Letter Response to Questions_Zimbabwe GARDENS RFTOP.pdf

June 21, 2024

Subject: RFTOP No. 72061324R00012 - Evaluation of Community Gardens’ Contribution to Household Income and Nutrition.

Dear Potential Offerors, Please find the responses to Questions submitted on the Evaluation of Community Gardens’ Contribution to Household Income and Nutrition RFTOP.

1. Would USAID kindly consider granting a 2-week extension for the submission date to July 12th?

Response: USAID has considered the extension request and due to time constraints, the deadline has only been extended to .Jul 8, 2024

2. Can USAID clarify if there is a specific time by when proposals must be submitted?

Response: Please note that the deadline has been extended to Jul 8, 2024 5:00 PM GMT+2

3. Section L.2 Technical Proposals, page 27, the RFQ states that within the 15-page limit “The technical proposal must include the following required sections… 4) Institutional Capacity and

Past Performance.” However, on page 28 the RFQ states that Annex B should include Institutional

Capacity and Past Performance information including the Past Performance Sheets and a narrative write up. Can USAID confirm that the Institutional capacity and Past Performance information should be included in Annex B and not in the 15-page Technical Proposal?

Response: The Institutional capacity and past performance should be summarized in the technical proposal and details included in the annex.

4. Can USAID clarify if there is a required number of past performance sheets that need to be submitted, or may we submit as many as we choose?

Response: Please provide relevant past performance which demonstrates the capacity of the offeror to perform the task.

5. As the anticipated contract type is Firm Fixed Price, will USAID please confirm that a total price and payment schedule is sufficient detail for the cost proposal? (AD)

Response: Yes, the total price and payment schedule is sufficient for the cost proposal. Please refer to Section L3, page 28 of the RFTOP.

6. There are 378 gardens across 22 districts. Is there one garden per village or can there be more than one garden in the same locality?

Response: The number of gardens per ward varies from 1 to 3. The full list of gardens and coordinates will be provided post award to inform sampling.

7. There are several implementing partners spread across the 22 districts where gardens have been created. Have IPs been required to collect the same baseline and monitoring data systematically across activities or have they reported data tailored to their own activities?

Response: The gardens have been funded under different guidelines over 12 years and data collection and reporting requirements were different based on award guidelines.

8. There are a wide range of data collection approaches and evaluation designs that could be proposed to answer the evaluation questions and achieve the evaluation objectives with varying degrees of rigor. For example, the approach could rely primarily on more limited qualitative data collection, could include a survey of communities where gardens were implemented, or could also include surveys of a control group in areas where gardens were not implemented in the context of an impact evaluation. Each of these approaches would require substantially different levels of resources and budgets. Moreover, there is uncertainty at the proposal stage about the level of activity monitoring data that will be accessible. To ensure both a fair opportunity for all bidders and that offerors responses align with USAID’s needs and resources, could USAID provide further guidance on the level of resources anticipated for data collection? This could be in the form of a plug figure for data collection, an overall cost estimate/ceiling, or rough outlines of sample sizes for data collection.

Response: The overall ceiling of this activity is $490,000.00

9. Were there any substantial differences in community garden implementation/support between those funded by Food for Peace/OFDA and those funded by ER4?

Response: While there is no categorical differences in approach to community gardens, offerors should expect variation across districts based on local context. Offerors are encouraged to consider an exploration exercise to determine functionality and types of gardens to guide in sampling.

10. Evaluation Team Composition, p. 17-18, Section F.4: Can USAID clarify if applicants have flexibility to propose an alternative KP staffing structure that covers the requested areas of expertise listed on page 17 of the RFQ?

a. Relatedly, if the Team Leader (TL) has nutrition expertise, could the TL cover that KP role?

b. If we have team members who are experts in two or more of the expert areas listed, could we combine two KPs roles into one position?

Response: The offerors should propose the best team combination which ensures all technical areas are covered while the team members are not overburdened to be effective in adequately covering their area of expertise. While the team leader may also cover technical areas, care should be exercised not to overload the team leader so that s/he will have sufficient bandwidth to provide team direction.

11. Can USAID confirm that the Total Estimated Cost of this Task Order is the same as the ceiling of

$499,999 found on the USAID Forecast webpage? If not, can USAID please share accurate Total

Estimated Cost?

Response: Please refer to our response in question 8.

12. Does USAID expect that the evaluation will qualify as health-sector research such that we would need to seek approval from the Zimbabwean Ministry of Health and Institutional Review Board

(IRB) human subjects ethics approval?

Response: The offeror has to review the evaluation questions to determine if this qualified for human subjects research. From the evaluation purpose the focus of the evaluation is how community gardens contribute to household income and nutrition.

13. We are excited to pursue this opportunity and grateful we found it posted on SAM.gov. Moving forward, we kindly request that USAID/Zimbabwe inform us and other MECLAK holders of the responses to these questions via email to ensure all holders receive this important information simultaneously.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. This has been noted.

14. On page 4, Section C.2, USAID states that “USAID through BHA funding has invested in close to

600 community gardens … since 2011,” yet the list of community gardens in Annex 1 on pages 7 and 8 contains only 412 community gardens. Is there an interest in investigating gardens outside the list provided or should sampling concentrate on the gardens identified in the list?

Response: The sample should concentrate on the districts identified where there is concentration of investment for logistical efficiency.

15. For clarity of presentation in the technical proposal in correspondence with the RFTOP, could

USAID renumber the questions on Page 5 from 1 to 5 and provide lettering for each of the bulleted sub-questions, (e.g., 1a-b)?

Response: Thank you, this was done. Refer to the amended RFTOP

16. Page 6, Section C.4 reads as follows: “USAID expects the Evaluation firm to conduct an inventory of assets in the districts covered by this evaluation to assess level of functionality and profiling.”

Could USAID please describe any assets that should be inventoried in the districts other than functional or non-functional USAID-supported community gardens and related infrastructure

(e.g., irrigation)?

Response: USAID expects the offeror to have an inventory of community gardens and related infrastructure to guide sampling among gardens of different functionality level.

17. We note the lack of reference to performance or impact evaluation. Can USAID kindly clarify what type of evaluation design they expect and if they anticipate a counterfactual comparison.

Response: The Offeror should review evaluation questions and propose evaluation design which best answers the questions within the available resource envelope, noting the different dimensions of this evaluation.

18. Section F.4 on page 17, USAID states it anticipates “at least 4 key personnel” and notes four potential types of expertise to be captured across the team (items a through d). It further notes at the top of page 18 that “Where the desired expertise is not possessed in groupings above, the offeror can propose different configurations ensuring all desired skills are met.” Can USAID please clarify if it is similarly acceptable to propose fewer than 4 key personnel in cases where all four categories of background expertise can be captured by fewer people?

Response: The Offeror should ensure that all technical areas are covered and that staff is not overburdened to effectively carry out their duties. USAID expects a minimum of four key personnel including team Leader, however the level of effort may be different depending on evaluation design.

19. In Section L.2, could USAID please specify the font size required for the technical proposal?

Response: The font size is 11, the amended RFTOP reflects this new information.

20. Are the annexes excluded from the 15-page limit of the technical proposal?

Response: Yes Annexes are excluded from the 15 page limit as documented in Section L.2

21. Institutional Capacity and Past Performance is listed as a required section of the technical proposal and is also the title of Annex B. Annex B should include a narrative write up on

Institutional Capacity and Past Performance. Annex B, “excluding the Attachment 1 sheets, may not exceed five pages.” Could USAID please clarify how the narrative in Annex B should be different from the required section of the technical proposal?

Response: The technical narrative should include a summary of institutional capacity and details would be in the annex. This allows the offeror to use the page limit to present a strong proposal.

22. The technical proposal should address Institutional Capacity and Past Performance by presenting a detailed description of similar work conducted over the past five years, which “ can include leading the design and implementation of performance or impact evaluations, and public health related research.” Because community gardens touch on several sectors beyond public health, could USAID consider expanding this reference to accept research, evaluations, and assessments in a broader list of related sectors including topics such as agriculture, governance, food security, economic growth, and gender?

Response: Please see the amendment in Section L.2 of the RFTOP removing the reference to

“public health”.

23. In Section M.2, will USAID evaluate subcontractor past performance information included in the technical proposal and Annex B, and will subcontractor past performance information count towards the 20% technical evaluation scoring for Institutional Capacity and Past Performance?

Response: USAID will evaluate the offeror’s Institutional Capacity and Past Performance.

24. Can USAID please confirm if the Offeror can use their own Cost template for the Excel Cost

Budget?

Response: Offerors can use their own cost template for the excel cost budget.

25. Can USAID please confirm if a detailed budget is required for a Subcontractor?

Response: USAID expects offerors to submit cost proposals as per Section L.3 of the RFTOP.

26. Can USAID kindly share the Zimbabwe local compensation plan? If not, can USAID kindly inform bidders of the maximum salary rate for the Senior position on the local compensation plan so that offerors understand if their proposed labor costs exceed this ceiling?

Response: USAID encourages offerors to use market based salary rates e.g salary surveys or benchmarking against comparators.

27. In Section F.3, pg.11, under In briefing; Will the meeting take place in person or via an online conference? If in person, will it be held at USAID’s offices or does the Offeror need to make allowance for a venue to host the meeting?

Response: The In-brief meeting will be in person at USAID offices.

28. In Section F.3, pg.12, under the Evaluation Work Plan, refer to text reference “…and present a draft work plan of the evaluation to the COR.” Will the presentation of the draft work plan be in person or via an online conference?

Response: The presentation of the Evaluation work plan can be either in-person or virtual. The offeror will propose the meeting option during the brief.

29. In Section F.3, pg.13, under Preliminary Findings Presentation Meeting and Recommendations

Development; Can USAID please confirm the presentation will be conducted virtually?

Response: The presentation will be in person at USAID Offices.

30. In section F.3, pg.13, under Stakeholders Presentation of Findings, Will the final presentation for stakeholders be hosted at USAID’s offices, or will the offeror need to make allowance for a venue with refreshments/lunch to host the meeting? What is the estimated number of delegates that will be present?

Response: The Offeror shall make an allowance for venue and refreshments for about 60 delegates for stakeholder presentation of findings.

31. In section F.3, pg.14, under the Revised PowerPoint presentation summarizing evaluation findings, Please confirm that no in-person or online presentation will take place at this juncture of revising the PowerPoint presentation.

Response: There is no meeting required after the preliminary results discussion. However the offeror may propose a meeting to discuss revisions.

32. In Section F.3, pg.15, Regular Briefing Meetings, The frequency of briefing meetings in the deliverable’s column state “… is expected to provide weekly updates…” but the time frame column states “Bi-Weekly”. Can USAID please clarify?

Response: Update meetings will be bi-weekly. Please see the amended RFTOP.

33. In section L.2, pg.27, Technical Proposal, Annexes, May the offeror present additional annexes should the need arise to present tables and/or graphs not captured in the body of the technical proposal?

Response: Yes Annexes for tables and graphs will be accepted.

34. In Section L.2, pg. 28, Technical Approach, The RFTOP states “ the proposal must include a work structure that describes how the team would manage and execute the tasks described in the

SOW and attached Addendum.” Please clarify which addendum is this referred to?

Response: This has been corrected in the amended RFTOP.

35. In Section L.2, pg. 28, Annex B, Institutional Capacity and Past Performance, The RFTOP states

“This annex excluding the Attachment 1 sheets may not exceed five pages.” Please clarify what should be included in this annex in addition to Attachment 1 since Institutional Capacity is already required to be described in the main Technical Proposal, item c.

Response: Offerors may submit any relevant supplemental information they deem necessary in this annex.

36. Would USAID allow for the inclusion of a table of content and acronyms list that are not included in the page limit?

Response: Yes

37. In Section F.3, pg. 11, under In briefing, The RFTOP states that “Within two weeks of contract award, the evaluation team will meet with the COR and relevant USAID staff for introductions and to discuss the team’s understanding of the assignment. The evaluation team will present findings from the desk review and examination of data to date.” Would you USAID revise the presentation requirement for the in brief? It would be difficult to complete the desk review before doing the introductions and discuss understanding of the assignment.

Response: The desk review presentation during the in-brief is preliminary and will be finalized before the evaluation design is finalized. The initial literature review will enrich discussion on understanding.

38. In section F.3, pg. 12, Evaluation Work Plan and Evaluation Design, Please confirm that the evaluation methodology needs to be submitted in the work plan but the evaluation matrix and sampling methodology need to be submitted in the Evaluation Design, two weeks after the approval of the work plan.

Response: The evaluation work plan should include the summary of methodology which allows for dialogue with the COR. The full methodology with evaluation Matrix and sampling strategy will be submitted in the evaluation design two weeks after approval or evaluation work plan.

39. In section F.4, pg. 18, Evaluation Team, Please clarify if conflict of interest statements of the

Evaluation Team members should be submitted with the proposal. If yes, in which annex should they be included?

Response: Conflict of interest statements of the evaluation team members must be submitted under Annex A: Key personnel resumés and letters of commitment.

40. In section M.2, pg. 29, Technical Approach, The RFTOP states: “The Offerors will also be evaluated on the extent to which the proposed evaluation timeline is clear, realistic, and complete, indicating weekly progress and achievement of key evaluation activities and milestones.” Please confirm that we have to include a timeline. If yes, can that be included as an annex?

Response: The proposed timeline should be in an annex. Please note that USAID expects the evaluation not to exceed 6 months.

41. In Section L.2, pg. 28, under Technical Approach, The RFTOP states “The technical proposal must reflect a sound understanding of the activity, USAID’s program priorities, direction, and key issues, and incorporate evidence-based learning, innovation, and results-based management.

Proposal must include a work structure that describes how the team would manage and execute the tasks described in the SOW and attached Addendum.” This language doesn’t match that of section M that says “Offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which the proposed evaluation design, methodology, and techniques are: clearly explained in detail with justification, applicable to the context, creative and innovative, of sufficient scientific rigor to produce valid results, and how the overall technical proposal sets forth a convincing approach for accomplishing the objectives in the statement of work. The Offerors will also be evaluated on the extent to which the proposed evaluation timeline is clear, realistic, and complete, indicating weekly progress and achievement of key evaluation activities and milestones.” Can you please clarify what should be included in the Technical Approach?

Response: This section has been updated to remove sound understanding of the activity as the offeror will access project documents post award.

Sincerely, Andrea Plucknett Contracting Officer