Attachment 2 Q and A for ARCO RFP.pdf

Request for Proposal 72052322R00002 Alliance for Root Causes and Opportunities (ARCO) Activity

Amendment 4

Attachment 2: Questions and Answers

Section B

1. Section B.4, on page 6, states that the fixed fee will be paid according to completion of project deliverables. However, deliverables set as part of the proposal process may change during implementation due to evolving technical needs, newly emerged opportunities, and stakeholders’ priorities. To account for these potential shifts, would USAID consider adding the following language to Section B.4:

“The Fixed Fee Schedule may be adjusted during annual work planning to reprogram any unpaid fees from partially completed or non-accepted deliverables from the past year into other or additional deliverables as mutually agreed to between the COR and the contractor, ensuring the fee remains fixed.”

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.

Response: No, we will not change this language.

Section C

2. Section C.5.b Activity Components and Geographic Focus: The RFP states that ARCO will be implemented within the geography of AMEXCID’s programs, including “13 of the 14 departments in El Salvador; 13 out of 18 departments in Honduras; and intends to work in the majority of the 22 departments in Guatemala.”

Can USAID provide a list of the departments and/or specific municipalities within these departments in which AMEXCID’s JCF and SV programs have activities planned or underway?

Response: AMEXCID is currently implementing their JCF and SV projects in the following departments in El Salvador and Honduras:

● El Salvador - Ahuachapán, Cabañas, Chalatenango, Cuscatlán, La Libertad, La Paz, La Unión, San Miguel, San Vicente, San Salvador, Santa Ana, Sonsonate, and Usulután.

● Honduras - Atlántida, Comayagua, Choluteca, Cortés, Copán, El Paraíso, Francisco Morazán, La Paz, Lempira, Santa Bárbara, Olancho, Valle, and Yoro.

● AMEXCID has not started implementing its projects in Guatemala.

3. Section C.5.b, on page 11, states that:

“ARCO will be implemented within the geography of AMEXCID’s programs.

AMEXCID is currently implementing its activities in 13 of the 14 departments in El Salvador; 13 out of 18 departments in Honduras and intends to work in the majority of the 22 departments in Guatemala.”

Could USAID please confirm that ARCO’s activities will be implemented in all the departments where AMEXCID operates in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, or if ARCO will be implemented in a subset of these departments? If ARCO is implemented in a subset of departments, does USAID have a prioritized list for the greatest achievement and sustainability of results?

Response: It is envisioned that ARCO will work in a subset of the mentioned departments. The extent to which ARCO is implemented in one or the other department is not yet defined and it depends on the distribution of AMEXCID beneficiaries, the location of the existing or future synergies with USAID bilateral mission projects and the needs assessment (Section C.5.c). Further geographic focus will be determined after the award is made and based on consultations with USAID/Mexico, AMEXCID, and USAID bilateral missions in Central America.

It is expected that ARCO’s implementation occurs with a planned geographical focus that maximizes efficiency and in coordination with the USAID bilateral missions in each country, to prevent duplication of efforts and to guarantee the greatest achievement and sustainability of results.

At this time, USAID estimates that 30 percent of LOE to Guatemala, 30 percent Honduras, 20 percent El Salvador, and 20 percent for Mexico based capacity building.

4. Section C.5.c.4 Minimum Outcomes and Indicators: The indicators given in Section C.5.c.4 as phrased seem to contradict the stated purpose of the ARCO contract.

Whereas the purpose implies a project focused on strengthening the relationship between AMEXCID and USAID and the institutional capacity of AMEXCID to implement its programs in workforce development and agriculture (rather than direct implementation by ARCO) the indicators imply the direct implementation these activities and responsibility for output targets. We respectfully suggest that USAID remove the indicators and targets duplicating the goals of the JCF and SV projects, and instead use indicators related to institutional capacity strengthening, strategic partnership strengthening, and CLA.

Response: The indicators stated on Section C.5.c.4 are intended to provide results of the generation of sustainable economic opportunities for youth and farmers in northern Central America through a strategic partnership between both governments. ARCO will aim to enhance best practices sharing between both governments rather than focusing only on institutional strengthening.

As stated on section C.5.b, “The contractor will provide support to AMEXCID (in both Mexico and Central America) and directly implement/deliver services in Central America to enhance the progress and sustainability of AMEXCID’s assistance” and “Collaboration with the GOM / AMEXCID is the first lens of this activity; thus, ARCO service delivery activities should focus on AMEXCID (past, present or future) beneficiaries.” The indicators are not a duplication, rather reflect the expectation that ARCO beneficiaries will be a subset of (past, present, or future) AMEXCID beneficiaries.

That said, the indicators are illustrative. Offerors may replace or subtract indicators in their proposal. However, we advise the offerors to justify new indicators, or the subtraction of indicators.

5. Section C.5.c.4 Minimum Outcomes and Indicators: If the intention is to support AMEXCID activities rather than implement directly, it is unclear how the given indicators would be measured to demonstrate ARCO success separate from JCF or SV success. For example, the first indicator for Component 1 on page 16, “Number of AMEXCID beneficiaries of JCF to secure employment” has a target of 10% of AMEXCID beneficiaries, or 1,000. Is this number meant to be in coordination with AMEXCID so both ARCO and JCF would report the same output? Or, is this meant to be separate from JCF, so they will report a number of beneficiaries who secured employment and ARCO will report a separate number of beneficiaries (not to be double-counted)? Is the offeror meant to propose how the two projects might disaggregate beneficiaries credited to ARCO and those credited to JCF? These questions would also apply to several other indicators, including the: (1) number of AMEXCID beneficiaries integrated into economic opportunities, (2) number of jobs created or facilitated, (3) numbers of AMEXCID beneficiaries that sell their products to the formal market, and (4) number of farmers aggregating their products through producer organizations.

Response: As mentioned in Question 4, the indicators proposed for ARCO reflect the expectation that ARCO beneficiaries will be a subset of (past, present, or future) AMEXCID beneficiaries. Rather, ARCO’s indicators – which meet USAID requirements

– will monitor the effectiveness of joint efforts and/or follow on activities to AMEXCID’s programs. Synergies between both governments’ programs will happen through the inclusion of one government’s beneficiaries (AMEXCID) into the other government’s programs (USAID). For example, beneficiaries from JCF can have 8 months of working experience through the AMEXCID’s program, and additional custom-designed courses with practical, hands-on pedagogical methodology through ARCO. This way, beneficiaries of both governments would be better prepared to enter the workforce.

On the agriculture side, an example could be that SV beneficiaries obtain technical assistance, tools and seeds from the AMEXCID’s program, while ARCO would provide extended training on how to organize themselves in producer groups and calendarize production to meet buyer requirements; then, these producer groups would be linked to the USAID bilateral programs for expanded market access.

6. Section C.5.c.4 Minimum Outcomes and Indicators: The sixth indicator under Component 2 is “New Private Partnerships” though there is no activity relevant to this in the description of Component 2: Agriculture in Section C.5.c.2.

a. Is this indicator intended to be under Component 1, which does describe an illustrative activity related to “creating alliances with businesses or business associations” for the purpose of matchmaking employers and youth graduates?

b. Are these partnerships intended to be between ARCO and private-sector entities and/or facilitated by ARCO between relevant stakeholders, or are these partnerships required to be facilitated by ARCO for AMEXCID to partner with private-sector entities?

Response: The “New Private Partnerships'' indicator is an outcome level indicator to measure the number of new agreements between the farmers (individual or grouped) and buyers/ the formal market. Relevant activities in Component 2 include “linkages with financial service providers” and “more stable, win-win commercial relationships with buyers”. It is expected that buyers / the formal market will include new private partnerships. The partnerships would be facilitated through ARCO.

There will be room to add additional indicators, in case needed. For example, if the activity related to “creating alliances with businesses or business associations” currently has no indicators, offerors may include an additional indicator in their proposal.

7. Section C.5.c.4, on page 15, states that “…the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Plan the [C]ontractor will finalize with USAID and may propose additional indicators.” Could USAID please confirm that proposals for additional indicators are not expected at this stage?

Response: Please see L.6.c(6) Annex A: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan for the requirements for the MEL Plan and M.2.a for how the MEL Plan will be evaluated.

8. Section C.6.2, as amended on page 17, states that “the Contractor is not required to have an in-country presence in El Salvador.” However, section L.6.c.3, on page 98, states that “Offerors shall structure their proposal by country (El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico) based on the components, expected results, and implementation guidelines identified in the SOW.” Could USAID please confirm that the mention of El Salvador in Section L.6.c.3 is an error?

Response: Offerors can expect that the amount of work implemented in El Salvador will be lower than in Honduras or Guatemala, therefore, no long term project presence is required in El Salvador. Each country’s approach will be slightly different, hence the requirement that the proposal be structured by country to convey this differentiated approach. Offerrors may propose to have an in-country presence in El Salvador.

However, we are just communicating that it is not required.

Section F

9. Section F.6.e, on page 26, states that “Once the MEL plan is approved, the Contractor will be required to upload the monitoring data to the Development Information Solution (DIS) within 30 days, to be reviewed and validated by the

COR.” However, as stipulated in Section C.7, on page 18, “[t]he final indicators and targets for achievement of activity objectives will be developed jointly between USAID and the Contractor,” and “[t]he Contractor will conduct an initial baseline upon launch of the activity.”

First, could USAID please clarify that our assumptions regarding DIS upload requirement relates to the baseline data is correct? Second, could USAID please clarify if the expectation is to have the baseline data uploaded 30 days upon completion of the baseline report? The process of joint development of indicators does not necessarily follow predictable timelines, and if any indicators developed after commencement of the baseline study require their own timelines, redesigning study in progress may not be the most efficient way of providing required information to USAID. Thus, we respectfully propose amending this provision to read:

“Once the MEL plan is approved and the baseline study is complete, the Contractor will be required to upload the baseline monitoring data to the Development Information Solution (DIS) within 30 days, to be reviewed and validated by the

COR.”

Response: USAID will maintain the original RFP language understanding that indicators as well as their baselines and targets can be adjusted in DIS at a later date. The information that cannot be completed at the time that the MEL plan is finalized because it depends on a baseline study will be added at a mutually agreed-upon date.

10. Section F.6.g., Quarterly Financial Reports: The quarterly financial reporting requirements reflect reporting required for assistance instruments. Please confirm if the quarterly financial report SF-425 is required.

Response: The SF-425 is not required and has been deleted from the RFP.

Section H

11. Section H.12, Defense Base Act Insurance and Services: The rates on page 38 list a base period of 2015 – 2017. Please provide updated rates that coincide with the anticipated contract period of performance.

Response: Pursuant to ADS 302, AAPD 17-01 Rev 4 (Issued Dec 1, 2021) announces that USAID executed contract modification 06 to AID-OAA-C-16-00015 for a six month extension of DBA insurance with AWAC. The rates in this AAPD were effective December 1, 2015.

RATES:

Contract Year Period of Performance

Services Construction Security

Base Period 12/1/15 – 11/30/17 $2.00 $4.50 $7.50

Option 1 12/1/17 – 11/30/18 $2.00 $4.50 $7.50

Option 2 12/1/18 – 11/30/19 $2.00 $4.50 $7.50

Option 3 12/1/19 – 11/30/20 $2.00 $4.50 $7.50

Extension 12/1/20 – 5/31/21 $2.00 $4.50 $7.50

Extension 6/1/21 – 11/30/21 $2.00 $4.50 $7.50

Extension 12/1/21 – 4/30/22 $2.00 $4.50 $7.50 unless further revised

Please note, Mexico has a waiver for DBA insurance.

12. Section H.14 Personnel Compensation (a)(2)(ii): Page 42 states, “When prior approval of salaries and wages are required, Contracting Officer approval is deemed provided when the Contractor certifies that the compensation for consultants, intermittent employees or other such individuals who are not full time employees of the Contractor or subcontractors, regardless of nationality, charged as direct cost to this contract is consistent with 1) individual’s own established rates, stripped of benefits such as per diem and travel if packaged in the rate, as USAID generally pays these separately and 2) the market value of the position. The certification shall be supported with documentation to include AID form 1420, Biographical Data sheet. The Contractor shall retain a copy of each 1420 form and the certification for audit purposes and for periodic review by the Contracting Officer. In alignment with USAID’s Initiative Promoting Market-based Salary Equity, we request removal of the highlighted section, as we rely heavily on market data to inform appropriate and competitive consultancy rates.

Response: This provision will not be modified or deleted. Offerors should rely on market rates for the position, the highlighted portion refers to consultants who establish their own rates.

13. Section H.14, Personnel Compensation (c) Annual Salary Increases: We request the annual salary increase % be administered in accordance with the selected Contractor’s established HR policies and procedures.

Response: This provision will not be modified or deleted. Contractors may increase salaries how they see fit, but USAID will only reimburse the amount in the final contract.

14. Section H.14(c) of the RFP, on page 43, limits offerors to administering 5% annual salary increases to long-term project staff. We respectfully request that the above-mentioned salary restriction be removed from the RFP as it appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007 Personnel Compensation, incorporated in the contract under Section I.1, which stipulates that personnel compensation be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, with reimbursement subject only to the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold. The salary restriction above may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices, as required by AIDAR 752.7007.

Response: See question 13.

Section J

15. Section J List of Attachments: SF LLL - Disclosure of Lobbying Activities and Continuation Sheet is included in the solicitation as attachment J.5 but is not listed as a required part of the cost proposal nor annex to the technical proposal. Please confirm that offerors are not required to submit SF LLL at this time.

Response: Offerors are required to submit SF LLL with the cost proposal.

16. Is USAID able to share any data, work plans, reports, fact sheets, evaluations, etc., about AMEXCIDs Jovenes Construyendo el Futuro or Sembrando Vida programs in Central America?

Response: USAID provided annex “J.12 Plan de Desarrollo Integral.pdf” to the third amendment of this RFP, which serves as a fact sheet for AMEXCID’s programs implemented in Central America. Two articles in the Revista Española de Desarrollo y Cooperación (https://www.ucm.es/iudesarrolloycooperacion/file/%20redc_47_publicada) provide context as well:“La cooperación mexicana en el marco del Plan de Desarrollo Integral para el norte de Centroamérica: Jóvenes Construyendo el Futuro y Sembrando Vida” Mónica Pérez Egüis y Claudio Lara Angelino and “La evolución de la política mexicana de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo hacia una política de Estado” Fabiola Soto Narváez y Carlos Castillo Pérez.

https://www.ucm.es/iudesarrolloycooperacion/file/%20redc_47_publicada

Section K

17. Section K.14: There is no K.14; Section K moves from K.13, FAR 52.219-1 Small Business Program Representations (Sep 2021) to K.15, FAR 52.222-25 Affirmative Action Compliance (Apr 1984). Please confirm the numbering should be adjusted and there is not an additional clause to be included here.

Response: K.14 FAR 52.222-22 PREVIOUS CONTRACTS AND COMPLIANCE REPORTS (FEB 1999) has been inserted in the RFP with this amendment.

Section L

18. Section L.5.e Proposal Validity: Please confirm that proposal validity is required to be 268 calendar days.

Response: This is revised to state 150 days.

19. Section L.6.b Page Limitation: Page 97 states that either standard 8.5 x 11 paper or A4 paper are acceptable, please confirm.

Response: The reference to A4 paper has been deleted.

20. Section L.6.c 3, on page 98, states that “[t]he technical approach shall describe which activities will be implemented during the four-year period of implementation of the contract”. Given the amended cover letter of this RFP, could USAID please confirm that Section L.6.c3 should refer to a period of implementation of 42 months (corresponding to three and a half years)?

Response: USAID confirms that the period of implementation is a base period of 30 months plus one option year. Thus, the technical approach shall describe activities for the 42-month period of implementation.

21. Section L.6.c Technical Proposal Organization and Format: Part 4, Management Approach and Key Personnel (page 99) requires key personnel titles, roles, and list of qualifications within the body of the technical proposal, while Annex C, Key Personnel, Curricula Vitae, References, and Letters of Commitment (page 101), states “For every Key Personnel position proposed by an Offeror, a position description including, along with other appropriate information, the qualifications, roles and responsibilities of the position must be included.” Please confirm the management section within the technical proposal is meant to include a short summary of the role and qualifications only, while a full position description for each key personnel position should be included in Annex C.

Response: USAID confirms that the management section within the technical proposal is meant to include title, a short summary of the role and qualifications only, while a full position description for each key personnel position should be included in Annex C. The management section within the technical proposal should adequately capture the appropriate breadth and depth of expertise to manage and implement the proposed approach.

22. Section L.6.c Technical Proposal Organization and Format: Please confirm the offeror may submit in Annex D, Contractor Performance Information (page 102), cooperative agreements or other projects of differing contract types that are similar in scope of work and expertise.

Response: No cooperative agreement/assistance information should be submitted, only acquisition mechanisms.

23. Section L.7.a.6, page 103, states, “The Offeror must not include burdened rates in its budget or subcontractor budgets. The Offeror must break down all direct and indirect costs to their component parts.” If a subcontractor’s cost accounting structure only allows for burdened rates, could USAID please confirm that offerors should include such burdened rates in the subcontractor’s budget?

Response: No, costs should be broken down to their component parts as requested so that USAID can verify that the base salary is not over the CST and to analyze the base cost of the position is within the market rate of the position.

24. Per Section L.7.c.1, on page 103, the budget template provided by USAID includes costs for five years. Could USAID please confirm that the template may be revised to reflect the new, shorter period of performance (30 months base period, plus 12 months option period)?

Response: Yes, we confirm that the budget template may be revised to delete year 5.

25. Section L.7.c Part 2 - Proposed Costs/Prices: Page 103 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.” Please confirm that in accordance with Section F.2 Period of Performance, the base period for ARCO is thirty (30) months with a one-year option period.

Response: We confirm that the base period for ARCO is thirty months with a one-year option period. Section L.7.c will be updated in the next amendment.

26. Section L.7.c Part 2 - Proposed Costs/Prices: If the period of performance is 30 months with a one-year option period, is the intent of the budget template to price the base period in Years 1, 2, and 3 and the option year separately in Year 4?

Response: That is correct.

27. Section L.7.c Part 2 - Proposed Costs/Prices: Fixed Fee (page 105) states “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. The Offeror must propose an overall target that increases annually as well as a “minimum achievement” target which must be greater than zero.” As Attachment J.1 is the budget template, not Section C, please confirm this paragraph is not applicable to ARCO and should be deleted.

Response: This paragraph is applicable to the RFP and will not be deleted.

28. Section L.7.d Part 3 - Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors: Please confirm the Laydown Plans related to Regulation 889 should be included as part of this section.

Response: Yes, we confirm that it should be included in this section.

29. Section L.8 Waivers under FAR Part 4.2101 Prohibition on Covered Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services and Equipment (DECEMBER 2021)(b)(4)(i)(a): we understand that USAID has received the Modified Foreign Assistance (FA) Waiver of the prohibitions under Section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2019 which extends waiver authority through September 30, 2028. As a result, if USAID does intend to initiate the formal Agency waiver process for any implementer that certifies it “does” use covered telecommunications equipment or services, please confirm the waiver would be valued through September 30, 2028.

Response: According to Section L.8.b.2 “If an existing waiver does not apply, USAID does not guarantee that waiver requests from such an offeror will be considered; USAID may make an award to an offeror that does not require a waiver. Where agency needs do not permit time to obtain a waiver, USAID may move forward and make an award to an offeror that does not require a waiver. Per FAR 4.21, USAID will not make an award to an offeror(s) that does not receive the approved waiver.”

[END OF ATTACHMENT 2]