Attachment J.12 Questions and Answers - Amendment I.pdf

ATTACHMENT J.12 – A2C Questions and Answers

General Inquiries:

1. In which capacity should the implementing partner be in? For instance, if as a company we have partners who are organisations, NGOs, government agencies from both public and private sectors, and we believe that we are able to work with them in the implementation of this activity, what is the standard criteria laid out for the implementing partner?

USAID does not understand the question. The implementing partner may be in any capacity they deem appropriate. All terms and conditions of the potential award are laid out within the solicitation.

2. Should we provide documentation from them in Phase 1?

Each offeror is to follow the terms and conditions of the solicitation, as described.

3. Please refer above and kindly note that when downloading Attachments, Attachments J.4, J.6 and

J.10 are not downloading as pdfs but some unknown file hence we are unable to read the instructions.

This has been resolved and Offerors should be able to download all attachments. If you are using google Chrome, please use Internet Explorer. If the problem persists, please notify us immediately.

4. Also Section L and M attachments are for phase II, is this how they are meant to be or they were meant for phase I?

Phase I and II each have a Section L and M. Phase I is found in the solicitation and Phase II is listed as

Attachment J.6.

5. Phase I application should be done on our letterheads but following the laid out instruction in the Solicitation document or is there a template that we are supposed to fill?

Please refer to Section L.4 - Phase I Submission Instructions, page 97 of the solicitation.

6. Can USAID clarify whether under Phase II, cost proposal preparation, the offeror should be prepared to budget for the purchase of a new project vehicle for use during the program, or whether USAID/Zambia envisions that there will be a vehicle available for transfer to the project upon award?

USAID does not have any vehicle (s) to transfer to the Successful Offeror. Therefore, all Offerors should budget for their requirements to successfully implement this activity accordingly.

7. In support of incentivizing local organizations and fostering professional growth opportunities for promising Zambian technical experts, would USAID consider allowing offerors to propose a mix of key personnel employed by the prime and subcontracted partners?

All key personnel must be employed by the prime contractor, Zambian or not. The demarcation of ‘key’ vs ‘non- key’ does not mean that all other employees are not important, or technical experts. Offerors should try to find and foster Zambian technical experts as leaders across all levels of the activity.

ATTACHMENT J.12

A2C Questions and Answers

8. Several illustrative indicators provided in the RFP require baseline figures in order to calculate a realistic target for the percent increase which can be accomplished by the A2C Activity. Is

USAID able to provide baseline data for these indicators so that all contractors can determine targets according to the same baseline?

Currently, USAID does not have baseline data to provide to offerors. In year one, the successful offeror will jointly work with USAID staff to gather and analyze additional information to inform the refining of the activity design.

Section B – Supplies or Services/Prices

1. Summary Table in B.3 – There is no line for allowances or consultants in the budget template.

How would USAID like to see these costs presented in the budget?

USAID will revise the budget table in B.3 (b.1) to include a line for consultants.

2. Section B.3 includes amounts of $1,000,000 per year in years 2-4 under the GUC budget line.

Can USAID please confirm whether GUCs may also be awarded in years 1 and 5, up to the total

GUC ceiling of $3,000,000?

Flexibility will be exercised for the successful offeror to award GUCs in year 1 if the successful offeror has enough information to warrant the issuance of GUCs in year 1. Additionally, USAID and the successful offeror will closely work together to develop work plans and the inclusion of GUCs in year 1 could be considered at the work planning stage.

3. In Section B.3, the solicitation indicates that contractors may award up to $250,000 in Grants

Under Contract (GUC) to non-US firms and a maximum of $100,000 in GUC to US firms, additionally specifying a ceiling of four GUC per year. To allow the contractor more flexibility, could USAID remove the ceiling on the number of GUC allowed per year?

USAID will not remove the ceiling on the number of GUCs allowed per year. USAID has made a determination to have a maximum of four GUCs per year. The Contractor has flexibility to issue less than four GUCs per year but not more than four GUCs per year, without prior written approval.

4. We appreciate USAID’s use of a fee payment schedule for the CPFF completion-type contract.

To ensure that the contractor is responsive to both USAID’s and beneficiaries’ changing needs during implementation, we request that USAID modify B.4 to add that “Pursuant to FAR

16.306(d), the fixed fee payable under this contract will be tied to the completion of the reports and deliverables specified in Section F.5 of this contract and in accordance with the approved

Fee Schedule. The Fee Schedule may be modified based upon the annual work plan and changes in underlying assumptions.” As USAID uses annual work plans to manage a contractor’s progress toward completing a contract, adjusting the fee payment schedule 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.

The solicitation is updated to reflect similar language.

5. With reference to section B.5 of the RFP solicitation (on indirect costs), could USAID please confirm that under FAR 15.404-3, USAID would allow a subcontractor to submit their confidential indirect rate directly to USAID rather than include the information in Section B.5 or any part of the final contract.

USAID confirms that subcontractors can submit their confidential indirect rate directly to USAID as prescribed in FAR 15.404-3.

6. With reference to section B.5 of the RFP solicitation, could USAID please confirm that in the absence of a Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement, a contractor will be able to recover applicable indirect rates if it has the requisite documentation from its cognizant Government

Audit Agency.

USAID will only be able to confirm this based on the information and requisite documentation provided.

Section F – Deliveries or Performance

1. With reference to section F.5.2 of the RFP solicitation, regarding key personnel, please confirm that USAID desires all key personnel to be employed by the prime contractor regardless of objective management.

Yes, USAID desires all key personnel to be employed by the prime contractor.

2. Page 17, Section F.5.2 List of Reports and Plans, number 12. Baseline Data Collection Reporting specifies that “In year 1, the Contractor is required to gather and analyze additional information to inform the refining of the activity design.” Can USAID please clarify if the refining of the activity design is considered an opportunity to update targets as stipulated in the technical proposal, if necessary?

Yes, refining the activity design will be considered an opportunity to update targets.

3. In Section F.9 Key Personnel the RFP states that “All Key Personnel must be employed by the

Prime Contractor and fully attributed to this activity.” Would USAID consider allowing the

Prime Contractor to submit a Key Personnel position under a major subcontractor with the understanding that the Prime Contractor would be responsible for directly managing with

USAID any personnel matters related to the position?

USAID will not consider allowing the Prime Contractor to submit a Key Personnel position under a major subcontractor, as USAID does not have privity of contractor with the Sub, therefore creating an inappropriate relationship between the key personnel and USAID.

4. Kindly confirm that the draft of Deliverable No. 16, as indicated in Section F.5.2 of the RFP (p.

14), should read “Within 30 days prior to award completion date” rather than “Within 30 days prior to award competition date.”

USAID confirms that the Deliverable No. 16, as indicated in Section F.5.2 of the RFP (p. 14), should read “Within 30 days prior to award completion date.” This will be updated to reflect in the RFP.

Section H – Special Contract Requirements

1. H.3.b.1 states that contractors are not held to the Local Compensation Plan (LCP), included as

Attachment J.11. However, H.3.f.2 notes that TCN and CCN compensation rates “must not exceed the maximum rate of the highest senior FSN position authorized” under the Mission

LCP. Further, Section L.6.2.c. of Attachment J.6 notes “labor costs for TCNs and CCNs must not exceed the thresholds in the U.S. Embassy’s LCP.” Would USAID please confirm that the guidance under H.3.b.1 supersedes that of H.3.f.2 and J.6 L.6.2.c and that contractors are not held to the LCP for any salaries but rather that the “LCP shall be used by the contractor as a market analysis only tool” (H.3.b.1). We believe that this is more in line with AIDAR 752.7007

Personnel Compensation, 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.

No salary can exceed the maximum rate of the highest senior FSN position as described in Section

H.3.f.2 without approval from the Mission Director. The contractor may create its own LCP scale based on market research and the U.S. Embassy LCP; however, the maximum threshold (FSN 13/13) may not be exceeded without prior approval (per position).

2. H.3.e states that annual increase for U.S. staff (including expats) may not exceed 3 percent each year and annual salary increases for TCN and CCN staff may not exceed 5 percent. We respectfully request that the above-mentioned restrictions for salary increases be removed from the RFP as it appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007 Personnel Compensation, 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 limitation on salary increases may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices, as required by AIDAR 752.7007.

This section will remain unchanged. Salary increase requests above these thresholds will require approval from the Contracting Officer.

3. Section H.29, on page 55, makes reference to the requirements of ADS 548, which has been archived by USAID (per https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/548.pdf). As such, we respectfully request that Section H.29 be removed in its entirety.

USAID will delete section H.29 in its entirety and update Section H.29 with the new AAPD provision.

4. H.35 includes restrictions on grant type, specifying that “Simplified Grant and Fixed Amount

Awards will be used.” To allow contractors to work with a greater variety of partners with varying capacities and accounting systems, would USAID consider removing this limitation and include the use of other flexible grants mechanisms, including in-kind grants and standard grants?

Under H.35, where the Offeror has quoted text, it’s followed by “if applicable.” The flexibility exists for other type of grants as well, which the contractor may submit to the CO for approval within the sub-grant approval process.

5. Can USAID please provide further information about how offerors may structure the use of grants under contract (GUCs)? We note that Section H.35 (RFP p. 59) limits the number of

GUCs to four per year; one interpretation of this would suggest that each grant would need to be valued at close to $250,000 in order for the project to fully utilize the funds available over the three years for which the plug figure of $1 million per year is provided.

During the implementation of this award, the offeror will be required to demonstrate and plan for grants. This includes size, complexity, type, and to which organization the grant should be made. The current restrictions of H.34 can be waived based on the actual number of grants an organization may need to complete, per year. Therefore, the plug figure of $1 million represents the maximum dollar value allocated for grants; however, as implementation begins and an offeror has a greater understanding of the actual, this can be adjusted.

a. Would USAID allow the offeror the flexibility to propose the GUC structure that aligns with our technical approach as far as timeframe of award, number of awards per year and amount of award (up to the $250,000 limit for non-US grantees and $100,000 for

US grantees).

See above

b. Will USAID consider lowering the $3 million plug figure for GUCs so that offerors can have more flexibility in how those funds are disbursed to sub-recipients, i.e. through issuing both grants and performance-based subcontracts to local organizations. This would allow the successful offeror to manage these funds based on a determination of the optimal type of award mechanism to engage local partners.

The Contractor has the flexibility to issue performance based GUCs or Sub-contracts.

For budget purposes, the $3M is provided for GUC only, sub-contracts are to be allocated under the sub-contract line item.

Section I – Contract Clauses

1. Section I.3, on page 66, includes a Limitation of Government Liability clause that is only required should USAID anticipate awarding a Letter Contract (FAR 16.603-4(b). As a Letter Contract is not anticipated under this solicitation, would USAID consider removing this clause?

USAID will remove the FAR 52.216-24 clause.

2. Section I.7, on page 67, includes a Contract Definitization clause that is only required should

USAID anticipate awarding a Letter Contract (FAR 16.603-4(b)). As a Letter Contract is not anticipated under this solicitation, would USAID consider removing this clause?

USAID will remove I.7 FAR 52.216-25 Contract Definitization clause.

Section L - Phase I Questions

1. L.4 and L.5. May the offeror include nonsubstantive front matter—a cover page, a table of contents, and an acronym list—that does not count toward the page limitation?

USAID confirms that Offerors can include a cover page, table of contents and list of acronyms with their proposal that do not count against the 25-page limit.

2. L.5.2(b) Factor 2: Deliverables Schedule - For the Deliverables Schedule, can USAID confirm that offerors may remove all of the mandatory reporting deliverables from what’s presented for

Factor 2 and only focus on “TBD Activity Level Deliverables”?

Yes.

Attachment J.1 Section C – Description/Specifications

1. C.8, Objective 5 – This section states that “the successful Offeror will contract a third party, independent organization or contractor(s) to conduct a baseline on charcoal use in Zambia, and on deforestation levels attributed to charcoal.” Will USAID confirm that, if the Contractor has a subcontractor with the technical and organizational capability to lead such assessments as part of its consortium, that subcontractor may perform these analyses, as opposed to a third party?

Yes, if the Contractor has a subcontractor with the technical and organizational capability to lead such assessments/analyses as part of its consortium, that subcontractor may perform these assessments/analyses.

2. C.8, Objective 5 – This section states that in relation to the charcoal and deforestation baseline analyses, “this baseline will recommend realistic targets in consultation with relevant stakeholders.” However, section L.5.2 notes that “all areas that are highlighted as bracketed in the SOO [Offeror to propose %] must be clearly addressed within the PBWS.” Will USAID please clarify:

a. Are offerors required to propose % targets for highlighted/bracketed targets as part of their

Phase 1 submission?

Yes, Offerors are required to propose % targets as part of their phase 1 submission based on their approach and current understanding of deforestation.

b. If yes, will USAID please confirm that offerors will be expected to revise these targets in consultation with USAID, following the baseline assessment?

Yes, the successful Offeror will be expected to revise these targets in consultation with USAID, following the baseline assessment.

3. In Section C.8, can USAID clarify the following:

a. Section C.8 Objectives states that the “offeror will be required to propose metrics/targets under each objective”, however in Section M.2.2 Evaluation Factors, there is no mention of the metrics/targets as an evaluation factor under Phase I, Factor

1 or 2. Can USAID clarify whether the offeror’s proposed baseline targets under each objective will be evaluated as part of the Phase I evaluation criteria?

Yes, the realism of the offeror’s proposed baseline targets under each objective will be evaluated as part of the Phase I evaluation criteria as it would be a part of the offeror’s

PBWS which is responding to the SOO as outlined in M.2.2(a).

b. We understand that illustrative metrics that measure the accomplishment of each objective where it is indicated as [Offeror to propose %] need to be proposed as a percentage (target). Can USAID confirm whether we are required to propose at minimum the illustrative metrics as listed under each Objective, or if we have the flexibility to use those illustrative metrics that match our technical approach in addition to proposing our own.

The solicitation has provided for illustrative metrics under each objective. The offerors have the flexibility to propose other additional metrics based on their technical approach.

c. Objective 5 states that “The successful offeror will only implement activities and interventions under the sustainable livelihoods objective, once it has been determined that the overall activity's interventions have resulted in a decrease in charcoal demand, thus necessitating a transition to alternative livelihoods for charcoal producing households in the targeted provinces.” Will USAID please consider revising this to a

“decrease in charcoal production” in addition to “charcoal demand”, to allow for the flexibility for livelihoods activities to begin under the project while simultaneously positively impacting charcoal demand in the targeted provinces.

This is an issue that can be addressed at the annual work planning stage between the successful offeror and USAID.

The assumption is that a decrease in charcoal demand will lead to a decrease in charcoal production. The RFP will be updated to reflect this wording, “The successful offeror will only implement activities and interventions under the sustainable livelihoods objective, once it has been determined that the overall activity's interventions have resulted in a decrease in charcoal demand and/or charcoal production, thus necessitating a transition to alternative livelihoods for charcoal producing households in the targeted provinces.”

4. Section C.8 Objectives; under each of the five objectives the SOO has listed Illustrative metrics.

Can USAID please clarify whether these illustrative metrics are fixed indicators that are expected to be incorporated into the proposal, or whether contractors have the flexibility to propose revised metrics if deemed appropriate?

The SOO has provided for illustrative metrics. The offerors have the flexibility to propose other additional metrics that they deem appropriate.

5. Section C.8 Objectives; Objective 5. Can USAID please confirm that the section on Objective 5 ends after the second illustrative metric: “Studies to inform award-level or industry-wide course corrections.”? And if not, can USAID please indicate where the SOO Objective 5 does conclude?

USAID confirms that the section on Objective 5 ends after the second illustrative metric: “Studies to inform award-level or industry-wide course corrections.”

6. Section C.15 Science, Technology, Innovation and Partnership (STIP), it is specified that

“Considering that other stakeholders are already supporting sustainable charcoal production interventions in Zambia, this activity will only focus on supporting alternatives to charcoal.” Can

USAID please clarify the definition of the term charcoal? Considering one of the main purposes of the activity is to reduce deforestation, are sustainably sourced biomass energy products such as wood pellets or briquettes acceptable alternatives to charcoal in this instance?

Charcoal is generally defined as a porous black solid, consisting of an amorphous form of carbon, obtained as a residue when wood or other organic matter is heated in the absence of air. USAID will not support alternatives to charcoal that are produced from tree biomass involving the cutting down of trees.

Pellets and briquettes will be considered as acceptable as long as the process of producing these pellets and briquettes does not involve cutting down of trees.

Attachment J.6 Section L – Phase II Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors

1. Per J.6 Section L.4, Phase II submission instructions, offerors are to submit the Volume II – Cost

Proposal in adobe acrobat PDF, Microsoft Excel and Word (2003 version and newer). Can

USAID confirm that Phase II – Technical proposal (Management and Past Performance) should also be submitted in adobe PDF?

Yes, there documents should be submitted in PDF as specified in J.6 Section L.4. The Contracting

Officer reserves the right to request any submission material in MS Word/Excel, if applicable.

2. Within Attachment J.6, Section L Phase II Instructions, regarding the page limit for Phase II

Technical Proposal (see L.5), does the cover letter page(s) count towards the 25-page limit

(noting that in Phase I, the cover letter does not count toward the page limit)?

The cover letter pages do not count towards the 25-page limit in Phase I or Phase II.

3. We note that Attachment J.6, Section L – Phase II Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to

Offeror, indicates in L.5.2(a)(i) that only position titles are to be used in discussing organizational structure and staffing plan in Phase II, and that no names or other identifying information shall be included. Kindly clarify if we are also restricted from providing names and identifying information of our team members in the Phase I volume of the Technical Proposal, either in specific sections of the tech volume or its entirety.

Please do not provide names or any identifying information of team members in the Phase I volume of the Technical proposal in its entirety.

4. Section L.5.2 (b) Factor 4: Contractor Past Performance Information (a) (I), it is specified that

“Utilizing the Past Performance Matrix in Attachment J.8, the offeror is to list the most recent

(within past seven years) and relevant contracts or assistance awards for efforts which are similar to the work in the subject proposal. The offeror must list up to five (5) for itself and up to an additional five (5) for each major sub-contractor.” Can USAID please confirm that the offeror can list performance information for sub-contractors that are not designated as major sub-contractors?

No, Past Performance information will only be considered for the Prime and Major Sub.

5. Section L.5.2 (b) Factor 4: Contractor Past Performance Information (a) (I), it is specified that

“For all contracts listed above that are in PPIRS, the offeror will attach the official PPIRS report(s). Offerors must not submit past performance for contracts in PPIRS. Attachment J.8 is not to be utilized for Past Performance information that is already accessible in PPIRS”. Can

USAID please clarify whether offerors are expected to attach Contractor Performance

Assessment Reports (where available) for the offeror and relevant sub-contractors, or will

USAID be able to access CPARs directly from the CPARS or PPIRS?

The Offeror must submit official PPIRS reports of relevant past performance contracts that are in PPIRS as specified in L.5.2 (b) Factor 4. The sentence that reads “Offerors must not submit past performance for contracts in PPIRS” intention is that offerors do not duplicate or supplement efforts of providing past performance information on contracts that already have PPIRS. We have observed that some offerors will contact representatives to gain further information that was not documented via the CPARS Report.

6. Section L.5.2 (b) Factor 4: Contractor Past Performance Information (a) (I) (i) asks that for all contracts listed that are in PPIRS, the offeror will attach the official PPIRS report(s). Given the potential volume of information, may we include a copy of the most recent PPIRS report for each project?

Yes.

7. L.5.2 (b) – For past performance information that is not in PPIRS, would USAID accept a different format than J.8 that presents the same information? This form will not fit on the required 8 1/2 x 11 paper (L.4).

No, offerors must follow the same format at in J.8. However, offerors may format the print/paper layout to be printed on legal size paper.

8. L.5 and L.5.2 (b) – L.5 seems to indicate that Contractor Past Performance Information is part of the 25 pages, but L.5.2 (b) indicates that there’s no page limitation for this section. Can

USAID please confirm that Contractor Past Performance Information is not part of the 25-page limit for the Phase II Technical Proposal?

Correct. Past performance information is not part of the 25 page limit for the Phase II Technical

Proposal.

9. In attachment J.6, Section L.5.2(b), the instructions state that offerors must include the official

PPIRS report for all contracts for which it is available. It also states the offeror past performance information using attachments J.8 and J.9 for contracts that are available on PPIRS. Will USAID kindly clarify if this requirement applies to contracts on which the offeror was a subcontractor, or only for contracts where the offeror was the prime contractor?

This requirement only applies to contracts in which the offeror was a prime contractor.

10. L.6.2 – Would USAID consider updating the exchange rate of K13 equals $1 to reflect the exchange rate for January 2020?

No. The rate is constantly fluctuating up and down and USAID needs to have a baseline when evaluating proposals.

11. Attachment J.6, Section L.6.2(c), on page 12, states that labor costs for TCNs and CCNs must not exceed the thresholds in the US Embassy’s local employee compensation plan. However, the RFP also states that offerors must use market research for setting a compensation plan.

Should an Offeror find that their market research yields rates that are outside of the US

Embassy’s local employee compensation plan, how should Offerors proceed in presenting these rates within their compensation plan?

Labor costs for TCNs and CCNs must not exceed the threshold in the U.S. Embassy’s local employee compensation plan. If the Offeror finds that their market research yields rates outside of the U.S. Embassy’s local employee compensation plan, the Offeror will have to provide a justification and request approval from the Mission Director via the Contracting Officer. TCN approvals also required Mission Director approval via the CO.

12. Attachment J.6, Section L.6.2(c), on page 13, requires consultants to be included under the

Subcontracts line item. This language presents significant issues for many Offerors, particularly related to NICRAs and Cost Accounting Standards (CAS). NICRAs are approved by USAID’s

Overhead, Special Cost, and Closeout Branch Division and require many Offerors to treat consultants as short-term personnel and apply applicable indirect costs. Should an Offeror begin to treat consultants as subcontractors and apply subcontractor-related indirect costs, this would be viewed as inconsistent treatment of direct costs across USG-funded contracts and would be in violation of the terms of an Offeror’s NICRA and CAS. Further, it is industry standard to treat consultants as short-term personnel, which is supported in this RFP with guidance for consultant compensation under Section H.3, Additional Requirements for Personnel

Compensation. Based on the above, we respectfully request the removal of language requiring the placement of consultants under the Subcontracts line item so each Offeror may classify consultants according to its own NICRA and CAS.

USAID will revise the budget table in B.3 (b.1) to include a line for consultants and replace the line-item description for ‘consultants.’ This was an administrative oversight.

13. L.5.2(b) states in part that the Offeror must provide "...performance information for itself, the contractors teaming arrangements, if any, and each major subcontractor...” Can USAID please confirm that past performance information is only required for the prime and major subcontractors (which are those whose propose costs exceed 20% of the Offeror’s proposed total cost or perform a key element of the RFP)?

USAID confirms.