Amendment_02_-_04042019.pdf

AMENDMENT 02

SOL#72061219R00003

PART A: CHANGES TO THE RFP/CONTRACT

RFP is provided as an attachment with changes highlighted.

PART B: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COSTS

1. Question. Section B.8, regarding payment of fixed fee (p. 9), USAID states that if the contractor does not reach 69% of the target, the contractor will not be paid any of the fees specific to that target, as full contract completion will not have been demonstrated. This section further states:

a. If USAID verifies 0-69% level of completion, then the contractor will receive 0% of the fee associated with the target.

b. After USAID verification, the contractor will receive the percentage of the fee associated with the percentage of the target achieved (i.e., if 72% of the target is achieved, then the contractor will receive 72% of the fee associated to that target).

We appreciate USAID’s clear description of the expected results. However, the RFP’s current fee payment mechanism may remove the flexibility both USAID and the contractor need to reprogram activities and efforts to be responsive to stakeholder needs, capitalize on windows of opportunities, and achieve greater results. Because the Modern Cooking for Healthy Forests in Malawi Activity is a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) type contract structured to incentivize the contractor to meet certain targets, while also maintaining flexibility to adapt implementation to achieve these results, we request that USAID remove the references to the contractor not being paid any or a portion of the fees specific for a certain target and allow the contractor and USAID to follow the language in B.8, which states that the fee schedule may be modified based upon changes in underlying assumptions. Because USAID uses annual work plans to manage a contractor’s progress towards 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. Any fee that is not paid because the contractor has not achieved a certain result beyond its manageable control, such as the changing needs of local counterparts, can be reallocated among other or new deliverables in the work plan for the upcoming year.

Should USAID wish to tie the fee to results as described in B.8, a Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) type contract would be more appropriate and likely to provide better value to USAID. A CPFF type contract with these specifications could result in the contractor forfeiting the fee associated with a deliverable that was not achieved in a certain timeframe, creating a disincentive to devote additional effort or resources to achieve that deliverable, thus inadvertently resulting in lowered results.

Answer - USAID has changed the type of contract to a Cost-Plus-Award-Fee type contract and maintains the current fee payment mechanism. However, the number of indicators that had a fee tagged to them has been reduced from ten to three in the RFP to encourage flexibility that both USAID and the contractor need to reprogram activities and efforts to be responsive to stakeholder needs, capitalize on windows of opportunities, and achieve greater results.

SECTION C: DESCRIPTION/SPECS./WORK STATEMENT

2. Question - Section C.4 and Section C.5: USAID lists a Performance Work Statement (PWS) in Section C. However, the PWS is not listed as a requirement in Section L. Would USAID please clarify if a PWS is required for the Technical Approach? If so, please update Section L.7, 4 to include related instructions.

Answer - The offerors must use the SOO to develop a Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the successful offeror’s PWS will become Section C of the resulting contract. As such, a PWS is required and it will be part of the Technical Approach as stated in the revised Section L.7.d.4.

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

3. Question - The description of the Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan

(AMELP) contained in Section F.4.A.3 (page 26), states: “USAID will require a final evaluation using rigorous analysis methods to ascertain attribution of activity interventions against the baseline and a mid-term evaluation using both quantitative and qualitative methods to inform management decision about strategies and pointers towards desired outcomes against possible changes in original assumptions.” Can USAID clarify whether this evaluation will be conducted by the project or does it refer to an external evaluation?

Answer – This will be an external evaluation contracted out by USAID/Malawi.

4. Question - Section F.7: Section (b) Qualifications of Key Personnel lists the following as a requirement for the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Specialist, “Demonstrated knowledge and experience in using GIS in spatial analysis mapping.” USAID also lists as a required technical qualification “demonstrated capacities for spatial analysis including land-cover mapping and the use of geographic information systems.” A desirable qualification is “significant experience with ME&L for REDD+ specifically, including carbon investments and MRV.” In order to maximize the use of Malawian talent, would USAID considering revising these required/desired qualifications from the MEL Specialist as long as those skills are reflected elsewhere in the technical team?

Answer - USAID has revised the Lead Program Management - Forestry Specialist and Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Specialist qualifications. Please see revised Section F.7 of the solicitation.

SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

5. Question - Section H.14(d) (p. 49) states that one annual salary increase of not more than five (5) percent may be granted according to the contractor’s established policy and practice.

We respectfully request that the above-mentioned restrictions for salary increases be removed from the RFP, because it appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007

Personnel Compensation, incorporated in Section H.13, 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 in annual salary increases may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices as required by AIDAR 752.7007.

Answer - USAID’s standard practice is to allow contractors to apply not more than 5 percent annual salary increase. USAID must minimize excessive salary increases of Offeror’s employees that are proposed for this activity and the resulting Contractor’s annual salary increases. The Contractor must follow its established personnel policies in accordance with AIDAR 752.7007 subject to this contract’s limitations regarding annual salary increases. This limit neither includes an employee that assumes greater responsibilities in a new position nor a person newly employed by the Contractor for this specific activity. USAID will closely review the proposed salaries in these instances, but they may exceed five (5) percent with justification.

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

6. Question - Section I, Contract Clauses, I.1 (p. 67) includes FAR 52.237-8 Restrictions on Severance Payments to Foreign Nationals. 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 - The local law does not dictate severance payment for the fixed-term contractor. Thus, no changes in the solicitation will be made.

SECTION J – LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

7. Question - Section J: USAID includes as Attachment J.5 a Past Performance Reference Checklist. Please clarify if offerors are required to send Attachment J.5 to referees for completion, and that referees should send completed J.5 forms to USAID directly. If so, please clarify to whom and by what date referees should send completed J.5 forms. Can USAID confirm that the offerors do not need to submit Attachment J.5 in addition to Attachment J.6 as part of Annex H?

Answer - As stated in the Past Performance Reference Checklist, “Offerors are instructed to complete only the top section for each reference” and submit it as part of the proposal.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

8. Question - Section L.7, 4: Instructions for the Technical Approach state that the “section should include a Results Framework that builds on the Results Framework contained in the RFP.” There is no MCHF-specific Results Framework in the RFP. Would USAID please make this available or remove the reference in the instructions?

Answer - This part is supposed to read “section should include a Results Framework that builds on the Results Framework contained in the RFP’s Attachment J.4. Sustainable Livelihoods PAD.pdf.”

9. Question - Can USAID please confirm that offerors must submit the cost proposal electronically with the subject line as follows: Cost Proposal Modern Cooking for Healthy Forests – RFP No. 72061219R00003, following the method described in Section L.6 (e) for the technical proposal?

Answer- Confirmed. Please refer to L.8.1(b) of the solicitation.

10. Question - In Section L.7(d)4 (page 115), USAID directs offerors to summarize proposed uses of grants under contract in the technical approach, as well as a separate section requirement in Section L.7(d)8 (pages 117-118). Can USAID please confirm that bidders should include an articulation of Grants Under Contract as per Section L.7(d)8 (pages 117-

118) and do not need to include it in the technical approach section?

Answer – The technical proposal must provide a summary of the uses of grants under contract, including how GUCs will be incorporated into the overall implementation approach to achieve this activity’s required objectives and how they contribute to local capacity development. Please note that Section L.7(d)8 is providing further guidance as to the limits of the GUCs.

11. Question - In Section L.7(d)4 (page 115), USAID directs offerors to address the “proposed use of subcontracts, including rationale, contributions to this activity’s objectives, and the management approach” as part of the technical approach. Can USAID please confirm that this requirement should be addressed as part of the Management Approach as described in Section L.7(d)6 (page 116) and should not be addressed in the offeror’s Technical Approach?

Answer - The Technical Approach must articulate how the proposed subcontracts will contribute to this activity’s objectives. Under the Management Approach, the Offeror needs to identify the subcontractor’s details with the roles, responsibilities and lines of communication.

12. Question - Can USAID please confirm that the information requested in Section, L.7(d)7, Past Performance (page 117) is exclusive of the 25-page limit? Section L.7, 7: USAID requests a Past Performance section as an element of what the technical proposal must include but does not list if or how it counts against the 25-page limit. Would USAID please clarify whether a Past Performance narrative is included as part of Annex H, which is not part of the 25-page Technical Proposal?

Answer – Past Performance information is exclusive of the 25-page limit for the technical proposal.

13. Question - Could USAID please clarify whether there is a difference in definitions, in relation to sections L.7(d)4 (page 115) and L.7(d)6 (page 116), between subcontractors and consortiums? If so, could USAID please clarify the difference?

Answer - A sub-contractor/contractor relationship arises when a main contractor hires/employs additional businesses/ persons outside of the main contractors own business to do work or to deliver services as part of a larger project. A consortium is an association of two or more companies with the objective of participating in a common activity, such as responding to a tender, or pooling their resources to achieve a common goal. Within the consortium, each participant retains their separate legal status and the consortium's control over each participant is generally limited to activities involving the joint endeavour, particularly the division of profits.

USAID does not expect a consortium under this activity and the word “consortium” has been deleted from the RFP.

14. Question - In reference to Section L.7(d)7.1 (page 117), can USAID please confirm that the referenced “list in attachment to the technical proposal” is Annex H?

Answer - Confirmed.

15. Question - In Section L.7(d)7.1 (page 117), USAID asks offerors to “list in attachment to the technical proposal up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts”, while in Section L.7(d)9, Annex H (page 120), USAID states “include up to three of the most recent and relevant contracts.” Can USAID please confirm that offerors should submit up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts in Annex H?

Answer - Section L.7(d)7.1 has been changed to read “three of the most recent and relevant contracts” to conform with Section L.7(d)9, Annex H.

16. Question - We request that the following bullet points be removed from section L.7.d.8 (p.

118):

a. The total value of an individual grant will not exceed $100,000 for a U.S. NGO or $250,000 for a non-U.S. NGO. i. Although the first threshold is in line with GUC authorizing language, we respectfully request that USAID remove the ceiling on grants to non-U.S. organizations since there is no regulatory framework that requires a ceiling.

Additionally, this will allow contractors maximum flexibility in meeting their technical targets for this contract.

Answer – These bullet points will not be removed.

b. We respectfully request that USAID remove the cap of four grants per year to ensure maximum flexibility during implementation and that technical activities are not limited.

Answer – The cap of four grants per year will not be removed.

c. GUC activities will be limited to capacity building on technical gaps identified by the contractor on forest landscape restoration, forest-based enterprises, and alternative energy sources and technologies. i. We respectfully request this language be replaced with: “GUC activities will be limited to capacity building on technical gaps identified by the Contractor related to Objectives 1-4.”

Answer - The language will not be changed.

17. Question - In reference to Section L.7(d)9, can USAID please confirm that in Annex H, following the required matrix (Attachment J.6), offerors may include the additional past performance information requested in L.7(d)7.2 on page 117?

Answer - Confirmed.

18. Question - In Section L.7.d.9, Annex B (p. 119), the AMELP page limit is 20 pages.

Because the RFP calls for including Performance Indicator Reference Sheet (PIRS) for each indicator — which can require nearly a page for each indicator — an indicator tracking table, and a logical framework, would USAID consider increasing the number of pages for Annex B or consider excluding the PIRS from Annex B’s 20-page limitation to ensure that offerors may provide a comprehensive response?

Question - In Section L.7(d)9, Annex B: Activity Monitoring Evaluation and Learning Plan (Page 119) states that the page limit shall not exceed 20 pages. Given that the AMELP needs to include performance indicator reference sheets for at least 20 illustrative indicators listed in Section C.4(c) (pages 15-16) (and up to an additional 5 indicators proposed by the offeror) as well as describe other features of the Activity’s monitoring plans, will USAID consider either removing the page limit, or dropping the requirements for PIRS, given that these forms alone will be 20-25 pages?

Question - Section L.7, 9: Instructions for Annex B (Illustrative AMELP) on p. 119 indicates that “for each indicator, the AMELP will include a Performance Indicator Reference Sheet which provides a precise definition, information on disaggregation, the data source, frequency of data collection, collection method, the party responsible for data collection, when baseline information will be collected, and expected annual targets for each relevant region of operation. The AMELP will also include an indicator tracking table, an MS Excel-based file that tracks all quantitative performance data and lists baseline figures, quarterly and/or annual actuals, quarterly and/or annual targets, and life of project targets, disaggregated as appropriate.” Would USAID please confirm that the PIRS and Excel-based tracker will be provided by the Contractor following award and are not required as part of the 20-page “Illustrative AMELP” to be submitted in the proposal? In Section, L.7(d)9, Annex B: Illustrative Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (page 119), states:

“The AMELP will also include an indicator tracking table, an MS Excel-based file that tracks all quantitative performance data and lists baseline figures, quarterly and/or annual actuals, quarterly and/or annual targets, and life of project targets, disaggregated as appropriate.” Can USAID clarify whether they expect the offeror to accompany the submission with a separate excel file for the proposed indicator tracking table?

Answer - This is a valid concern. USAID maintains that the AMELP should be 20 pages, but the PIRS should only be for the up-to five indicators that the Offeror will propose. USAID only requires, within the 20 pages, an indicator tracking table with all proposed indicators, baseline (if known), annual and Life of Project targets. The MS Excel-based tracker/file will be maintained by the Contractor following award and will not be included as part of the 20-page “Illustrative AMELP” to be submitted in the proposal.

19. Question - Section L.7: Section 7) Past Performance notes that offerors are to “list in an attachment to the technical proposal up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal.” Would USAID allow use of cooperative agreements as past performance references in addition to contracts?

Answer - Past performance information from assistance programs will be utilized in the past performance evaluation as stated in the Section L.7.9, Annex H of the solicitation. Please make sure that detailed contacts are provided.

20. Question - Section L.7, 7: The Past Performance 2 (c) section asks for a narrative summary of offeror’s use of small business concerns over the past three years. May offerors include three small business references and a list of the most recent SF-294s for each contract against which we were required to report for the past three years?

Answer - Yes.

21. Question - Section L.7, 9) Annex E: The Resumes and Non-Exclusive Letters of Commitment for all Proposed Key Personnel are listed as “not to exceed 20 pages.” Later in this description, USAID notes that “resumes are not to exceed five (5) pages in length.”

Would USAID please update the total annex page length to “not to exceed 25 pages” to include a four-page CV and one-page Letter of Commitment for each of the five key personnel?

Question - Section L.7(d)9, Annex E: Resumes and Non-exclusive Letters of Commitment (pages 119-120) designates a 20-page limit total, with each resume not to exceed 5 pages and each Key Personnel requiring a non-exclusive letter of commitment not to exceed one page. Given that there are five key personnel positions, can USAID please confirm that the page limit for Annex E is 30 pages to accommodate 5-page resumes for each Key Personnel position and one-page for each letter of commitment?

Answer -The total Annex E: Proposed Key Personnel’s resumes should not exceed 4 pages.

Resumes and Non-Exclusive Letters of Commitment for all Proposed Key Personnel should not exceed 25 pages.

22. Question - Section L.8, 2 Part 2 (4): USAID states that Biographical Data Sheets are required for all long-term and short-term expatriates. Would USAID allow offerors to submit Biographical Data Sheets for all long-term and short-term staff who are named in the budget?

Answer – Yes.

23. Question - Section L.9: USAID notes that offerors must submit and negotiate a Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) and Marking Plan (MP). The BIP-MP is not mentioned in Section L.8 as a required annex to the cost proposal. Would USAID please confirm if a BIP- MP is required upon award or as part of the Cost Proposal?

Answer – Branding Implementation Plan and Marking plans will be requested of offerors in the competitive range as indicated in Section L.9. Please be reminded that the cost proposal must include all estimated costs associated with the BIP and the MP.

24. Question - Could USAID please provide an updated LCP for Malawi?

Answer – It is the offerror’s responsibility to establish the market value (or range) for the specific position. The offeror should establish the market value (or range) for the position first and can then make a determination of the salary to be offered to an individual to perform their duties. Moreover, for audit purposes, the company should ensure and document how the fair market value of each position was determined. Offerors should not use USAID/Malawi’s LCP as a basis simply because the duties for the same positions might be different to those described in USAID’s Specialist Series, and the wages of individual employees normally vary with their skill levels, language proficiency, etc.

25. Question - Section H.9, Section L.7 Part 8) and Section L.8 4)H mention the various requirements for the use of grants under contract. Given that the GUC figure cannot exceed $1.2 million, would USAID consider allowing offerors to propose a blended activities pool to include a GUC value of no more than 1.2 million? This would include grants and subcontracts to be awarded to capable organizations and would be fully compliant with FAR and ADS regulations. This would provide maximum flexibility to engage a diverse range of stakeholders.

Answer - We do not know exactly what you mean by a blended activities pool. A grant fund is an opportunity for USAID to, not only support community based organizations in forest management, but also leverage private sector equity and bank finance to support viable private sector solutions.

26. Question - Will USAID allow offerors to submit the past performance matrix on 11 x 17 paper to accommodate the information in a readable format in 9pt font?

Answer - No. Please refer to L.7(c) of the solicitation.

27. Question - Does USAID prefer that offerors provide documentation of proposed partnerships (for example, letters of support from GOM agencies or local NGOs)? If so, may offerors include these letters as part of Annex G?

Answer - This is not required.

[END OF AMENDMENT No. 02]