Response_to_Questions_received_for_Sol_No._72061719R00002.pdf

Responses to questions received

1. Per the record on the Business Forecast, could USAID confirm that the expected start date for this project is August 24, 2019?

USAID Response: USAID confirms this will be on or about August 24, 2019 depending on the complexity of the procurement and the time required for each step in the process.

2. For budget purposes, would USAID please provide the starting date of the project?

USAID Response: See response to question 1.

3. Could USAID provide offerors with the relevant studies conducted by MIT on post-CPMA close-out and AgVerify?

USAID Response: No such studies have been conducted by MIT post CPM Activity closure. The draft report for the AgVerify study has been shared as Attachment J.12.

4. Page 22, Section C.1.1: The RFP emphasizes the Activity should address the underlying and systemic causes of malnutrition; however, this is not a major focus in the background or problem statement. Can USAID clarify that malnutrition should be a prominent focus area?

USAID Response: This Activity is expected to contribute to achieving the GFSS goal of reducing hunger, poverty and malnutrition.

5. RFP Reference: C.1.3 (b) Page Number: 11 Relevant RFP Language: “Therefore, where applicable, priority should be given to districts that have system elements and/ or actors with potential to serve Karamoja and refugee host districts and as needed, absorb market shocks specific to these areas.” Could USAID confirm that this text refers to refugee host districts in the ZOI only (and not other refugee host districts outside of the ZOI)?

USAID Response: This activity is primarily focused in the GFSS ZOI. Given that the activity employs a market systems approach, some interventions are likely to be located outside the GFSS ZOI (see C.1.3 (b) Geographic Focus) as long as they have impact on the ZOI districts.

6. Can USAID please confirm if the Activity is expected to directly support refugee host communities or refugees? If so, does USAID have specific communities in mind the Activity should focus on?

USAID Response: As part of inclusivity, this Activity is expected to pursue market systems development that creates opportunities for the poor and other marginalized groups in the GFSS ZOI.

For targeting refugee host communities or refugees, see answer to question 5.

7. In Section F.6, Key Personnel, the requirements for chief of party include at least 15 years of experience living and working in developing country environments. Would USAID consider revising this to include candidates with fewer years of experience living and working in developing country environments who still meet the other minimum academic and work experience requirements? By reducing the number of years of experience required in living and working in developing country environments, offerors will be able to consider a larger pool of candidates with the talent, skills, energy, enthusiasm, and commitment to effectively serve USAID on this important activity.

USAID Response: This requirement has been revised from 15 years to 10 years.

8. The second bullet point on page 42, Section F.6 Key Personnel, states that the COP must have “At least ten years (15 years for holders of a Bachelor’s degree) of progressively increasing managerial responsibility in managing large comprehensive activities…for contracts of similar scope, size and complexity”. Would USAID please confirm that “contracts” refer to all types of awards including cooperative agreements and grants of similar scope, size, and complexity?

USAID Response: This refers only to contracts. It does not include other types of awards such as cooperative agreements and grants.

9. The role of the Deputy Chief of Party (pg. 43) indicates a preference for a candidate with strong expertise managing public-private partnerships and building networks and effective working relationships with private sector stakeholders. The required qualifications, however, indicate that the proposed candidate must have “At least 8 years of progressively increasing responsibility in managing diverse teams, etc. for activities of similar scope, size and complexity.” This requirement excludes many Ugandan candidates that have a combination of USAID and other donor-funded experience and experience in the private sector.

Would USAID consider revising this requirement to allow for at least 8 years of progressively increasing responsibility in either donor-funded activities or private sector experience?

USAID Response: This requirement does not exclude anyone with the cited experience. To the contrary, it is inclusive of everyone with such experience irrespective of the source of funding.

10. RFP Reference: F.6.2 Page Number:43 Relevant RFP Language: “Primarily, the DCOP will support technical implementation, maintain communication and momentum among teams, and oversee activity operations, including grants management, progress reporting, and administrative matters.”

Question a: Does USAID presume that the DCOP will oversee operations, grants, reporting, and administrative matters, with a dotted line to technical implementation?

USAID Response: Bidders are expected to propose an organizational structure and staffing plan that resonates with their technical approach (See Factor 2 and 3 under Management Approach) while meeting the roles and requirements for each key personnel stated.

Question b: May offerors adjust the respective role of each Key Personnel as long as all aspects of the roles are covered within the 5 Key Personnel?

USAID Response: No.

11. The description of the Director of Finance and Administration on pg. 44 of the RFP indicates that the role will oversee operations for all activity offices, including “oversight of procurement, grants, construction, etc.” Could USAID confirm that construction activities will not be included in the scope of activities for the Activity?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that construction activities will not be included in the scope of activities for the Activity. See changes to description of the Director of Finance and Administration in Section F.6.4.

12. Section L.7.2.6 (page 107) requires Offerors to submit a job description of not more than 1 page (per key position) as part of Annex 5. However, both the roles and responsibilities and qualifications of required Key Personnel are already included in RFP Section F.6. Therefore, please confirm that job descriptions are not required as part of Annex 5.

USAID Response: USAID confirms that no job descriptions are required. See revised Section L.7.2.6 (page 107).

13. In L.7.2 under the description of Annex 5 (pg. 107), the RFP indicates that offerors “must include position descriptions not exceeding one page per position description”. Can USAID please confirm these position descriptions do not count towards the page limit of the CVs for key personnel, though they are included in this annex?

USAID Response: See response to question 12.

14. Section L.7.2 (page 107) states that Key Personnel CVs are limited to 3 pages. Will USAID please confirm that references and the position descriptions do not count against the three-page CV limit?

USAID Response: Job descriptions are not required. See revised Section L.7.2.6 (page 107). However, the list of references counts against the three-page CV limit.

15. RFP Reference: Section L.7.2.6, Annex 5 Page Number: 107 Relevant RFP Language: “the Offeror must include position descriptions not exceeding one page per position description.” Could USAID please confirm that the one page position description for each key personnel is in addition to the 3-page limit for CVs?

USAID Response: Please see response to Question 14.

16. Section C.4.2 (page 16) of the RFP contains a different set of objectives than on C.7.2 (page 25-26), can USAID please confirm which set of objectives the proposal should consider?

USAID Response: Objectives listed on page 25-26 are for the Market Systems Strengthening project under which this activity is authorized.

17. Can USAID please clarify why beginning on page 25, IR2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 are included since there are no associated project objectives related to these IR’s? Can USAID also clarify why IR2.1 and 1.1 are excluded (Section C.7.2)?

USAID Response: The table beginning on page 25 illustrates how this Activity will contribute to achieving results under the GFSS, CDCS and the Market Systems Project. This activity will not contribute to any of the excluded IRs.

18. In Section L.7.1 under General Technical Proposal Instructions, Evaluation Factor 1: Technical Approach is limited to 15 pages and Evaluation Factor 2: Management Approach and Staffing Plan is limited to 10 pages. Given the breadth of the scope of work detailed in Section C, we respectfully request USAID to consider reallocating two pages from Evaluation Factor 2: Management Approach and Staffing Plan to Evaluation Factor 1: Technical Approach. This would bring the total page limit for the latter from 15 to 17 pages to ensure that offerors provide a comprehensive response to the objectives stated in Section C while still fulfilling the requirements for Evaluation Factor 2: Management Approach and Staffing Plan.

USAID Response: Evaluation Factor 1: Technical Approach page limitation has been revised from 15 to 20 while Evaluation Factor 2: Management Approach and Staffing Plan page limitation has been revised from 10 to 5. See changes to section L.7.2.5 and L.7.2.6.

19. In Section L.7.1 under General Technical Proposal Instructions, Annex 2: Draft AMELP is limited to five pages. Because the RFP calls for identifying illustrative indicators for the result pathways as well as indicator targets and feasible methods of tracking, documenting, and reporting progress for each indicator

— which will require an indicator table to be included in the plan - would USAID consider increasing the number of pages for Annex 2 or excluding the indicator table in Annex 2’s five-page limitation to ensure that offerors may provide a comprehensive response?

USAID Response: Draft AMELP has been revised from five pages to seven pages.

20. RFP Reference: Section L.7.2.5, Annex 2 Page Number: 106 Relevant RFP Language: “Annex 2: Draft AMELP (Not to exceed 5 pages)” Question a: Would USAID consider increasing the AMELP page limit to allow ample room to present our M&E system, data collection methodology, CLA approach, and an appropriate list of required, FTF, and custom indicators in this section?

USAID Response: See response to question 19.

Question b: May offerors include the results framework or logic model as part of Annex 2: Draft AMELP?

USAID Response: The expectation is that offeror’s technical approach will include results framework or logic model as appropriate.

21. Does USAID require a target to be presented at the proposal stage for all core indicators, proposed in the AMELP, as described in Section F.4 and L.7, or can some indicators remain TBD until the presentation of the baseline for approval?

USAID Response: Offerors are expected to provide a draft AMELP with realistic targets and indicators that will be confirmed after the Baseline survey.

22. Does USAID require a target to be presented at the proposal stage for all core indicators, proposed in the AMELP, as described in Section F.4 and L.7, or can some indicators remain TBD until the presentation of the baseline for approval?

USAID Response: See response to question 21.

23. RFP Reference: L.7.2.5, Annex 2 Page Number: 106 Relevant RFP Language: “Draft AMELP (Not more than five (5) pages). At the minimum, a preliminary AMELP as described in Section F.4 will include realistic annual and end of activity targets; identify proposed performance indicators; and define a feasible method of tracking, documenting, and reporting progress attributable to the Activity (both quantitatively and qualitatively).”

RFP Reference: F.4.5 Page Number: 36 Relevant RFP Language: “Baseline Report - The Contractor is responsible for conducting a baseline status report on indicators - disaggregated by gender and geography, agreed to with USAID in the activity’s AMELP.”

Question: Given that many indicator targets will be driven by the baseline and other early stage assessments done post award, would USAID allow offers to propose indicators without targets?

USAID Response: See response to question 21.

24. On page 19, Section C.5.2 Facilitation of Interventions includes “up to $3.5 million in grants under contract.” The section entitled “Transition Awards” states that “the contractor should target between 1 and 2 local Grantees to build capacity for potential transition of some portions [of the scope]”:

a. Would USAID please confirm that transition awards are in addition to the $3.5 million in grants under contract (GUCs)?

USAID Response: No. Transition awards are included in GUCs.

b. Apart from the transition awards, would USAID further confirm that GUCs can be used for any appropriate purpose, or provide guidance regarding the anticipated vision for the use of the GUCs?

USAID Response: Offerors are expected to propose how they will use GUCs in resonance with their technical approach.

25. In Section C.5.2, Facilitation of Interventions, under Transition Awards (page 19), the RFP states that “Contractor should target between 1 to 2 local Grantees to build capacity to the level of potential transitioning of some portions.” As the Activity focuses on building the capacity of private sector market system actors for inclusive market systems, private sector actors could be eligible for a Transition Award grant. Could USAID provide illustrative examples of the types of private sector actors USAID anticipates who would be the most appropriate as Transition Award grantees to transition portions of the Activity scope?

USAID Response: See response to question 24.b above.

26. In section C.5.2, the RFP states that the “contractor should target between 1 to 2 local grantees to build capacity to the level of potential transitioning of some portions.” Can USAID please clarify what portion of the grant fund should be reserved for transitioning activities to local partners?

USAID Response: The portion of the grant fund to be reserved for transitioning activities will be determined by the proposed technical approach. The CLA approach during implementation will be able to inform the planned budget for the transition award. This cannot be determined upfront.

27. Could USAID please clarify its expectations related to what kind of information about a Contractor's transition award strategy should be articulated in the proposal? For example, should potential awardees be indicated at proposal stage, or is the expectation that Contractors would identify and select proposed awardees over the course of the first year of implementation?

USAID Response: See Response to question 26.

28. On page 20, Section C.5.2 Facilitation of Interventions lists the procedures for making Transition Awards. Would USAID consider fixed amount awards as an acceptable type of grant agreement for transition awards?"

USAID Response: Yes

29. Page 19, Section C.5.2: Would USAID be open to considering Transition Awards going to subcontractors as well as grantees? Restricting transition awards to grantees would preclude strong local entities that are subcontractors from receiving such an award. Subcontractors will have the opportunity to work on technical implementation and will receive direct guidance from the Contractor from project launch onward, hence they could be a well-prepared entity to manage programming after project support has ended.

USAID Response: See response to question 24 b

30. Section C.5.2 (pg. 20) states that direct awards for transition awardees cannot exceed 5 years in duration and total estimated amount must be less than $5 million. Section C.5.2 also states that proposed transition awards cannot exceed $500,000 per agreement. Can USAID please clarify the term length and amount per agreement?

USAID Response: The five-year period and the US$ 5 million quoted in the section refer to the ADS requirement. Specific to this Activity, the transition awards can only be up to $500,000 and within the life of activity.

31. RFP Reference: C.5.2 Page Number: 19 Relevant RFP Language: “Transition Awards: Contractor should target between 1 to 2 local Grantees to build capacity to the level of potential transitioning of some portions. During the performance of the award, the contractor should propose which portions of the scope can be transitioned to these Grantees. In order to facilitate this transition, ADS 303.3.6.5 b. (3) conditions will apply.” Would we respectively request that local sub-contractors also be eligible for transition awards?

USAID Response: No. Current authority for Transition awards is derived from ADS 303 therefore only grants under this contract should be considered for Transition awards.

32. Section C.6.7 (page 23) states that “Embed resilience aspects” is a Guiding Principle and that the Activity must build strong linkages with activities under USAID/Uganda’s Resilience Project. Could USAID provide more information about the Resilience Project’s objectives and scope of work?

USAID Response: Please review the USAID/Uganda CDCS 2016-2021 Results framework on this link https://www.usaid.gov/uganda/cdcs for details regarding the Resilience.

33. A Final Impact Assessment is not included in Section F.5, Delivery Schedule for Reports/Performance https://www.usaid.gov/uganda/cdcs

Objectives (page 39–42). Could USAID confirm if a final impact assessment is anticipated for this Activity and if one should be budgeted?

USAID Response: USAID will conduct an impact evaluation at the project level. The Offeror should not budget for this.

34. RFP Reference: F.4.5 Page Number: 36 Relevant RFP Language: “The Contractor is responsible for conducting a baseline status report on indicators - disaggregated by gender and geography, agreed to with USAID in the activity’s AMELP.” Under F.4.5 on page 36, the RFP states that the Contractor will be responsible for conducting a baseline. Can USAID please confirm that mid-term and final evaluations will be conducted by a third-party and should not be included in offeror’s budgets?

USAID Response: Offerors are expected to budget for mid-term and final evaluations whether or not they are conducted by a third-party.

35. Item 10 Close-out and Disposition Plan on page 38 states, “a property disposition plan including equipment (inclusive of any information technology) with a fair market value or depreciated value of $500 and above for the Contractor, subcontractors and grantees.” Would USAID please confirm that the $5,000, not the $500 equipment threshold, applies to grantees for disposition?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that $5,000, not the $500 equipment threshold, applies to grantees for disposition. See changes to Item 10, Page 38.

36. Page 53, Section H.6 Grants under Contracts lists the requirements for grants. Would USAID please provide formal authority to the contractor to issue grants on USAID's behalf, per ADS 302?

USAID Response: Pursuant to ADS 302.3.4.13, the Contracting Officer obtained approval that allows the contractor to execute grants on USAID’s behalf.

37. Section H.6 Grants Under Contract (page 53), states that “No cash or in kinds grants will be made to the Government of Uganda, including regional and district level authorities.” Could USAID provide illustrative examples of the type of institutional support to the Government of Uganda that will be allowed under the Inclusive Agricultural Markets Activity?

USAID Response: Offerors are expected to propose these in resonance to their technical approach.

38. Section H.6 Grants Under Contract (page 53), states “In order to work with Public Universities a Determination and Finding (D&F) will have to be approved by the Mission.” Could USAID provide illustrative examples of the type of institutional support to Public Universities that would be preferred under the Activity?

USAID Response: See response to question 37.

39. Item 6 on pages 105-106, Section L.7.1 General Technical Proposal Instructions lists the annexes that are part of the Technical Proposal. Would USAID please consider allowing the additional Annex 9: Letters of Collaboration from Local Entities, to demonstrate buy-in?

USAID Response: Yes. This however does not form part of the evaluation criteria.

40. May offerors include additional annexes in their proposal? For example, can offerors include an annex containing Letters of Support from organizations that have expressed a willingness to collaborate with the Activity?

USAID Response: See response to question 39.

41. RFP Reference: L.7.1.6.i Page Number: 105 Relevant RFP Language: Annexes. The offeror respectfully requests an additional Annex, not to exceed 5 pages, which can include additional details of the offeror’s bid, provided those details are summarized within the technical proposal.

USAID Response: No

42. RFP Reference: L.7.2.5, Annex 1 Page Number: 106 Relevant RFP Language: “The work plan may be in the form of, or accompanied by, a GANTT chart that illustrates the timeframe for major tasks to be completed, including any analytical work.” Could USAID confirm that a Gantt Chart is not required as part of Annex 1: Draft First Year Annual Work Plan?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that a GANTT chart is required as part of Annex 1.

43. RFP Reference: L.7.2.5, Annex 2 Page Number: 106 Relevant RFP Language: “Draft First Year Annual Work Plan (Not more than five (5) pages) clearly describing tasks to be performed and results targets to be achieved. The Offeror will describe only tasks and actions necessary to achieve year one targets defined in the work plan. The work plan may be in the form of, or accompanied by, a GANTT chart that illustrates the timeframe for major tasks to be completed, including any analytical work.” RFP Reference: F.4.2 Page Number: 35 Relevant RFP Language: “AWPs will include a narrative describing the strategies, activities and interventions required to meet the award outputs as well as a log frame or Gantt chart outlining specific activities, the timetable and responsible persons. Activities on the Gantt Chart must be fully costed. Furthermore, annual budgets must accompany the AWP. The AWP must incorporate the Contractor’s annual gender and youth action plan informed by the Gender, Youth and Social Inclusion Analysis.”

For the Draft First Year Annual Work Plan submitted with the proposal, can USAID confirm that we should follow the requirements under Section L rather than Section F?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that Offerors should follow the requirements under Section L.

Section F has been revised for additional clarity.

44. Section L.8.1, Part 1 (page 109), states that the completed Standard Form 33 must include an original signature. Since proposals will be submitted electronically, could USAID please confirm that a scanned or electronic signature would be sufficient?

USAID Response: Yes, a scanned or electronic signature is sufficient.

45. Section L.8.1, Part 2(5)(I) (page 111), requests information to support a cost reasonableness determination for each grantee. Additionally, this section lists a plug figure for Grants Under Contract for the life of the project. Could USAID please confirm that Offerors may elect to include only the plug figure for Grants Under Contract in their proposals, rather than propose amounts for specific grantees?

USAID Response: Yes, Offerors may elect to include only the plug figure for Grants Under Contract in their proposals, rather than propose amounts for specific grantees.

46. Page 9, Section B.8 indicates payment of fixed fee will be in accordance with FAR 52.216-8; are contractors required to submit the proposed fee schedule with the proposal or would the fee schedule be negotiated after the award?

USAID Response: Fee schedule will be negotiated prior to award.

47. RFP Reference: B.6 (a) Page Number: 9 Relevant RFP Language: “rates with their sub awardees that…” Given that this is anticipated to be a CPFF contract, could USAID kindly confirm that the language in section B.6 (a) should be changed from “sub awardee” to “subcontractor”?

USAID Response: This has been revised to subcontractor.

48. Page 56, Section H.11 (d) sets out a 5% increase limit including any promotions for contractor personnel. Does this limitation only apply to 100% dedicated contract personnel?

USAID Response: No. This limitation applies to all staff whether long term or short term staff proposed for this award.

49. RFP Reference: F.6 Page Number: 42-44 Relevant RFP Language: “LOE 100%” Given that this is a completion type contract, would USAID kindly remove the references to “LOE” in section F.6 “Key Personnel”?

USAID Response: USAID had removed LOE (Level of Effort) 100%. Although this has been done, all key personnel are required to provide 100% LOE of their time to this activity given the nature of operating environment.

50. RFP Reference: Part II – Contract Clauses Page Number: 70 Relevant RFP Language: 52.215.10, 52.215.11, 52.215.12 & 52.215.13 Could USAID kindly remove FAR clauses 52.215.10, 52.215.11,

52.215.12 & 52.215.13, given that they are not applicable to this effort?

USAID Response: These clauses have been removed.

51. Page 85, Section K.1 Notice Listing Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference includes FAR 52.237-8 Restriction on Severance Payment to Foreign Nationals in the list of pertinent solicitation provisions. Would USAID consider including FAR Subpart 52.237-9 if local labor law requires severance for CCNs employed for a minimum period of time?

USAID Response: USAID had included FAR Subpart 52.237-9 to Section I.

52. Item 1 on page 103, Section L.6 Submission/Delivery Instructions (d) states, “Each email must be 4MB or less in size”. Would USAID please consider increasing this limit?

USAID Response: No.

53. Section L.6 (d) (page 103) of the RFP mentions that “Each e-mail must be 4MB or less in size” and “Offerors must provide proposals in compatible MS Word and PDF (with Optical Character Recognition)…” Would USAID please confirm that Optical Character Recognition applies only to the technical volume considering that applying it to the cost volume would result in splitting the cost volume across a burdensome number of emails?

USAID Response: Optical Character Recognition applies to both technical and cost proposals within the submission.

54. Item 2 on page 103, Section L.6 Submission/Delivery Instructions (d) states, “Offerors must provide proposals in compatible MS Word and PDF (with Optical Character Recognition) and budgets as text accessible, unlocked Excel spreadsheets.” Cost proposals require documents with signatures along with existing PDF files and image files, resulting in massive file sizes (upwards of 50MB) when converted into MS Word. Would USAID please confirm that offerors must submit only the Technical Proposal and the Budget Narrative of the Cost Proposal in MS Word format, a consolidated Cost Proposal in PDF format, and the Budget in Excel?

USAID Response: Offerors must provide proposals in compatible MS Word and PDF (with Optical Character Recognition) and budgets as text accessible, unlocked Excel spreadsheets.

55. RFP Reference: L.6.d Page Number: 103 Relevant RFP Language: “Offerors must provide proposals in compatible MS Word and PDF (with Optical Character Recognition) and budgets as text accessible, unlocked Excel spreadsheets.” Would USAID consider editing this language to “Offerors must provide proposals in compatible MS Word or PDF (with Optical Character Recognition) and budgets as text accessible, unlocked Excel spreadsheets”?

USAID Response: See response to question 54.

56. Please confirm that all information requested under Factor 3 (Past Performance) is to be submitted as an annex.

USAID Response: Yes. Factor 3 (Past Performance) has both Annex 7 and Annex 8. All Past Performance information must be submitted as Annex 7 to the Technical proposal while a narrative summary of use of small business concerns over the past three (3) years must be submitted as Annex 8 to the cost proposal since it contains cost information.

57. Page 105, Section L.7.1 General Technical Proposal Instructions states that Offerors should submit Small Business Utilization and ESRS as part of Annex 8 to the Technical Proposal. On page 108, Section L.7.2, Factor 3: Past Performance subpoint d. Performance in using Small Business concerns requires the ESRS be included in Annex 8 of the Cost Proposal. Would USAID please confirm that all small business information should be included as part of Annex 8 of the Cost proposal?

USAID Response: See Response to question 56.

58. Can USAID please confirm that all past performance information required under L.7.2.7 should be presented in Annex 7 rather than in the body of the technical proposal (L.7.1.6.i and L.7.2.7)?

USAID Response: See Response to question 56.

59. RFP Reference: L.7.2.7 Page Number: 107 Section L.7.2.7 states that Factor 3: Past Performance does not have a page limit. It provides instruction on what information to include in Annexes 7 and 8, but not what should be included in the main body of the proposal. Is the response to Factor 3 expected to be only in Annex 7 or are we allowed to put an unlimited number of pages in response to this section in the narrative of the Technical Proposal?

USAID Response: See Response to question 56.

60. RFP Reference: L.8, Part 2.4.H, Page Number: 111, Relevant RFP Language: “Offerors included in the competitive range will be required to submit a small business subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR Part 19.” Although a template for the small business subcontracting plan is included with the RFP as Attachment J.10, can USAID please confirm that offerors are not required to submit a small business subcontracting plan at the time of the proposal submission on January 29?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that Offerors included in the competitive range will be required to submit a small business subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR Part 19 and are not required to submit the same at this stage.

61. Section L.7.1 references contracts under Past Performance Information, Section L.7.2 reference both contracts and cooperative agreements, and the PPR template refers to the project as a “contract” and asks us to identify the “contract mechanism”. Please confirm that we can submit both contracts and cooperative agreements as part of our relevant Past Performance Information for Annex 7.

USAID Response: Yes, USAID confirms that both contracts and cooperative agreements of the relevant Past Performance Information in Annex 7. See revised Section L.7.1.6.i. See revised Attachment J.5- Past Performance Information Template.

62. The first bullet point on page 107, under Section L.7.2 Factor 3: Past Performance, requires contractors to “include up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal.” Would USAID please confirm that “contracts” refer to any type of award, including a cooperative agreement instrument?

USAID Response: See response to the question 61.

63. Section L.7.2.6 (page 107) outlines the requirements for Key Personnel Resumes (not to exceed 3 pages each, including three past performance references). To allow Offerors to clearly and concisely demonstrate the professional relationships between proposed candidates and their referees, would USAID consider accepting three references on a single page separate from the resume?

USAID Response: No.

64. With reference to the instructions for Annex 3 (Section L.7.2.6, page 107):

a. The RFP refers to a “Staffing Plan matrix,” but does not elaborate on its desired structure or elements. Can USAID please specify what the staffing plan matrix should include?

USAID Response: Offerors are expected to be creative and submit a staffing plan that represents their best approach for implementing the Statement of Work.

b. In addition to the organizational chart, Annex 3 requires a “second chart” that demonstrates relationships. What is the desired title of this chart?

USAID Response: See revision to Annex 3. In addition to the Organizational Chart that demonstrates reporting lines and relationships between the Offeror and other Offices, there should be a Staffing Plan matrix that shows the timeline for filling all proposed positions, the Level of Effort for each position, and the planned level of Short Term Technical Assistance (STTA) if proposed. All this information must fit within in the six (6) pages allowed.

c. Are Annex 3’s “staffing plan matrix” and the “second chart” one and the same? If not, can USAID please define the desired elements of each?

USAID Response: See response to Part b. above.

65. Please confirm that a Prime Offeror may submit up to five (5) relevant past performance examples for itself and up to five (5) for each major subcontractor (as defined in RFP Section L.7.2.7.a).

USAID Response: Yes

66. Section L.7.2.7.d (page 108) refers to the Past Performance in using Small Business Concerns as Annex 8 to the COST proposal. Please confirm that Offerors should submit this information with the technical volume.

USAID Response: The Past Performance in using Small Business Concerns will be submitted as Annex 8 to the Technical proposal, not Cost Proposal. Please see revision to Section L.7.2.7.d.

67. RFP Reference: L.7.2.7.d.111 Page Number: 108 Relevant RFP Language: “Offerors who are not small business concerns must include the following as Annex 8 to their cost proposal” Could USAID confirm that Annex 8: Small Business Utilization & ESRS should be submitted as part of the technical proposal (and not as part of the cost proposal)?

USAID Response: See response to question 66.

68. In reference to the budget template provided, please confirm that it would be acceptable to remove the columns for “Unit Cost” and “Number of Units” from the summary tab (as these categories are not easily broken down into unit costs and numbers, on a summary basis) and instead include them in the detailed tab.

USAID Response: Yes. See revised Attachment J.7

69. Would USAID please confirm that Attachment J.7 is a guidance document and offerors can use their own budget templates as long as the major cost categories align with the ones provided in Attachment J.7?

USAID Response: In addition to the above response, Offerors may use their template however as long as the major cost categories and costs per year of the activity align with those provided in Attachment J.7

70. Would USAID please consider merging the direct costs and indirect costs line items into a single line item – “total estimated cost” – in the table in B.4? We request this change in keeping with the nature of cost-reimbursable contracts wherein an overall ceiling is put in place that the contractor may not exceed.

USAID Response: No.

71. We respectfully request that USAID confirm that a six-day workweek is authorized for expatriate and TCN consultants traveling to Uganda to provide short-term technical assistance.

USAID Response: A six-day workweek is authorized for expatriate and TCN consultants traveling to Uganda to provide short-term technical assistance.

72. Page 110, Section L.8 Cost Proposal Instructions, Sub-Section (5) (A) states, “Biographical Data Sheets are required for all long term, short term expatriates and for all short term and long-term cooperating country personnel being proposed.” Given the high number of personnel positions required for a project of this size and scope, would USAID please require the offerors to submit biographical data sheets only for personnel named in the budget?

USAID Response: Yes, Biographical Data Sheets must be submitted for all staff named in the budget.

73. In Section L.8 (page 110) of the RFP indicates that Biographical Data sheets are required for all long-term and short-term expats and CCNs. Can USAID confirm if this includes administrative personnel defined as non-professional personnel not requiring CO approval per RFP section F.7?

USAID Response: For purposes of preparation of the proposal, Section L.8 apply therefore all staff named in the budget at this stage requires Biographical Data sheets. During implementation of the contract Section F.7 will apply and administrative personnel defined as non-professional personnel will not require CO approval.

74. RFP Reference: L.8.4.I Page Number: 111 Relevant RFP Language: “Offeror must provide information sufficient to determine reasonableness of costs proposed for each grantee. Detailed information documenting basis for proposed costs (including Indirect Costs) must be provided in the budget narrative.

This section is exclusively for the cost of the grant and must not include costs related to management or oversight of the grant. Offerors must include a Plug-in figure of $3,500,000 for Grants under Contracts as part of their Total Estimated Cost.” Providing detailed information documenting basis for proposed costs (including indirect costs) means that offerors will have to plan out grants for the entire 5-year period of performance at the time of the proposal. Could USAID confirm that this level of cost detail is not required at the proposal stage, and remove the requirement for detailed grant information from the RFP?

USAID Response: Offerors are required to plan for GUCs worth $3,500,000. In the event an Offeror has sufficient detail for any of the planned grants, then detailed information documenting the basis for proposed costs (including Indirect Costs) must be provided in the budget narrative for the grant details.

75. RFP Reference: L.8.1, Part 4 Page Number: 113 Relevant RFP Language: “Upon request of the Contracting Officer, the Offeror will submit policies and procedures, especially regarding salary scales, fringe benefits, merit increases, promotions, leave, differentials, travel, procurement and per diem, etc., as they relate to this project and the CO may determine that a pre award survey is necessary (see FAR 9.106).”

Question a: Can USAID please confirm these policies are not required to be submitted with the cost volume at proposal submission?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that these policies will be submitted upon request from the Contracting Officer.

Question b: Can USAID confirm these policies are only required for the Prime contractor?

USAID Response: Yes

76. RFP Reference: L.8.1, Part 6 Page Number: 113 Relevant RFP Language: “The Offeror must submit sufficient evidence of responsibility for the Contracting Officer to make an affirmative determination of responsibility pursuant to the requirements of FAR Subsection 9.104-1.” Could USAID please confirm that Evidence of Responsibility is not required for subcontractors?

USAID Response: In accordance with FAR 9.104-4 generally, prospective prime contractors are responsible for determining the responsibility of their prospective subcontractors. Should determinations of prospective subcontractor responsibility affect the Government’s determination of the prospective prime contractor’s responsibility, a prospective contractor may be required to provide written evidence of a proposed subcontractor’s responsibility.

77. Regarding Section M.3(c) (pages 118–119): Could USAID please confirm that Offerors may propose indirect cost rate ceilings based on the guidance in the Best Practices Guide for Indirect Costing, within which USAID indicates that ceiling indirect cost rates should be “realistic and equitable”? Considering the five-year period of performance of this project, may Offerors have the flexibility to propose ceiling rates that are realistic and reasonable, rather than capped at two points or 10%?

USAID Response: USAID had removed this language. See revised Section M.3. Offerors may propose indirect cost rate ceilings based on the guidance in the Best Practices Guide for Indirect Costing, within which USAID indicates that ceiling indirect cost rates should be “realistic and equitable”.

78. Section M.3(c) (pp 118-119) of the RFP states "The successful offeror will also negotiate ceiling indirect costs rates with their sub awardees that do not exceed two points per indirect cost rate category or 10% total per category of their respective indirect costs rates in NICRA at time of award. This is an illustrative example." From the last sentence, it is not clear whether these limits on indirect rate ceilings proposed (two percentage points or ten percent of each indirect cost rate category) is a firm requirement.

Can USAID please clarify if there are preset limits on how offerors and sub awardees may calculate their ceiling indirect rates?

USAID Response: See response to question 77.

79. RFP Reference: B.6.a Page Number: 9 Relevant RFP Language: “The Contractor shall not receive indirect costs that exceed TBD. The Contractor shall also negotiate ceiling indirect costs rates with their sub awardees that do not exceed TBD of their respective indirect costs rates in NICRA at time of award.”

RFP Reference: M.3 Page Number: 118-119 Relevant RFP Language: “indirect rates ceilings proposed i.e.

the successful offeror will not receive indirect costs that exceed two points per indirect cost rate category or 10% total per category. The successful offeror will also negotiate ceiling indirect costs rates with their sub awardees that do not exceed two points per indirect cost rate category or 10% total per category of their respective indirect costs rates in NICRA at time of award. This is an illustrative example.”

Question: Under Sections B.6 and M.3, the RFP references capping indirect rates for the prime and their subcontractors. Could USAID please remove this language, so that offerors and their subcontractors can apply their indirect rates in accordance with their NICRAs as rates may change and adjust over time?

USAID Response: See response to question 77.

80. Regarding Section M.3(c) (pages 118–119): Could USAID please confirm which partners (sub-awardees) are required to propose indirect cost ceiling rates? For instance, would this be limited to partners with a NICRA and not pertain to most U.S. small businesses and local organizations?

USAID Response: See response to question 77. In the event an organization does not have a NICRA please refer to (J)(ii) on how to proceed.

81. Can USAID please confirm that offerors are not expected to submit draft branding and marking plans with their proposals at this stage (Section L.9)?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that offerors are not expected to submit draft branding and marking plans with their proposals at this stage.

82. Page 115, Section L.9 Outlines the Instructions for the preparation of the Branding and Marking Plan.

Will USAID please clarify if this is intended as an Annex to the Cost Proposal?

USAID Response: The Offeror, must submit and negotiate a Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) and a Marking Plan (MP) if selected for competitive range as an annex to the cost proposal.

83. Considering VAT is recovered directly by USAID without subsequent credit to the contract, will USAID confirm that our budget shall include all prices inclusive of VAT at 18%?

USAID Response: Yes, all budgets should be VAT inclusive. The VAT must not be a separate line item, but rather rolled into the unit cost.

[End]