mobilizing financing and investment? Market linkages would be an important driver of increased sales and partnerships between businesses, which suggests that this goal for SURGES would more appropriately fall under Objective 1.

A17. This text will be moved to Objective 1.

18. Attachment J.1 Section C.6. In the Outcomes, Indicators, and Targets table, USAID includes an end of activity target of a 1.8-million-ton reduction in CO2 emissions (or equivalent).

Methodologies for estimating the carbon emissions of agriculture, livestock management, and other economic activities—including travel—vary widely. The effects of regulatory reforms can include reductions in carbon emissions. Without an understanding of the basis of estimate, including the scope of activities USAID considered in setting its estimate, offerors may bring very different assumptions to their evaluation of baselines and the technical and resource requirements to achieve this goal. Would USAID provide details on the methodologies and assumptions used to establish this target?

A18. USAID used the AFOLU calculator and the target of 30,000 hectares under improved management as well as a range of management systems to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions reduced, sequestered or avoided.

19. Attachment J.1. Section C.3.b. states: “The Activity is also expected to contribute to both USAID’s Climate Change Strategy.” Can USAID confirm that this refers to USAID’s Climate Strategy 2022 – 2030 published in draft form in November 2021? Given that this strategy is in Draft, can USAID confirm that offerors’ Performance Work Statements do not need to address definitively how the project will contribute to the strategy, but rather illustrate with examples how the PWS could contribute if/when the strategy is approved?

A19. The offeror’s Performance Work Statement can include illustrative examples of how it will support USAID’s Climate Change Strategy once approved.

20. In Attachment 1, Sections C.7.c, USAID requires the Contractor to “include a robust Do No Harm (DNH) analysis...”. Can USAID please confirm that the DNH is not due at the time of proposal submission? Also, can USAID kindly include the DNH analysis in the section F.6.b List of Reports and Deliverables?

A20. The Do No Harm Analysis does not need to be submitted with the proposal. However, the PWS should summarize the offeror’s Do No Harm approach. Section F.6 has been updated to include the Do No Harm Analysis as an annex to the First Year Work Plan.

21. There are several disparities between the minimum required results listed for Objective 1 on page 5 of the SOO (C.5) and the Results and Indicators table page 6 (C.6):

· The table indicates “% of increase in average households’ income increased as a result of USG assistance” at 40%. However, that result is not included under minimum results under Objective 1 on page 5.

· Similarly, the table includes a reduction in GHG emissions and a job creation target of 30,000, neither of which is reflected on page 5 (Objective 1).

· Finally, the table indicates a target of 20,000 beneficiaries with an improved perception of the benefits of climate smart agriculture, but the same result is indicated in as a percentage target (40%) on page 5.

Can USAID kindly clarify these discrepancies and confirm the required minimum results for Objective 1?

A21. See response question 16.

22. Attachment J.1, Section C SOO (p. 1): USAID states that “the Contractor will propose additional states using an analytic framework that will consider the highest potential to achieve the activity’s goals including increased employment, sales, investment and positive environmental impact.” And then, “While proposed states, market systems and a framework for analysis must be included in the PWS, final selection will be negotiated with USAID post-award.” In Section L.6.d Performance Work Statement (p. 100), USAID states “the Offeror should propose a methodology or framework for the final selection of priority value chains, considering engagement with private sector actors, local producers and other key stakeholders.”

Can USAID confirm the Contractor is expected to propose both an analytical framework to propose additional states and a methodology or framework for the final selection of priority value chains?

A22. Offerors are expected to explain the rationale followed to select the initial proposed states and value chains. However, they are only expected to propose one methodology or framework for the final selection of states and value chains.

23. J.1 Section C SOO Objective 1 Section C, Objective 1 specifies that interventions may include small-scale construction. Has USAID obtained, or is planning to obtain, a waiver allowing for small-scale construction using the GUC fund?

A23. This sentence has been deleted. Construction is not authorized under this contract.

24. J.1 Section C SOO Page 6 Would USAID kindly share the performance indicator reference sheets for the required measurement indicators outlined in section C 6 of J.1 Statement of Objectives?

A24. Indicator reference sheets will be developed post award.

25. J.1 Section C SOO Page 6 Under Objective 1, the contractor is expected to increase beneficiaries’ household income by 40%. Does USAID have an expectation about the number of beneficiaries whose household income would increase by this amount?

A25. USAID does not have a predetermined target, but encourages offerors to present ambitious yet realistic targets.

26. J.1 Section C SOO Page 6 Under Objective 1, USAID indicates the “value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USG assistance” will be $200M. Can USAID confirm that the $200M is the total aggregate sales at the end of the project, not the net increase in sales over the course of the project?

A26. For the purpose of SURGES, USAID expects the $200 million in increased sales to be the NET sales increase in sales and not the total aggregate of sales at the end of the project.

27. Section C.5 Activity Goals and Objectives, in Attachment J.1 Statement of Objectives:

Page 5 states a minimum required result of Objective 1 is “Value of beneficiary sales of sustainably produced goods of at least USD 200 million.” Please confirm that this is a cumulative required result over the life of the project, and that this total may include sales of both agricultural and non-agricultural value chains.

A27. The amount is cumulative over the life of the contract and includes sales of both agricultural and non-agricultural value chains. However, USAID would like to have annual targets for monitoring and reporting purposes.

28. Section C.5 Activity Goals and Objectives, in Attachment J.1 Statement of Objectives:

Page 5 states a minimum required result of Objective 2 is states “Value of public or private investment facilitated as a result of USG assistance of at least USD 50 million.” Please confirm that this is a cumulative required result over the life of the project.

A28. The value is cumulative over the life of the activity. However, USAID would like to have annual targets for monitoring and reporting purposes.

29. Section C.5 Activity Goals and Objectives and Section C.6, Performance Work Statement Results and Indicators, in Attachment J.1 Statement of Objectives: There are discrepancies in the definition of results indicators within the SOO in Annex J.1 between Sections C.5 and C.6. Can USAID please clarify which definition they will use? Specific discrepancies are listed below.

a. Section C.5, Page 5, Objective 1 states “Value of beneficiary sales of sustainably produced goods of at least USD 200 million.” Section C.6, Page 6 states: “EG. 3.2-2619. Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USG assistance: $200 million.” Please confirm which definition will be used.

A29.a Section C.6 has been modified to address this discrepancy.

b. Section C.5, Page 5, Objective 1 states “Forty percent increase in beneficiary’s household income.” Section C.6, Page 6 states: “% of increase in average households’ income increased as a result of USG assistance: 40%.”

Please confirm which definition will be used.

A29.b Sections C.5 and C.6 has been modified to address this discrepancy.

c. Section C.5, Page 5, Objective 1 states “At least 30 public-private partnerships established.” This indicator is not included in Section C.6.

We assume this will be a contractual requirement, please confirm.

A29.c Sections C.5 and C.6 have been modified to address this discrepancy. , This indicator will be a contractual requirement.

d. Section C.6, Page 6 states “Number of beneficiaries (PS, SME’s, SHF) that report improved perception of benefits from adopting climate smart agriculture:

20,000.” This is not included in C.5. We assume this will be a contractual requirement, please confirm.

A29.d Sections C.5 and C.6 have been modified to address this discrepancy. This indicator will be a contractual requirement.

e. Section C.6, Page 6 states “Reduction in GHG emissions: 1.8 million tons of CO2 equivalent.” This is not included in C.5. We assume this will be a contractual requirement, please confirm.

A29.e Sections C.5 and C.6 have been modified to address this discrepancy. This

f. Section C.6, Page 6 states “Number of direct and indirect jobs (full time equivalents) created as a result of USG assistance: 30,000.” This is not included in C.5. We assume this will be a contractual requirement, please confirm.

A29.f Sections C.5 and C.6 have been modified to address this discrepancy. This

g. Section C.5, Page 5, Objective 2 states “Value of public or private investment facilitated as a result of USG assistance of at least USD 50 million.”

Section C.6, Page 6 states: “Value of investment facilitated: $50 million.” Please confirm which definition will be used.

A29.g Sections C.5 and C.6 have been modified to address this discrepancy. This

h. Section C.5, Page 6, Objective 3 states “At least ten local or federal policies strengthened or proposed to promote investment and increase inclusive market access.” Section C.6, Page 6 states: Number of laws, policies or regulations that address biodiversity conservation and/or other environmental themes or promote investment and entrepreneurship proposed as a result of multi stakeholder dialogues: 10.” Please confirm which definition will be used.

A29.h Sections C.5 and C.6 have been modified to address this discrepancy. This

30. Section C.7.c Local Context and Do No Harm, in Attachment J.1 Statement of Objectives: Page 8 of 10, the first paragraph states, “Materials and components of the contract should be based on an agreed-upon definition of the target audiences and delivered in the appropriate languages.” Will this be agreed upon after award or is the bidder expected to identify this in the proposal?

A30. Offerors are expected to identify the proposed target audience as part of the PWS.

However, final selection of target audiences will be agreed upon during implementation.

31. Section C.7.h Collaborating, Learning and Adapting, in Attachment J.1 Statement of Objectives: Page 9 of 10, the first full paragraph states, “The Contractor must build on lessons learned from relevant initiatives, including those of other donors….” We ask that USAID please identify any specific “relevant initiatives” they would like to be built upon.

A31. We have modified Section C.7.h. In addition, USAID provided factsheets as an attachment to the RFP to relevant USAID funded activities that offerors should take into consideration in the proposal.

SECTION D – PACKAGING AND MARKING

32. Section D.4 Section L.6.c RFP, page 13 RFP, page 99 & 103 Section D. 4 of the solicitation states that “As laid out in F.6.4 below, the Contractor will prepare the Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan as part of an overall communications strategy post award”. However, Section L.6.c lists “Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan” under the list of Annexes (Annex F) and further as Annex F on page 103. Kindly confirm that Branding Implementation and Marking Plans are not required with the technical proposal and will be required at the post award stage.

A32. The referenced sentence was deleted through this Amendment. The Branding Implementation and Marking Plan is due with the technical proposal.

SECTION F – DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

33. Section F.6.b.8, page 25, lists the Gender Analysis Report and Gender and Social Inclusion Action Plan are due 120 days after award; however, Section F.6.b, page 19, states that the Gender Analysis Report and Gender and Social Inclusion Plan are due 180 calendar days after the performance start date. Could USAID confirm that the Gender Analysis Report and Gender and Social Inclusion Plan are due 180 calendar days after the performance start date?

A33. Section F.6 has been updated to clarify that the Gender Analysis Report and Gender and Social Inclusion Plan are due 180 calendar days after the performance start date.

34. Section F.6.b Deliverables: We assume that the Reports and Deliverables outlined in the Table in Section F on pages 19-20 will be part of the contract as Section F. Does the PWS need to include all required technical reports as Tasks? For example, do we need to include a Task in the PWS to complete the Gender Analysis Report and the Gender and Social Inclusion Plan? In addition, The SOO on page 7 also requires an Accountability and Feedback Plan but it is not listed in the Table in Section F, please confirm whether this should be included as well.

A34. The PWS does not need to include all required technical reports as Tasks. The Accountability and Feedback Plan is established as part of the MEL Plan in Section F.6.b.6 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (MEL Plan).

35. Section F.6.b Deliverables: On page 20, the List of Reports and Deliverables, F.6.b.19 states the Final Performance Report is due “Within 60 calendar days after the contract completion date.” Would USAID consider revising the due date of this deliverable, including time for USAID comments and appropriate revisions as necessary, to ensure all work is conducted/completed within the authorized period of performance?

A35. No.

SECTION H – SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

36. Pg. 44, Section H.15 (c) states, “With respect to such employees performing work directly under this contract, USAID shall reimburse the Contractor for one annual salary increase of not more than 5% of the employee’s base salary, subject to the Contractor’s established policy and practice”: and pg. 44 Section H.15 (a) (2) (iii) states “Direct compensation of the contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the contractors’ established policies, procedures and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract.” Ensuring that we remain in line with our established policies and procedures, please confirm that the five (5) percent threshold can be applicable to the total direct labor pool vs. individuals?

A36. Yes.

37. Pg. 39 (41 of PDF), Section H.8, states, “The Contractor is authorized up to a six-day workweek for short-term consultants in the field…” Given that home office staff may also be assigned STTA field assignments, we respectfully request that USAID edit this to state that “The Contractor is authorized up to a six-day workweek for short-term *personnel and* consultants in the field…”.

A37. No.

38. Section H.15 (b) RFP, page 44 AIDAR 722.170, referenced in Section H.15(b), requires obtaining the waiver for CCNs/TCNs whose salary rates exceed the prevailing USG Local Compensation Plan. In order to comply with this requirement, would USAID please provide the most recent USAID Local Compensation Plan (LCP) or the maximum range of the LCP.

A38. See answer to question 7.

39. Section H.7.e states “There is no GUC total estimated amount ceiling for any non-U.S.

NGO”. Please clarify if non-U.S. NGO GUCs are permitted and there’s no ceiling to the individual or total value of GUCs or if GUCs may not be issued to any non-U.S. NGO.

A. Non-U.S. NGO GUC are permitted, the limitation to the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) does not apply to individual grant awards to non-U.S. NGOs.

40. Page 44 of the RFP, Section H.15 (b) states “(1) Reimbursable salaries and wages for TCNs and CCNs for employees shall not exceed, without specific approval by the Contracting Officer, the market rate in the country in which the TCN/CCN is employed.” In general, the AIDAR

722.170 requires that the compensation to TCN/CCNs may not exceed the prevailing compensation plan, unless authorized by the Mission Director. Could USAID provide the most recent Local Compensation Plan?

A40. See answer to question 7.

SECTION I – CONTRACT CLAUSES

41. Pg. 55, Section I.3, states, “The use of overtime is authorized under this contract if the overtime premium does not exceed *______________ or the overtime premium is paid for work”. Can USAID clarify the intended, not to exceed amount?

A41. See the asterisk at the end of the clause.

42. Section H.13 RFP, page 41 Section H.13 includes the DBA insurance requirement. Mexico currently has an active DBA waiver valid through February 27, 2022. Could USAID please confirm if all offerors can assume this waiver will be renewed and in place by September 2022, the anticipated start date of this program?

A42. See answer to question 1.

43. Section H.15 (c) RFP, page 44 Given global and local inflation in the labor market, would USAID kindly consider removing the 5% limit on annual salary increases for full time project employees or adding a provision for a future discussion with USAID on that ceiling?

A43. The inflation rate limit of 5% will not be changed or removed.

SECTION J – LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

44. Pg. 65 (63 of PDF), Section J, includes attachment J.6 / SF-LLL. No reference is made to it under Section L.7 Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost Proposal. For offerors who do not have Lobbying Activities to disclose, please confirm that they do not need to fill in the SF-LLL form and can simply indicate in their Cost Proposals “Not Applicable”. Please confirm that Part 3 of the Cost Proposal, after the completed Section K, is the best place to make this statement (or to provide a completed SF-LLL for those Offerors that need to make a disclosure).

A44. Yes.

45. Attachment J.2 Budget Narrative Template, please clarify if offerors are to keep or delete the template instructions prior to submission.

A45. Delete them.

46. Attachment J.2 Budget Narrative Template, section XI. Indirect Costs: would USAID reconsider the detailed breakdown request as the information is duplicative to what is provided in the Summary of Proposed Indirect Costs and the NICRA. Additionally, it can be confusing, particularly with the table requested in the Application of G&A Indirect Cost Rate, considering the other summary budget tables.

A46. The section will not be changed or removed.

47. Attachment J.2 Budget Narrative Template, section X. Subcontracts: please confirm that consultant costs are to go under here. Please also confirm if consent to subcontract per FAR 44.202-2 is required for each consultant. Finally, note the discrepancy in title headings between RFP attachment J.2 and J.3 Budget Template (“Contractual” in the latter; “Subcontracts” in the former). Please confirm which term should be used/etc.

A47. Consultant costs can be placed in other direct costs or subcontracts. Consent to subcontract is required for any subcontract that meets the conditions in FAR 52.244-2. Please review FAR 52.244-2 and 44.201-1. It is labeled contractual in the detailed budget because GUCs are not subcontracts. GUCs are now separated under the Major Cost Category Tab.

48. In Attachment J.19, USAID discusses hectares under production for coffee, cacao, honey, ranching, citrus, tourism, and timber and non-timber forest management. Are these the focal value chains? Should the contractor propose value chains only within those listed here?

A48. No. The value chains listed in Attachment J.19 are illustrative.

49. Per the instructions in Annex J, Contractor Past Performance Information, point a instructs:

“The Offeror … must provide performance information …. using the Contractor Past Performance Matrix...” Does USAID wish for the offer to provide a past performance narrative in addition to submission of CIPARS and/or Past Performance Information Sheets?

A49. The past performance matrix indicates the required information. No additional narrative is required.

50. Attachment J.9. The QASP template provided in Attachment J.9 indicates that “The Performance Requirements Summary Matrix, paragraph <enter number> in the Performance Work Statement includes performance standards.” The referenced matrix is not included as a requirement in the RFP, and it is not clear how it would differ from the table of performance indicators and targets to be included in the required Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan.

Would USAID consider editing this language to reference the approved Monitoring and Evaluation Plan or, alternatively, provide clarifying guidance on where the matrix should appear in the PWS and what it should contain?

A50. The matrix should be part of the technical proposal per Attachment J.9.

51. On page 103 of RFP, Annex H, USAID states that “offerors must be prepared to present USAID with a prime candidate and one alternate should the primary candidate not be approved for each position within five days of award. Can USAID define “candidate” in this scenario, i.e., will the Contractor be expected to have offers in place at the time of award or will we present names/CVs for USAID to approve before such offers are made?

A51. This requirement has been deleted with this amendment.

52. In J.3 budget template, kindly confirm if we can include grants funds in ODCs in the II.

Consolidation Budget Incorporating Subcontractor Costs in Cost Category to Compare with Independent Government Cost Estimate. If this is not possible, can USAID please confirm how grants should be presented in this table?

A52. See amendment 1. GUCs are now separated under the Major Cost Category Tab.

53. For Grants under Contracts (p.109), can USAID please clarify what an alternative form of financing and payment for Grants under Contracts costs is considered? Can USAID please clarify and provide examples of alternative forms of financing and payment for GUC costs and confirm that this is not an evaluation criterion, given cost share is prohibited from being a contract requirement? (2.a Factor 1 – Performance Work Statement: USAID will also evaluate the potential to build local capacity, achieve sustainability, actively engage, and integrate gender, youth, and other vulnerable populations, while making effective use of Grants Under Contract.)

A53. An alternative form could be using a letter of credit.

54. With reference to J.2 budget narrative template, section IV. Direct Labor Salaries, can USAID kindly reconsider removing the current daily salary, deviation, and justification in year 1 since this information is not required to be collected in the Employee Biographical Data Sheet Form AID 1420-17 and contractors are prohibited from requesting salary history in many jurisdictions?

A54. The reference to salary history has been deleted with this amendment.

55. With reference to J.2 budget narrative template, can USAID kindly confirm if Offerors must include a table per year for each sub-category (e.g., A. Proposed Long-Term Expatriate Labor Costs under Year 1 of the Contract, B. Proposed Long-Term Professional CCN Labor Costs, A.

Proposed Programmatic Travel for Year 1, etc.)?

A55. Yes.

56. The J.2 budget narrative template states that “Unless the NICRA or applicable policy provides something different, the Offeror should include CCN fringe benefits as Other Direct Costs.” The J.3 Budget template includes local direct fringe under Cost Line 2 Fringe Benefits. Please clarify in which section (Other Direct Costs or Fringe Benefits) CCN/local fringe benefits should be included.

A56. “Other Direct Costs” was replaced by “Fringe Benefits” in the sentence in reference with this amendment.

57. The J.2 budget narrative template has 11-point Times New Roman font. Kindly confirm that 11-point font should be used for the budget narrative.

A57. The template has been updated to 12 point font.

58. With reference to J.3 budget template, II. Consolidation Budget Incorporating Subcontractor Costs in Cost Category to Compare with Independent Government Cost Estimate, can USAID kindly clarify where Offerors should include independent consultants since they are included in the subcontracts cost category in the detailed budget?

A58. See answer to question 47.

59. Attachment J.3 (Budget Template) and L.7.c Part 2 – Proposed Costs/Prices (p.106-107): In the “Detailed Prime Budget” tab of the budget template, column V indicates offerors should include the “Total Estimate (including Option Year).” Additionally, Section L.7.c. of the RFP indicates that the detailed budget “must show costs for all five years (the base period of four years with one-year option period) of contract performance.” However, the cover letter indicates the contract is for five years from the date of award, and Section F.2 Period of Performance of the RFP (p.16) indicates that the contract is five years from the start date of September XX, 2022, and does not specify that there is an option year. Can USAID please clarify whether the contract period of performance will be a total of five years, or if it will be comprised of a base period of four years plus an option period of one year?

A59. See answer to question 10.

60. Attachment J.9, Quality Assurance and Surveillance Plan (QASP), page 4, notes, “The QASP shall cite the same performance objectives and thresholds as stated in the Performance Requirements section of the PWS.” Could USAID confirm the “Performance Requirements section of the PWS” refers to Attachment J.1, Section C.6?

A60. It refers to the section where the offeror puts the Performance Requirements in the PWS that the offeror writes for the RFP.

61. The budget template (J.3) does not have a line for grants. Does USAID have a preference as to which major line item this be added under? Or should it be added as a separate major line item?

A61. See answer to question 47.

62. What assets, if any, will be made available such as vehicles, equipment, or furniture for this activity? Or should offerors include all costs for procurement in their budget?

A62. Offerors should include all costs in their budget.

63. May Offerors adjust the USAID-provided budget template (RFP Attachment J.3) and budget narrative template to reflect a company’s cost structure?

A63. No.

64. In the detailed budget template, line 7 is labeled “Contractual” and includes both Subcontracts and Consultants. In the consolidation and summary budget templates, it is labeled “Subcontracts.” Which is correct?

A64. See response to question 47.

65. The first tab in the J3 Budget Template, entitled ‘Major cost categories’. Should Year 5 contain the summation of Years 1 – 4 as it currently exists or should Year 5 be part of the Total?

A65. Year 5 is part of the total.

66. Attachment J.9 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP), Section 4. Performance Standards: The box on Page 4 states “<Performance-based contracts include either a Performance Work Statement (PWS) created by the Government, or if a statement of objectives (SOO) is used, a government or contractor developed PWS. The QASP shall cite the same performance objectives and thresholds as stated in the Performance Requirements section of the PWS. If the requirement includes a statement of objectives (SOO), the QASP will be developed after contract award.>” As this RFP includes a SOO, is the QASP intended to be developed after award rather than a required annex to be submitted with the proposal?

A66. The Offeror must develop a draft QASP per Annex A under Section L of the RFP. An updated QASP must be submitted as part of the Reports and Deliverables under Section F post award.

67. Attachment J.9 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP), Section 4. Performance Standards: If a draft QASP is required to be submitted with the proposal, we have the following questions related to the template.

a. Section 2. Government Roles and Responsibilities: Please confirm whether the offeror should leave the Assigned CO, COR, Contract Specialist, and other key government personnel sections (page 3) blank at this time.

A67a. Yes

a. Section 4. Performance Standards: Page 3, paragraph 3, requires a paragraph number of the “Performance Requirements Summary Matrix” within the PWS. Is this matrix a required element to be included within the PWS? If so, is it intended to follow the Outcomes, Indicators, and Targets Table (page 6) in Section C.6 Performance Work Statement Results and Indicators, in Attachment J.1 Statement of Objectives?

A67b. Yes, however, see response to question 60.

b. Section 5. Incentives: Please confirm the offeror should complete this section with the same progressive achievement based fee schedule as described in Section L.7.c Part 2 - Proposed Costs/Prices, page 109; “The Offeror must incorporate fixed fee amounts tied to the deliverables in F.6 (25 percent) and indicator/targets in Attachment J.1 Section C.6 (75 percent). The Offeror is not required to tie fee to all of the indicators/targets in Attachment J.1 Section C.6 but must select more complex indicators/targets while showing a progressive achievement of results over the life of the contract.”

A67c. Yes.

c. Section 6. Methods of Surveillance: The box on page 5 references the “Performance Standards Summary Matrix in the contract.” Is this matrix a required element to be included within the PWS or the QASP?

A67d. Both.

d. Section 10. Frequency of Measurement: Does USAID want the offeror to propose (a) frequency of COR measurements and/or (b) frequency of COR meetings with the contractor?

A67e. Yes.

SECTION L –INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFEROR

68. Pg. 107, Section L.7.c “Salary” states “Biographical Data Sheets are required for any individual specifically identified in the cost or technical proposal to allow for a cost analysis of the proposed daily rate.” Will USAID confirm that biodatas are only required for named individuals to be sent outside of the United States and any named employees designated as key personnel, in accordance with AIDAR 752.7001?”

A68. Biographical Data Sheets are required for any individual specifically identified in the cost or technical proposal per Section L.7.c.

69. Pg. 111 (113 of PDF), Section L.7.d Part 3, requests a completed Section K from the Offeror and each proposed sub-contractor. Would USAID consider limiting this to the Offeror and major subcontractors, only?

A69. No, the Offeror and each proposed subcontractor shall complete Section K, Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offeror as stated in the RFP.

70. Pg. 96 (98 of PDF), Section L.5 limits each email submission to 10MBs. Would USAID consider increasing this to 25MBs?

A70. No, multiple emails can be sent following the instructions under Section L.5.

71. Pg. 106 (108 of PDF), section L.7.a 6., states, “The Offeror must not include burdened rates in its budget or subcontractor budgets.” Can USAID confirm this only applies to CPFF-type subcontracts, and not FFP/T&M type subcontracts?

A71. It refers to all contract types except firm fixed price.

72. Pg. 106 (108 of PDF), Section L.7.c 1. Detailed Budget Preparation Guidance references a period of performance with a four-year base and one-year option period. There is no other reference to such a period of performance, including in Section F.2 and the attached budget template per J.3. Please confirm that the base program is five-years and there is no option period.

A72. See response to question 10.

73. Pg. 107 (109 of PDF), Section L.7.C.3 Salary, states, “Offerors must identify what positions and LOE apply to Professional Technical Labor, and which apply to Management and Administration.” Please confirm that Offerors can stick to the categories of “Professional CCN” and “Administrative CCN” labor, per RFP attachments J.2 and J.3.

A73. Yes.

74. Pg. 108 (110 of PDF), Section L.7.C.3 Fixed Fee, states that the “Offeror should use the structured approach offered by the General Services Administration (“GSA”) to show its analysis.” However, per FAR 15-404-4, (c) (5): 5) states that “The contracting officer shall not require any prospective contractor to submit breakouts or supporting rationale for its profit or fee objective but may consider it, if it is submitted voluntarily.” Accordingly, we ask that the RFP language be revised.

A74. Should is a suggestion but not a requirement.

75. Pg. 108 (110 of PDF), Section L.7.C.3 Fixed Fee, states that the “Further, the fixed fee calculation should only include the direct costs of the Prime Offeror less the costs of the subcontractor(s)’s proposed fee, if any, as the base of calculation.” Please confirm that the base of calculation is Total Costs before Fee. Please also confirm what FAR clause prohibits subcontractor fees from being included in the Offeror’s proposed fixed-fee base.

A75. Yes, the base of the calculation is the total estimated cost minus fee and GUCs (if using a separate fee for GUCs). The FAR does not prohibit the Government from paying double fee (i.e.

paying a subcontractor’s fee and then paying the prime’s fee on that fee amount). The Government is interested in paying for results and not fixed fee, it is up to an offeror if it would rather disregard this guidance and have more funds put to its fixed fee than to activities.

76. Pg. 109 (111 of PDF), Section L.7.C.3 Fixed Fee, states that the “Offeror must incorporate fixed fee amounts tied to the deliverables in F.6”. Please confirm that the offeror may choose which deliverables in F.6 are fee-bearing.

A76. Yes.

77. Page 101, Section L.6.f states that, “The Offeror must include recommended position descriptions for all proposed Key personnel positions in the Annex.” However, the list of Annexes on Pg 98, Section L.6.c does not include an Annex for position descriptions. Can USAID please confirm that the position descriptions should be included under 3. Key Personnel in the technical proposal, not as an Annex, and count toward the 35-page page limit?

A77. Yes, position descriptions should be submitted with the technical proposal under Management Approach.

78. On page 100, L.6.b, the RFP states “the proposed activities must demonstrate how the interventions will lead to increased benefits, including employment and income diversification, for smallholder farmers, women, youth, and marginalized populations…”. On page 117, under M.2.a Technical Evaluation Criteria, Factor 1 – Performance Work Statement, the RFP states does not mention a focus on smallholder farmers. Can USAID clarify whether they see smallholder farmers as direct or indirect beneficiaries of this project?

A78. Smallholder farmers will be direct or indirect beneficiaries depending on the proposed technical approach and value chains. For agricultural value chains, USAID expects smallholder producers to benefit directly from the activity.

79. L.6.f Key Personnel states, “The Offeror must include recommended position descriptions for all proposed Key personnel positions in the Annex, including all requirements necessary for selecting a successful candidate.” However, position descriptions are not included as an annex section not included in the page limitation as outlined in L.6.c. Can USAID confirm that position descriptions can be included as an annex and that they will not be included in the total page limitation?

A79. See response to question 77. Proposed position descriptions must be submitted under the Management Approach within the page limit.

80. Section L.6.b. Page 98 states: “The reasonable use of tables and graphs must be no less than 9-point font and count toward the page limitation.” Can USAID confirm that offerors may also use 9-point font in text boxes?

A80. No, offerors may not use 9 point font in text boxes.

81. Section L.6.c. Page 98. The RFP states: “The Technical Proposal must be organized according to the evaluation factors in Section M.2 and must address all evaluation factors in Section M.2.” However, we note several discrepancies between Section L.6.d. and section M.2.a.

For example, Section L.6.d. refers to technical methodologies, while section M.2.a. refers to technical approach. Section L.6.d. requires offerors to propose a methodology or framework for the final selection of priority value chains, but section M.2.a. does not refer to this methodology or framework so it is unclear if and how it will be evaluated. Section L.6.d. states that offerors must describe the approach to supporting the adoption of technology, but this is not mentioned under M.2.a. Can USAID either harmonize section L.6.d. with M.2.a. or confirm that if there are discrepancies offerors should follow section M.2.a.?

A81. Sections L.6.d and M.2.a have been modified to address the discrepancies. Regarding the evaluation of the proposed states and value chains, as indicated in section M.2.a., USAID will evaluate if the proposed value chains and geographies are realistic and support the achievement of proposed results.

82. Section L.6.c. includes “Annex A. Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan” but Section L.6.

Annexes refers to “Annex A - Draft Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan” Can USAID confirm the title of Annex A?

A82. Annex A is called Draft Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. See amendment 1.

83. Section L.6.c. includes “Annex B as ‘Draft Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan.’

Section L.6. Annexes refers to “Draft Monitoring Plan.” Can USAID confirm the title of Annex B?

A83. Title of Annex B is now updated under Section L.6. Annexes.

84. Section L.6.c. includes “Annex G. Environment Management Plan” Section L.6. Annexes refers to “Annex G - Environmental Management Approach.” Can USAID confirm the title of Annex G?

A84. Title of Annex G is now updated under Section L.6.c Content.

85. Section L.6.c. includes “Annex H. Key Personnel Curricula Vitae” Section L.6. Annexes refers to “Annex H - Curricula Vitae.” Can USAID confirm the title of Annex H?

A85. Title of Annex H is now updated under Section L.6 Annexes.

86. Section L.6.c. includes “Annex J. Past Performance Information” and Section L.6. Annexes refers to “Annex J – Contractor Past Performance Information.” Can USAID confirm the title of Annex J?

A86. Title of Annex is now updated under Section L.6.c Content.

87. Section L.6.h page 102. Can USAID please confirm that Past Performance Information should only be presented under Annex J. Contractor Past Performance Information, as indicated on section L.6. Annexes J? Please also confirm that offerors do not need to include a Past Performance section as part of the body of their technical proposals as indicated in section L.6.c.

A87. Correct.

88. Section L.6.h. page 103. Annex D. Logical Framework. Can USAID confirm offerors should use the Logical Framework template found in this guidance document?

https://www.usaid.gov/project-starter/program-cycle/project-design/logical-framework If so, can USAID confirm offerors should present the Activity’s Goal, Purpose, Outputs and Inputs (instead of key outcomes, outputs and inputs as listed on page 103)?

A88. Page 103 has been modified to clarify that the Logical Framework should include:

Activity’s Goal, Purpose, Outputs and Inputs.

89. Section L.6. Page 102. Annex A. Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). The RFP states: “Offerors are encouraged to review FAR Subpart 46.4. [See ATTACHMENT J.9- QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP) (TEMPLATE) that informs further the development of the QASP].” The provided template includes a number of fields that cannot be completed prior to award. Would USAID consider removing this Annex as a requirement for proposal submission, with the expectation that the QASP would be completed upon award and approval of the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan? If this is not an option, would

USAID confirm that it intends for Annex A to be a completed version of the template provided in Attachment J.9? If so, would USAID confirm that offerors should complete only Section 4 Performance Standards and Section 6 Methods of QA Surveillance?

A89. See response to question 66, and note, it is the draft QASP that is submitted at this time.

90. Also referring to the statement on pages 103-104 of the RFP, Annex H: would USAID consider extending the five-day period to submit the alternate candidate(s)? A longer timeframe would help the awardee to negotiate compensation and get signed Letters of Commitment.

A90. This requirement has been deleted from the RFP.

91. Could USAID please elaborate on the desired distinction between the Results Framework required in the technical narrative as per page 99 of the RFP, section L.6.d, and the Logical Framework required as an annex, as per page 103 of the RFP, section L.6.h?

A91. Section L.6.d has been updated to address this discrepancy.

92. Will USAID please confirm the recommended position descriptions specified on page 101 of the RFP should be included in Annex H – Curricula Vitae?

A92. See responses to questions 77 and 79.

93. Will USAID please confirm Offerors are required to submit an environmental management approach and not an EMMP at the time of proposal submission? Page 99 of the RFP makes a reference to an Environmental Management Plan, whereas it is stated environmental management approach on page 103.

A93. See answer to question 84. The PWS should include a description of the proposed management approach. The EMMP will be submitted along with the First Annual Work Plan.

94. Will USAID please confirm the Past Performance Matrix should be presented in MS…