Amd._3_and_ATT_I.pdf

SOL # 72052718R00002, Amd. Three (03)

Accordingly, the Solicitation is modified as follows:

COVER PAGE

1. Questions Due Date: delete “January 16, 2018” and replace it with “January 31, 2018.”

2. Closing Date: delete “March 7, 2018” and replace it with “March 14. 2018.”

3. First paragraph, delete “cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) type term form contract” and replace it with “cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) Completion Type contract.”

4. Last paragraph, add the following text: “The total anticipated scale of this activity as published on the USAID Business Forecast is estimated between $20-$24.9 million.”

PART I – THE SCHEDULE

1. SECTION B.2 – CONTRACT TYPE, delete in its entirety this Section and replace it with the following:

“The USAID anticipates a cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) completion type contract resulting from this solicitation.”

2. SECTION B.3 – ESTIMATED COST, FIXED FEE, AND OBLIGATED AMOUNT,

delete paragraph (a) in its entirety and replace it with the following:

“(a) The estimated cost for the performance of the work required hereunder, exclusive of fixed fee, if any, is [TBD]. The fixed fee, if any, is [TBD]. The estimated cost plus fixed fee, if any, is [TBD].”

3. SECTION B.9 MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT, second paragraph, delete “CPFF type term form” and replace it with “CPFF completion type Contract.”

4. SECTION C – DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK,

made the following changes:

(a) Page 16, Footnote 9, second sentence, delete “Annex 2” and replace it with

“Attachment 10b.”

(b) Page 17, Footnote 13, add the following sentence at the end of the paragraph “It is envisioned that target list will be available within the first three months after award.”

5. SECTION F.2 – PERFORMANCE PERIOD, delete this Section in its entirety, and replace it with the following:

“The estimated period of performance for this contract is five (5) years, without Options, from [TBD] to [TBD].”

6. SECTION H.3 - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONNEL

COMPENSATION, delete this Section its entirety and replace it with the following:

“H.3 AIDAR 752.7007 – PERSONNEL COMPENSATION (JUL 2007)

(a) Direct compensation of the Contractor's personnel will be in accordance with the

Contractor's established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract.

(b) Reimbursement of the employee's base annual salary plus overseas recruitment incentive, if any, which exceed the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold (USAID CST) stated in USAID Automated Directives System (ADS) Chapter 302 USAID Direct

Contracting, must be approved in writing by the contracting officer, as prescribed in

731.205-6(b) or 731.371(b), as applicable.”

[End of provision]

7. Add Section H.23 – CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(a) It is understood and agreed that some of the work required hereunder may place the

Contractor, or its personnel or its Sub-Contractors or their personnel (hereinafter referred to collectively as "Contractor"), in the position of having a potential personal or organizational conflict of interest (OCI), i.e., because of other activities or relationships with other persons, (1) the Contractor is unable or potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice; or (2) the Contractor's objectivity in performing the contract is or might be impaired; or (3) the Contractor may receive an unfair competitive advantage; or

(4) the Contractor may have a financial or other personal interest which would or potentially would impair his/her objectivity and/or from which he/she would improperly benefit. Further discussion of OCIs may be found in FAR 9.5.

(b) The performance/actions of personnel under this contract will be imputed to the

Contractor (or Sub-Contractor) by whom they are employed or retained, and the performance/actions of any Sub-Contractor will be imputed to the Contractor, unless the

Contractor, on a case-by-case basis, can demonstrate otherwise and satisfy the

Contracting Officer that such imputation is unreasonable.

(c) In accordance with the clause of this contract entitled "Organizational Conflicts of

Interest Discovered After Award" (AIDAR 752.209-71), the Contractor agrees not to undertake any activity which may involve a personal conflict of interest or an OCI without first notifying the Contracting Officer of such potential conflict and receiving the

Contracting Officer's authorization to undertake that activity.

(d) If the potential conflict relates to performance of the work hereunder (e.g., where the

Contractor is to evaluate an activity in which the Contractor had some previous involvement, thereby rendering the Contractor unable or potentially unable to provide impartial assistance or advice, or impairing or potentially impairing the Contractor's objectivity), and the Contracting Officer cannot neutralize, mitigate, or avoid the conflict;

the Contracting Officer may decline to authorize performance of that work by the

Contractor.

(e) If the potential conflict relates to future activities (e.g., where the Contractor is to perform a needs assessment, feasibility study, or design/development of a project or activity to be procured under another contract for which the Contractor will or might compete or which may be awarded noncompetitively to the Contractor, thereby potentially providing an unfair competitive advantage to the Contractor, and/or rendering the Contractor unable or potentially unable to provide impartial assistance or advice, or impairing or potentially impairing the Contractor's objectivity; or where the work under this contract might affect the personal or financial interests of the Contractor), the

Contracting Officer may decline to authorize performance of that work by the Contractor or, if such work is authorized, the Contracting Officer may place restrictions on the

Contractor's future activities, as permitted by FAR 9.5., and as necessary to neutralize, mitigate, or avoid the potential conflict.

(f) The Contracting Officer's approval to undertake such activities, if given, may be based on the Contracting Officer's determination that a significant potential conflict does not exist or does not appear to exist, or may be conditioned on the acceptance by the

Contractor of restrictions on the Contractor's future activities. If restrictions are to be placed on future activities, the Contractor may decline to perform the work.

(g) If it is discovered that the Contractor engaged in any activities which constitute a potential or actual conflict without having first obtained the Contracting Officer's approval to undertake such activities; or if it is subsequently discovered that, notwithstanding the Contracting Officer's authorization to undertake the activity based on his/her initial determination that no significant potential conflict existed or appeared to exist, a conflict did, in fact exist or arise, restrictions, as permitted by FAR 9.5, on the

Contractor's future activities may be placed unilaterally by the Contracting Officer for this contract or the Contracting Officer for such other contract as may be involved in the conflict, and other remedies (including termination of this contract for default, debarment or suspension, and those permitted by the clauses of this contract entitled "Cancellation, Rescission, and Recovery of Funds for Illegal or Improper Activity" (FAR 52.203-8) and

"Price or Fee Adjustment for Illegal or Improper Activity" [FAR 52.203-10]), may be taken by USAID.

(h) If it is discovered that the Contractor engaged in any activities in violation of the restrictions placed by a Contracting Officer on the Contractor's future activities, other remedies (including termination of this contract for default, debarment or suspension, and those permitted by the clauses of this contract entitled "Cancellation, Rescission, and

Recovery of Funds for Illegal or Improper Activity" (FAR 52.203-8) and "Price or Fee

Adjustment for Illegal or Improper Activity" [FAR 52.203-10]), may be taken by

USAID.

(i) Nothing in this provision precludes the application of any other remedies available to

USAID by law, regulation, or other provisions of this contract.

8. Add Section H.24 – APPLICATION OF PERUVIAN LABOR LAW

Costs for Indemnizacion por Despido Intempestivo to foreign nationals employed by the non-Federal entity outside the United States due to the termination of the foreign national as a result of the closing of, or curtailment of activities by, the non-Federal entity in that country (known in some countries as “Arbitrary dismissal” or Indemnización por

Despido Intempestivo/Arbitrario), in general should not pertain to USAID funding. The general rule is to consider these costs as non-allowable costs. Under exceptional circumstances, these costs may be considered allowable and their approval will be made on a case-by-case basis. If this is the case, offerors shall request these costs to be incorporated into the budget and provide adequate justification. Please note that it is the

Contractor’s responsibility to conduct adequate personnel management and use business acumen to minimize these costs.

PART II – CONTRACT CLAUSES

SECTION I – CONTRACT CLAUSES

AIDAR CLAUSES (48 CFR CHAPTER 7), as it has been placed in full text under

Section H, delete the following AIDAR clause for reference: “752.7007 – PERSONNEL

COMPENSATION (JUL 2007)”

PART III – LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

SECTION J – LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

1. ATTACHMENT 9 – PRIME AND MAJOR SUBCONTRACTOR PERCENTAGE

OF WORK OVERVIES, delete webpage link in its entirety, and replace it with the following:

https://www.usaid.gov/documents/1868/prime-and-major-subcontractor-percentage-work-overview

SECTION L – INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND

NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

1. SECTION L.4. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS, delete “cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF), term form contract” and replace it with “cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) completion type contract.”

2. SECTION L.6.2 Page Limitations, delete in its entirety and replace it with the following:

https://www.usaid.gov/documents/1868/prime-and-major-subcontractor-percentage-work-overview

“L.6.2 Page Limitation

The Technical Proposal is limited to 25 pages. USAID will not evaluate information submitted above this page limit. Proposals must be written in English and typed on standard 8.5” x 11” paper (216mm x 297mm), single spaced, Times New Roman font not less than 12 points in size, with margins no less than one inch of each border.

Number each page consecutively. Tables, graphics, charts, graphs, etc. may be included, where appropriate, in the technical proposal. If the Offeror decides to provide additional tables, graphics, charts, graphs, etc. it may provide those in an annex, which is limited to five pages. Text in tables, graphics, charts, graphs, etc. may be smaller than 12 points in size, but must be legible.”

3. SECTION L.6.3.4 Contractor Past Performance Information, delete paragraph A.2 in its entirety.

4. SECTION L.6.3.5 Technical Proposal Annexes

a. Item 3. Contractor Past Performance Information, delete “Section L.6.3.3” and replace it with “Section L.6.3.4.”

5. SECTION L.7, PART 2 – Proposed Costs/Prices, make the following changes:

b. First paragraph, delete “CFPP Type term” and replace it with “CPFF Completion

Contract Type.”

c. Item 1. General Guidance: delete “base contract” and replace it with “contract.”

d. Item 2. Direct Labor Salary and Wages: add the following section:

“Policies and Procedures

If an Offeror does not have prior USAID contracting experience, it must submit a copy of its personnel policies, especially regarding salary and wage scales, fringe benefits, merit increases, promotions, leave, differentials, travel and per diem regulations, etc. The CO may determine that a pre-award survey is necessary (see

FAR 9.106).”

e. Item 10. Cost of Branding and Marking, delete in its entirety, and replace it with the following:

“Costs of Branding and Marking (ADS 320.3.6.3) must be included under this line item. These costs are eligible for financing if reasonable, allocable, and allowable in accordance with the applicable cost principles.”

6. SECTION L.13 Prime and Major Subcontractor Percentage of Work Overview, delete in its entirety and replace it with the following:

“13. Prime and Major Subcontractor Percentage of Work Overview: As an annex, submit the filled out form that represents the percentage of work for the prime and major subcontractor(s).”

7. Add the following item at the end of Section L, as follows:

“Part 13 – Subcontracting Plan

If the Offeror is other than a small business, it must submit a Subcontracting Plan.

Subcontractor Plans must address subcontracting with small businesses (SB), which may include: veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUB zone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns. This plan will be the equivalent of a master subcontracting plan for the overall contract. These plans must contain small business subcontracting goals of at least 5% of the total planned subcontracting for any/all categories of small business concerns.”

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT 10 – RECENT AND RELATED REPORTS ON ALTERNATIVE

DEVELOPMENT THAT CAN BE DOWNLOADED FROM DEC

(a) Include the following web pages Links under:

1. NAV – NEW ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM, under the reference works: “Zonas de post-erradicacion: consideraciones entorno a la asociatividad”, add the following web page link: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00mx1c.pdf.

2. CEDRO – DIGITAL INCLUSION PROGRAM, under the referred study entitled

“Contexto informative de las Localidades Participantes en el Program Inclusion Digital” add the following web page link: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00N8DJ.pdf

(b) Include new attachment, as follows:

“10h. DEVIDA Annual household income survey.”

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00mx1c.pdf http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00N8DJ.pdf

ATTACHMENT I

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Question # 1 – Does USAID anticipate hosting a bidders’ conference for this solicitation and, if so, would USAID please provide information regarding this opportunity so potential bidders may make travel and logistical arrangements in advance?

Answer # 1 – No, USAID does not anticipate hosting a bidders’s conference for this solicitation.

Question 2 – Would USAID consider releasing New Alternative Program’s annual reports, as none are currently in the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC)?

Answer # 2 – New Alternatives Program does not have annual reports. However, quarterly reports are available at the DEC.

Question # 3 – Would USAID consider releasing the New Alternative Program’s Mid-Term

Evaluation, as it is currently not in DEC?

Answer # 3 – A mid-term evaluation has not been conducted of the New Alternatives Program.

Question # 4 –The RFP cover page, Section B.9 (page 10), Section L.4 (a) (page 94), and

Section L.7 (Part 2) (page 101) all state that the Institutional Strengthening Partnership for

DEVIDA contract type is cost-plus-fixed fee (CPFF) term. However, Section B.2 (page 8) and

Section L.2 (page 93) reference a contract type of CPFF completion. Could USAID please clarify the contract type?

Answer # 4 – USAID anticipates awarding one cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) completion type contract. We have revised the RFP to reflect this update.

Question # 5 – Please specify the estimated budget ceiling or range or estimated LOE, as applicable?

Answer # 5 – The total anticipated scale of this activity as published in the USAID Business

Forecast is estimated between $20-$24.9 million.

Question # 6 – Footnote 7 in Section C.5.1 of the RFP (page 14) states that “Offerors are required to submit a Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan, as described in Section C.5, which will include these indicators.” Section C.5 does not reference such a plan. Section L.6.3.1

(page 98) also references the inclusion of an MEL Plan as an annex that does not count against the technical proposal page limit, but it is not listed as such in Section L.6.3.5 (Technical

Proposal Annexes). Please confirm that offerors are to include an MEL Plan as an annex to the technical proposal.

Answer # 6 – Yes. Offerors must include an illustrative MEL Plan as an annex to the technical proposal. In accordance with Section L.6.3.1, Offerors must submit an illustrative

MEL Plan as an annex that will not count against the technical proposal page limit. The annex should not exceed five pages in length.

The illustrative MEL Plan should take into account the following paragraph Section C.5.1:

“The contractor will develop meaningful indicators to measure DEVIDA’s progress in areas such as procurement, strategic planning, and budget execution, as well as in operational areas such as community organizing, inter-governmental coordination, and other assistance delivery.”

Question # 7 – Footnote 9 in Section C.5.2 (page 16) references Annex 2 (“Zonas de Post

Erradicación: Consideraciones Entorno a la Asociatividad,” dated December 28, 2015). However, there is not Annex 2 in the RFP (and Attachment 2 is the Initial Environmental

Examination). Would USAID consider releasing the referenced report?

Answer # 7 – “Zonas de Post Erradicación: Consideraciones Entorno a la Asociatividad” is posted in http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00mx1c.pdf.

Question # 8 – Footnote 13 in Section C.5.2 of the RFP (page 17) states that USAID is currently working with DEVIDA and the MEF to define the list of approximately 20 municipalities in

Huánuco, Ucayali, San Martín, and Pasco where the contractor will be working. For planning purposes and strategy, how soon after award does USAID envision that the final list of target municipalities will be available?

Answer # 8 – USAID envisions that the list of target municipalities will be available within the first three months after award , in time to inform the Contractor’s first year work plan.

Question # 9 – Section F.2 (page 24) states that the contract’s period of performance is five years. However, Section B.3(a) (page 8) and Section L.7, Part 2 (page 101) reference a “base contract,” and Section L.7, Part 2-13 (page 107) contains a reference to “base plus options.” Could USAID please confirm the period of performance for this contract?

Answer # 9 – The period of performance of this contact is five (5) years. There will be no options.

Question # 10 – Section H.22 (page 57) states, “The Contractors will use the e-SRS to comply with the reporting requirement in FAR clause 52.219-9 ‘Small Business Subcontracting Plan’ which will be made as part of this contract.” However, a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not listed as a submission requirement in Section L.7. Could USAID please confirm that offerors are not required to submit this element as part of their cost proposals?

Answer # 10 – Contractors must comply with the reporting requirement in accordance with

FAR Clause 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Section L.7, Part 13 has being revised to include this requirement.

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00mx1c.pdf

Question # 11 – Please confirm that offerors are only required to complete the template provided in Attachment 4 of the RFP (Contractor Past Performance Information) for projects that are not in CPARS.

Answer # 11 – No. USAID requires the form for each of the five past performance references.

Part 2 in Section L.6.3.4 has been deleted to avoid confusion.

Question # 12 - Section L.6.3.4, page 99: Can USAID please confirm that all past performance information should be included in the “Contractor Past Performance Information” Annex

(L.6.3.5.3) and should not be summarized in the 25 page technical proposal limit?

Answer # 12 – Section L.6.3.5.3 stated that Contractor Past Performance Information may be counted as an annex and will not be counted against the page limit. However, the Offeror may choose to summarize this information in the Technical Proposal.

Question # 13 – Please confirm that offerors may include a cover page for their technical proposal that does not count against the page limit.

Answer # 13 – Yes. Please refer to Section L.6.2.

Question # 14 – Section L.6.3.4 (page 99) defines major subcontractor as “one whose proposed cost exceeds 25% of the total cost.” However, Section L.7, Part 2-13 (page 107) defines major subcontractor as “those whose proposed LOE exceeds 25% of the total LOE (base plus options).” Could USAID please clarify the definition of major subcontractor?

Answer # 14 – A major subcontractor is one whose proposed cost exceeds 25% of the total cost.

Question # 15 – Section L.7, Part 2-13 (page 107) requires offerors to submit a form that represents the percentage of work for the prime and major subcontractors and references

Attachment 10. Could USAID please confirm that the correct reference is Attachment 9? If so, could USAID please provide a copy of the template, as the link in the RFP does not work?

Answer # 15 – Please find the link here: https://www.usaid.gov/documents/1868/prime-and-major-subcontractor-percentage-work-overview.We updated the RFP, Section J, Attachment

9.

Question # 16 – Section L.7, Part 1 (page 101) indicates that the SF 33 should include an

“original signature.” Since proposals will be submitted electronically, could USAID please confirm that a scanned or electronic signature would be sufficient?

Answer # 16 – Yes, a scanned or electronic signature is sufficient.

Question # 17 – Section L.7, Part 2-8 (page 104) indicates that offerors should provide similar information for all consultants as required for subcontracts. However, Section L.7, Part 2-4 (page

103) indicates that offerors “must propose a blended daily consultant rate for each type of consultant and experience level.” The instructions for Part 2-4 seem to indicate that USAID would prefer offerors to propose TBD consultant pools; therefore, it would be difficult for offerors to provide the specifics requested in Part 2-8. Could USAID please confirm that the requirements from Part 2-8 do not apply to TBD consultant pools for which offerors propose a blended daily consultant rate?

Answer # 17 – The requirements of Part 2-8 are only to provide information sufficient to determine the reasonableness of the cost of each consultant expected to be hired. There is no preference for TBD consultant pools.

Question # 18 – Attachment 9 of the RFP (page 136) contains a link for the ENLCD y DEVIDA, avances y desafíos report that is not working

(http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/b46409c696e14699bc258b60463af288.pdf). Would USAID provide a working link to this document?

Answer # 18 – Yes, the document is available via USAID’s Development Experience

Clearinghouse (DEC) at: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00n433.pdf

Question # 19 – Will USAID provide an estimated start date?

Answer # 19 – The estimated start date is on or about July 2018.

Question # 20 – What is the development hypothesis or theory of change from the USAID Peru strategy? Is the contractor expected to propose one?

Answer # 20 – USAID/Peru theorizes that improved public and private investment in targeted coca-growing areas, driven by and resulting from capable public institutions and profit-generating enterprises, will reduce poverty along with the allure of coca. This theory of change is underpinned by the following development hypothesis: “If targeted national and local institutions are strengthened to more effectively facilitate the integrated development of target coca growing areas, in coordination with eradication and improved security, together with viable options to earn a stable, licit living, then more communities and households will leave coca cultivation behind.”

Offerors are welcome to propose their own theories of change and development hypotheses, and/or provide feedback on the above.

Below is the full results framework for USAID/Peru’s Alternative Development strategy. The

Institutional Strengthening Partnership for DEVIDA will be USAID’s principal mechanism for achieving Intermediate Result (IR) 1. In seeking to improve household incomes, USAID expects that the Activity will also contribute to IR 2. USAID/Peru is providing this framework so that all Offerors have insight into the current strategy and logic underpinning the Activity.

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/b46409c696e14699bc258b60463af288.pdf http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00n433.pdf

Offerors should note, however, that this framework is not set in stone or meant to be prescriptive. Offerors should feel free to provide feedback on this framework and/or suggest alternative results and targets that are consistent with the purpose of the Activity (as outlined in Section C.4 of the RFP) and overall goal of USAID assistance in Peru: to help Peru on its path toward self-reliance, so that it is ultimately capable of addressing its development and counter-narcotics challenges on its own.

Project Purpose/Development Objective: Coca reductions sustained after forced eradication in targeted coca growing areas through strengthened governance and more inclusive markets

IR 1: Improved public investment in targeted areas

IR 2: Improved private investment to consolidate licit trajectory of targeted communities and households

Sub IR 1.1: DEVIDA more effectively facilitates State presence and delivers post-eradication assistance

Sub IR 2.1: Production and productivity of crops under agroforestry systems increased

Sub IR 1.2: Communities organized to define, advocate for, and implement social and economic development priorities

Sub IR 2.2: Market access increased

Sub IR 1.3: National and sub-national governments better respond to the demand for services and facilitate the conditions for local economic development in targeted areas

Sub IR 2.3: Rural financial services facilitated

Question # 21 – Section C.5, page 13: What is the relationship between the objectives, goals and components? Are they hierarchical?

Answer # 21 – As stated in the RFP on page 13, the objectives and corresponding contract components are inherently interrelated and should be part of an integrated and comprehensive approach. Also see the response to question #8 above. Offerors should feel free to propose alternative components and/or results, provided that they are consistent with the purpose of the Activity (as outlined in Section C.4 of the RFP) and overall goal of USAID assistance in Peru: to help Peru on its path toward self-reliance, so that it is ultimately capable of addressing its development and counter-narcotics challenges on its own.

Question # 22 – Institutional Goal #2, page 14: Is the decentralization described in the scope consistent with DEVIDA policy?

Answer # 22 – Yes, it is consistent with DEVIDA Policy.

Question # 23 – Section C.6, page 19: USAID presents targets for “Average yield of alternative crops assisted by DEVIDA (kg/ha).” Footnote 20 suggests that targets for this indicator are applicable to crops that DEVIDA has assisted for at least five years, which would be needed to achieve the highest target yields presented here. We have several questions regarding this indicator:

a. Would USAID confirm that the targets apply to crops with at least five years of assistance?

b. Would USAID confirm that the targets presented here apply to cacao and not to all crops?

c. Would USAID clarify how the LOP target of 1,000 kgs/ha relates to the annual targets?

Answer # 23 – Footnote 20 states: “The Contractor will support DEVIDA to establish a baseline for the average yield of hectares currently under assistance. For hectares that

DEVIDA has assisted for five or more years, DEVIDA will focus on improving productivity to the point at which, after achieving a yield of 1,000 kilograms per hectare, DEVIDA is able to graduate farmers from direct assistance.”

a. No, USAID cannot confirm that the targets necessarily apply exclusively to crops with at least five years of assistance. USAID can confirm, however, that the targets are illustrative and meant to provoke thinking about the process and appropriate metrics/milestones related to farmer throughput or “graduation.”

b. Yes, the illustrative “Average yield of alternative crops assisted by DEVIDA (kg/ha)” target applies to cacao and not necessarily to all crops.

c. The illustrative LOP target of 1,000 kgs/ha is the possible yield for cacao after five years under production, based on USAID experience in Peru. The annual targets to achieve this LOP target are also illustrative and could vary based on several factors

(cacao variety, soil conditions, among others.)

Question # 24 – Section L.6.3.1, page 98, states: “Offerors must provide an Illustrative MEL

Plan… (Include as an Annex – Not included in the overall limit).” However, section L.6.3.5, page 101, states “USAID will not review and consider any additional annexes provided… 1.

Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan… 2. Illustrative charts and graph… 3.

Contractor Performance Information… 4. CV/Resumes and Letters of Commitment… 5. Offeror table comparing the qualifications of key personnel…” Can USAID please confirm whether the

Illustrative MEL Plan should be included as an additional annex to this list and will be considered as part of the Technical Proposal?

Answer # 24 – See the answer to Question # 6.

Question # 25 – Section L.7.10, page 104: The RFP presents several required sub-categories for other direct costs: monitoring and evaluation; communications and outreach plan; costs of branding and marking; and costs associated with environmental compliance. Given these are included under ODCs, should we exclude elements of other summary line items whose costs contribute to these special ODC categories (e.g., labor, travel, consultants, subcontracts, etc.)?

We ask because the costs of branding and marking description requires that “Level of Effort shall be designated…”

Answer # 25 – The Offeror may determine how it chooses to organize its budget in accordance with its organization practices. However, if is organized, it should be explained in the cost narrative.

Question # 26 – USAID does not include a grants component in the RFP. Would USAID kindly consider providing offerors the flexibility to include grants under contract (GUC)?

Answer # 26 – USAID did not envision the use of grants under contract (GUC) for this

Activity; offerors are reminded to present their best technical approach to meeting the requirements of the RFP.

Question # 27 - RFP Section C.6 Expected Results (pg. 18) notes life-of-activity targets of $150 million in public investment facilitated in target areas (Objective) and $135 million of funds secured for targeted municipalities (Outcome 3). Could USAID kindly confirm that the $135 million is a sub-set of the $150 million?

Answer # 27 – Yes, the $135 million is a sub-set of the $150 million.

Question # 28 – In addition, the narrative portion of Component 3 (pg. 18) notes that the

“contractor will assist regional governments and municipalities to plan for and execute over $100 million in GOP public investment.” While it is noted as illustrative in a footnote, this figure is different than those in C.6 Expected Results. For example, the life-of-activity target for “value of funds secured for target municipalities” on page 20 is $135 million and the “amount of public investment” total on page 18 is $150 million. Please clarify the intended project targets.

Answer # 28 – The total life-of-activity target for public investment facilitated in targeted areas is $150 million. The $150 million target encompasses targets for funds secured by targeted community-level organizations/JVCs ($15 million) and municipalities ($135 million). Offerors should note, however, that these numbers are also illustrative. As Footnote 14 states, “the

MEF is planning to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in post-eradication areas over the next several years.” In fact, the MEF has provided USAID with planning figures that amount to over one billion dollars in these areas. The $150 million target, therefore, may be overly conservative. USAID encourages Offerors to propose targets that it believes are realistic and essential to improving basic services and achieving the Activity’s overall objective.

Question # 29 – In Section F.5 (pg. 25), USAID describes the qualifications for key personnel.

For the deputy chief of party, rural public investment leader, and monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) specialist, USAID lists a requirement for a master’s degree in a relevant field and five or six years of experience or a bachelor’s degree with eight years of experience. The chief of party qualifications, however, stipulate a master’s degree is required. To ensure maximum flexibility to offerors to field the strongest possible set of personnel, and to provide ample opportunity for qualified local nationals to serve in leadership roles, would USAID consider expanding the possible qualifications for the chief of party to allow for a bachelor’s degree with some additional years of experience as equivalent to a master’s degree?

Answer # 29 – USAID has considered this request and determined NOT to alter any of the qualifications required for the Chief of Party.

Question # 30 – Section K includes FAR 52.237-8, Restrictions on Severance Payments to

Foreign Nationals (pg. 79). Consistent with the guidance in FAR 37.113-1 and considering that the anticipated contract will be performed entirely overseas, we respectfully request that USAID include FAR 52.237-9, Waiver of Limitation on Severance Payments to Foreign Nationals, to prevent conflict with applicable local employment laws.

Answer # 30 – Based on AIDAR 731.205-6, the FAR reference is updated to FAR 52.237-9.

On this same topic, Section H.17 is replaced and includes the following:

“Costs for Indemnizacion por Despido Intempestivo to foreign nationals employed by the non-Federal entity outside the United States due to the termination of the foreign national as a result of the closing of, or curtailment of activities by, the non-Federal entity in that country

(known in some countries as “Arbitrary dismissal” or Indemnización por Despido

Intempestivo/Arbitrario), in general should not pertain to USAID funding unless approved by the CO. The general rule is to consider these costs as non-allowable costs. Under exceptional circumstances, these costs may be considered allowable and their approval will be made on a case-by-case basis. If this is the case, offerors shall request these costs to be incorporated into the budget and provide adequate justification. Please note that it is the

Contractor’s responsibility to conduct adequate personnel management and use business acumen to minimize these costs."

Question # 31 – Section L.6.2. states that “text in tables, graphics, charts, graphs, etc. may be smaller than 12 points in size, but must be legible.” Separately, the same section notes that text in text boxes should be no less than 12 point Times New Roman font. Would USAID please consider allowing offerors to use the same font for text in text boxes as for text in tables, graphics, charts, and graphs, i.e. that the font is legible?

Answer # 31 – Yes. Offerors may use smaller font sizes in text boxes and graphics so long as all text is readable and appropriate.

Question # 32 – In Section L.6.3.1 (pg. 98), USAID indicates “Offerors must provide an

Illustrative MEL Plan… (Include as an Annex – Not included in the overall limit).” In Section

L.6.3.5 (pg. 101), USAID lists five annexes to the technical proposal, and does not include the mentioned MEL Plan annex. Section L.6.3.5 also states that USAID will not review and consider any additional annexes provided. Given this, could USAID please kindly confirm that offerors may submit the Illustrative MEL Plan as a separate annex to be included as Annex 6?

Answer # 32 – See Answer to Question # 6.

Question # 33 – In Section L.6.3.2 (pg. 98), USAID requests diversity of gender, experience and nationality for key personnel. However, the criteria listed in section F.5 for chief of party (8 years of experience in a management role of complex development programs of similar scale) and deputy chief of party (6 years of experience in a management role of programs of similar scale) limit the ability of offerors to propose candidates from diverse backgrounds who may have not yet had these management opportunities. We kindly request that USAID allow offerors to present their own set of qualifications for key personnel to enable access for a broader range of diverse candidates with the capacity to manage and lead the program.

Answer #33 – USAID feels that these Key Personnel requirements are standard and does not believe any modifications are needed. USAID does not doubt Offeror’s abilities to field a diverse set of candidates that meet these requirements.

Question # 34 – In Attachment 9 (pg. 136-7) of the RFP, USAID lists recent and related USAID reports on alternative development that can be downloaded from DEC. We were not able to find the document listed on p. 137 under CEDRO – DIGITAL INCLUSION PROGRAM “Estudio

‘Contexto informativo de las Localidades Participantes en el Programa Inclusión Digital.’” Can

USAID kindly provide a link to this study or share the study as an attachment to the RFP for offerors?

Answer # 34 – You may find the study in http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00N8DJ.pdf.

Question # 35 – In In Section L.6.3.2 (pg. 98-99), USAID requests that the Offeror “must identify in the staffing plan how each proposed key personnel meets or exceeds the requirements identified in Section F.5 “Key Personnel” and in Section L.6.3.5 USAID requests under Annex 5 a “table comparing the qualifications of key personnel proposed against key personnel requirements contained in Section F.5.” Could USAID please confirm that information regarding how each key personnel meets or exceeds key personnel requirements should be included only in the table in Annex 5?

Answer # 35 – No. In identifying the proposed individual and showing that “overall Key

Personnel complement each other’s skills and qualification in a manner that will result in a strong, balanced and highly qualified team” (as per Section L.6.3.2), offerors are free to demonstrate this as they choose. There are no further instructions for this section.”

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00N8DJ.pdf

Question # 36 – In Section L.7, under 2. Direct Labor Salary and Wages, USAID requests that biodata forms for proposed individuals whose salary histories include salaries in currency other than U.S. dollars “must show the contemporaneous U.S. dollar equivalent.” Given complicated salary histories of some candidates, would USAID consider removing the requirement to list salary histories in the USD equivalent?

Answer # 36 – No. Biodata forms for proposed individuals must include the contemporaneous

US dollar equivalent.

Question # 37 – Do all DEVIDA employees have annual performance objectives and performance targets?

Answer # 37 – DEVIDA employees are hired under the labor law D.L N ° 728 and 1057.

DEVIDA employees do not currently have annual performance targets; however, each operational unit is responsible for meeting certain objectives and goals as established in

DEVIDA’s Plan Operativo Institucional and Plan Estratégico Institucional.

Question # 38 – Does every DEVIDA employee receives a written and annual evaluation?

Answer # 38 – No, DEVIDA does not currently perform any written or annual evaluation of its employees.

Question # 39 – Does DEVIDA’s human resources policies establish annual performance targets for individual DEVIDA staff?

Answer # 39 – DEVIDA complies with Directive No. 001-2014-DV-SG Evaluación del

Desempeño Laboral en la Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo y Vida sin Drogas, which is currently being updated according to the new guidelines established by Autoridad Nacional del Servicio Civil -SERVIR.

Question # 40 – What is the process for selecting a new DEVIDA leader?

Answer # 40 - New DEVIDA leaders are selected according to the position profile established by the Agency’s internal regulations. Leaders may be selected by Public Merit Competition or by designation as political appointees.

Questions # 41 – Please confirm that the target for the indicator “Value of funds secured for targeted municipalities” listed in Section C.6 of the RFP (page 19) is cumulative and not annual.

Answer # 41 – The target for the “Value of funds secured for targeted municipalities” indicator, listed on page 19 at $135 million, is cumulative. Also see the response to question

#28 above.

Question # 42 – Section F.6 of the RFP (page 30) references annual household income surveys conducted by DEVIDA. Would USAID please provide a copy of a recent DEVIDA annual household income survey or a description of the survey’s methodology and scope?

Answer # 42 – Yes. Please see the attachment 10h for the methodology, procedures, and survey forms, as provided by DEVIDA.

Question # 43 – Section F.6 (page 31) states that each June 30 Quarterly Report should include an “annual income and outcomes survey.” Could USAID please provide additional information on this requirement, including target audience, scope of the survey, and budget source?

Answer # 43 – The Contractor will work with DEVIDA and USAID, upon award, to agree on a mutually acceptable arrangement for gathering and reporting data and results. USAID does not expect the Contractor to independently conduct its own surveys. Rather than set up a parallel system, the Contractor will support and rely on the M&E system and surveys that DEVIDA already has in place.

[End of ATTACHMENT I to SOL-72052718R00002]