Attachment J-19 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (2) RBA - Amendment 1.pdf

(x)

72061721R00001 x x copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR

OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted , such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

x

N/A

Not Applicable

720617

00000 USAID/Uganda

01/12/20210001

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended , by one of the following methods: (a) By completing

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

01/12/2021

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The purpose of this first amendment to solicitation no. 72061721R00001 is to:

1) Post a revised solicitation (See separate attachments to this post)

2) Respond to questions asked by potential offerors. All answers refer to the revised solicitation Amendment 01.

3) Extend the submission deadline to 04/06/2020

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

Brian Aaron

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Previous edition unusable

Continued ...

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

ATTACHMENT J.19 – QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

USAID is pleased to provide the following answers/responses to questions that were submitted by industry/prospective offerors. All questions and points of clarification received by the due date and time were considered for inclusion in the Question and Answer table below. Please note that: the questions and answers have been aligned with the solicitation format (Sections) for ease of reference.

Additionally, all the deletion in the solicitation are represented by a strikethrough while all additional updates are highlighted in yellow.

GENERAL QUESTIONS

1) Will USAID consider issuing an immediate two-week extension of the Proposal due date from March 19, 2021 to April 2, 2021? We request this extension because of the size and scope of this proposal and resource limitations due to the ongoing pandemic. It would be helpful if USAID/Uganda would consider issuing a modification answering this specific extension request before the release of the other questions so that Offerors know exactly how much time they will have to prepare their proposals.

USAID Response: The RFP submission deadline has been extended to April 06, 2021;

16:00hours Kampala Time. See revised cover page of RFP.

2) Would USAID consider extending the due date of proposals by two weeks?

USAID Response: See response to question 1 above.

3) The cover page of the RFP states that the total estimated cost of the contract is anticipated to range from $15,000,000 to $19,000,000. However, Section 2 of Attachment J-1 notes that “the Activity budget will include $19.3 million of FTF funds and a buy-in of $200,000 from the Office of Health and HIV (OHH)”. Would USAID confirm the anticipated range of the contract?

USAID Response: USAID has revised the anticipated range of the total estimated cost of the contract to “from $15,000,000 to $19,500,000”. See revisions to the cover page of the amended RFP.

4) Cover Page and Attachment J-1 SOO—Section 2: The cover page and Attachment J-1 to the RFP says the contract will be between $15-19 million. The SOO on p. 2 indicates a total project budget of $19.5 million ($19.3 of FTF funds + $200,000 of OHH funds).

Can USAID clarify the budget for this Activity?

USAID Response: See response to question 3 above.

5) Page 15 indicates that Uganda SIA is anticipated to begin at any time prior to September 30, 2022. Can you please confirm that the Activity is anticipated to begin prior to September 30, 2021?

USAID Response: Page 15 does not indicate any start date. This activity is anticipated to start on or about November 30, 2021.

6) Would USAID please provide offerors an exchange rate?

USAID Response: USAID will not provide Offerors with exchange rates. Offerors should determine and document their exchange rates.

7) Has USAID identified candidate transactions/investments as part of the design of this

Activity and could a list of a preliminary transaction pipeline be shared?

USAID Response: No.

8) Could USAID provide a list of the Uganda transactions that were still in the pipeline under the East Africa Trade and Investment Hub at its close and have yet not reached financial close?

USAID Response: No. The offeror is expected to use their knowledge of the market and networks to develop a pipeline of transactions.

9) Could USAID share the latest 2 quarterly reports and latest annual report of the IAM

Activity?

USAID Response: USAID cannot share the latest 2 quarterly reports. The latest annual report of IAM Activity is attached to the RFP as J-17.

10) Could USAID share the report from the USAID-funded Feed the Future Inclusive

Agriculture Markets Activity (IAM) Market Systems Assessments and Validation Workshop delivered January 30, 2020?

USAID Response: This report has been attached to the RFP as Attachment J-18, IAM MSA Final Report FINAL.

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES

11) 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. USAID will not change the Cost Line Item in section B.4

12) Section B.4 indicates that up to $1,500,000 is exclusively reserved for GUC. Section L.7

(Part 2.4.h), however, states that the “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.” Given that USAID will be involved in grantee selection during implementation, can USAID confirm that Offerors should include a single line item for GUC at this stage versus identifying specific grantees?

USAID Response: Yes. Offerors can include a single line item for GUCs up to $1,5000,000. In the event a grantee has been identified by the offeror at the pre-award stage, detailed budgets for the same must be submitted.

SECTION C- STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES (ATTACHMENT J.1)

13) Attachment J-1 SOO: (General): Objective 1: While supporting projects must attract and obtain commercial financing, can offerors count other forms of financing, such as blended financing or public-private partnerships (PPPs), towards the $100 M target?

USAID Response: Yes. All sources of finance can be counted towards the target.

14) Attachment J-1 SOO: (General): Could USAID provide additional information regarding its intent for Objective 2. Does Objective 2 seek to improve policies, laws, and regulations strictly related to commercial investment (e.g., the Investment Code Act) or does Objective 2 envision supporting other policies/laws/regulations that if improved would unlock or reduce barriers to investment in agriculture (e.g., agriculture inputs, trade/exports/imports, insurance)

USAID Response: Both. It also depends on the Offeror's preferred approach in the PWS.

15) Attachment J-1 SOO: (General): Could USAID clarify the role of SIA versus other USAID-funded Activities in Objective 2? For example, the SOO states on p. 10 “(ISS) focuses on interventions that build the capacity and systems of investment-related ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs) . . . . ” MDAs are responsible for issuing plans, policies, and regulations across the GOU that affect agriculture and financing. The SOO also states IAM also will work with the GOU. How should offerors determine if proposed interventions are within the scope/objectives of SIA or within those of

ISS/IAM?

USAID Response: The Activity will support investees from other USAID/Uganda activities like IAM and ISS by supporting their investment and commercial needs. Such interventions should be finalized through a collaboration between SIA and other USAID/Uganda activities.

16) Does USAID/Uganda have a preferred format/template for the Performance Work

Statement (PWS)? The RFP references two bullets on Page 120 that provides some instruction on Factor 1. Should Offerors follow this format for each proposed intervention? By example, if an Offeror is proposing an intervention under Objective 1, should the Offeror 1) describe the intervention; 2) explain how it will be sequenced, monitored, measured, documented, and reported; 3) describe and include at least two indicators and semiannual targets for each intervention; ) describe the methodology that will be utilized to evaluate the intervention/engagement and how it can determine what development objectives are being achieved if the investment were to be facilitated? Put another way, should each intervention follow this multi-part guideline? If so, would USAID/Uganda prefer a bullet point format for the PWS where each intervention is explained in this multi-part guideline? Or, does USAID/Uganda prefer a narrative format?

USAID Response: As mentioned in the RFP Section L.6.1 (a), the PWS must address the requirements of the RFP. Offerors are encouraged to propose a PWS that follows the format of the SOO.

17) Should the Performance Work Statement (PWS) be written in the third-person (i.e., “the Contractor will…”), or can it reference the Offeror by name?

USAID Response: The PWS should be written in third person format (i.e., “the Contractor will…”).

18) In the SOO on Page 2, USAID/Uganda states, “The Activity budget will include $19.3 million of FTF funds and a buy-in of $200,000 from the Office of Health and HIV

(OHH).”

a) Will USAID/Uganda require grants under the health component?

USAID Response: It will depend on the Offeror’s proposed approach in the PWS.

b) Does USAID intend for the buy-in of $200,000 to be allocated for level of effort or grants?

USAID Response: See response to question 18(a) above.

c) Should this amount be budgeted now?

USAID Response: Yes.

d) Or, will this be an optional buy-in that will be added to the Activity later?

USAID Response: This is not optional. $200,000 is dedicated to health and is part of the total expected cost of the activity.

19) Page 10 of the SOO states: “In partnership with the Ministry of Health, USAID/Uganda is currently engaged in an assessment of health facilities across Uganda to determine off-grid energy needs and the status of internet network connectivity to support continuous service delivery. The findings and recommendations will be leveraged by the Activity (with $200,000 of USAID/Uganda Health funding) to complement other USAID and stakeholder investments to address the most immediate recommendations from this assessment.” Has this Assessment been finalized? If so, would USAID please provide this to offerors?

USAID Response: No. The assessment report is under review by the Ministry of Health and cannot be provided to Offerors.

20) On page 11 of the SOO, Objective 1 is “Increased commercial financing in agriculture and related sectors”; Objective 2 is “Improved policies, laws, and regulations regarding commercial investments”; and Objective 3 is “Increased productive use of energy in the agriculture and health sectors”. However, on page 13 of the SOO, Objective 1 is “Increased commercial financing in agriculture and related industries”; Objective 2 is “Improved policy, legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks regarding commercial investments”; and Objective 3 is “Increased Productive use of Energy in the agriculture-related sectors”.

a) Would USAID please clarify which language offerors should utilize for each of the three objectives?

USAID Response: The language below as revised in the SOO on pages 11 and 13 should be utilized.

The Activity’s objectives are:

1. Increased commercial financing in agriculture and related sectors.

2. Improved policies, laws, and regulations regarding commercial investments.

3. Increased productive use of energy in the agriculture and related sectors.

b) Most importantly, would USAID please clarify if interventions related to health should be addressed under Objective 3?

USAID Response: Health interventions should be under all Objectives to the extent possible and depends on the Offerors PWS.

21) On Page 17 of the SOO under Section 5.3.a “Pay-for-Results” USAID/Uganda suggests that the Activity will use a pay-for-results framework.

a) First, should Offerors include language in their Technical Volumes about pay-for-results?

USAID Response: After careful consideration, the RFP no longer requires Offerors to use the Pay-for-Results framework. However, Offerors are encouraged to utilize the framework, if possible. This section has been amended since, thank you for pointing that out.

b) And if so, how should Offerors avoid referencing their Cost Volumes since the pay-for-results framework would imply some discussion of financial incentives?

USAID Response: Please see the response to question 21(a) above.

c) Similarly, can Offerors use the illustrative table on Page 129 of the RFP as a guide for the pay-for-results framework? By example, should Offerors tie commercial mobilization of capital to fixed fee payment?

USAID Response: Please see the response to question 21(a) above.

22) On page 18 of the SOO, under Section 5.5. Anticipated funding for this Activity, “Family

Planning” is listed under the Health Program Area. Would USAID please clarify if all funding for Health-related interventions under this Activity are for family planning services?

USAID Response: The Health investments are aimed at catalyzing the private sector players to develop workable telemedicine solutions that will improve access to and utilization of family planning services in Uganda.

23) Attachment J-1 SOO: Section 4.2: Grants Under Contract: The SOO states that

“targeted recipients of the grants program will be private sector, non-governmental organizations.” Can USAID clarify if private sector for-profit organizations can receive grant funding?

USAID Response: Yes. Non-governmental organizations include private sector for-profit organizations.

24) Attachment J-1 requires that the grants manual be submitted 30 days after award, but

Section F.5 of the RFP (page 18) states the grants manual is due 60 days after award.

Given that our work plan will feed into the grants manual’s development, can USAID confirm that the grants manual will be due in line with the reporting and deliverable requirements detailed in Section F.5?

USAID Response: Attachment J-1 has been revised to require that the grants manual be submitted 60 days after award. See revisions to the Attachment. J-1 Section 4.2

SECTION F- DELIVERIES OR PERFRMANCE

25) Section F.2: The RFP states “the period of performance for this contract is from TBD to

September 30, 2022 . . . . “ Could USAID confirm this is a 5 year Activity and the POP spans 5 years?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that this is a five-year activity. As stated in section F.2 in the note to Offerors, “the period of performance for this contract is from TBD to September 30, 2022..”

will be added to the award if it is based on the Foreign Assistance waiver. If the apparently successful offeror does not require a waiver, this additional language will be deleted from the award document.

26) Section F.4(2): The RFP states that “The AWP must incorporate the Contractor’s annual gender and youth action plan informed by the Gender, Youth, & Social Inclusion Analysis”. However, the link does not work:

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/Gender_Social_Inclusion._Final _Repo rt_08.23.17.pdf.

Could USAID provide the report?

USAID Response: The correct link does not have a full stop at the end. See https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/Gender_Social_Inclusion._Final_Repo rt_08.23.17.pdf

27) Under Section F.4(5)(d) Minimum Activity Indicators and Targets, on page 15 of the RFP, the “Target over Life of Activity” for the “Number of individuals participating in USG food security programs” is 100,000. However, in the Statement of Objectives (SOO) under 4.1 Results, the Goal Level Target states “100,000 vulnerable and/or marginalized people have improved livelihoods as a result of the Activity”. Would USAID please provide clarification on whether the beneficiaries target is 100,000 individuals participating in food security programs, or if the target is that 100,000 vulnerable and/or marginalized people have improved livelihoods?

USAID Response: The target is 100,000 individuals participating in USG food security programs, but this is inclusive of any vulnerable and/or marginalized people that Offerors may identify in their PWS. The language has since been corrected in the SOO, under Section 4.1. Please refer to the amendment

28) Section F.5: We note that a QASP is not a year 1 deliverable. Could USAID clarify when the QASP is due in Year 1?

USAID Response: As stated in Section L.6.1 (b) Annex 6, “...The purpose of the draft-QASP submitted with the Proposal is to inform the development of USAID’s plan, thereby ensuring that the Government’s plan aligns with the Offeror’s internal monitoring system to ensure timely and quality products and services.” Therefore, the QASP is not a deliverable in Year 1 as it will be finalized by the Government.

29) Section F.5: Could USAID clarify the meaning of “ESMF” in the “Annual Work Plan and

ESMF” row?

USAID Response: An ESMF is a project plan that describes how environmental and Social aspects are to be integrated into the planning, design and implementation of projects. It lays out how the project shall prevent, minimize, mitigate or compensate for adverse environmental impacts, while enhancing positive impacts throughout project implementation.

30) Section F.5 Delivery Schedule for Reports and Performance Objective for Outputs (pgs.

18-21): Per this section, the final AMELP isn’t due until 60 calendar days after the start of the award. Offerors are asked under Section L.6 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Report (119) to include a draft AMELP as Annex 1 and a draft QASP as Annex

USAID Response: USAID does not understand this question.

31) Section F.7 (page 22) notes that “All Key Personnel must be fully dedicated to the contract (100% LOE) and must be employed by the prime contractor.” To ensure that the Activity is staffed by the best personnel possible for each component, would USAID consider revising this clause so key personnel may be staffed by major subcontractors?

USAID Response: Given the complexity nature of this procurement, this solicitation has been revised to allow primes the flexibility to propose key personnel under major subcontractors.

However, USAID highly encourages Key Personnel positions to be proposed under the prime.

32) Page 22 Section F.7 Key Personnel states: “All Key Personnel must be fully dedicated to the contract (100% LOE) and must be employed by the prime contractor.” Would USAID please consider allowing for subcontractors to employ proposed key personnel?

USAID Response: See response to question 31 above.

33) Section F.7: The RFP states “All Key Personnel . . . must be employed by the prime contractor”. Would USAID be willing to allow some Key Personnel to come from subcontractors who are deemed to be “major subcontractors” as per Section L.6.1(c) of the RFP?

USAID Response: See response to question 31 above.

34) Section F.7 of the RFP (Page 22) states that “All Key Personnel must be fully dedicated to the contract (100% LOE) and must be employed by the prime contractor.” Would USAID/Uganda please consider eliminating the requirement that all key personnel must be employed by the prime contractor? Typically, a Major Subcontractor would be able to employ a key personnel position.

USAID Response: See response to question 31 above.

35) Would USAID please consider removing or adjusting the language in the bullet under F.8 (page 25) which requires CO salary approval for all long-term and short-term Ugandan and expatriate salaries? This requirement seems to conflict with H.10 and H.11 (pages 40-41) which states that direct compensation should be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies and only requires CO approval of salaries if they exceed the current CST.

USAID Response: No, USAID does not see any contradiction. USAID’s approvals would ensure that proposed salaries are within the contractor’s approved policies and market rates.

SECTION H- SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

36) Section H.6 of the RFP (page 37) indicates all grants issued under the contract must be to local non-governmental organizations. However, ADS 302.3.4.13 has changed to allow contractors to execute solely in-kind grants to government entities. Would USAID confirm whether solely in-kind grants to government entities will be allowed under this contract?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that solely in-kind grants to government entities will not be allowed under this contract.

37) To allow for flexibility in the last year of programming while providing time to close out the last remaining grants, would USAID consider changing the language in Section H.6, bullet 9 to say “All grants must be completed one month prior to the end of the contract”?

USAID Response: No. Offerors should plan to start their grants early to have sufficient time for closeout.

38) Section H.13(d) (page 41) states: “One annual salary increase (includes promotional increase) of not more than five (5) percent may be granted according to the Contractor’s established policy and practice.” We respectfully request that USAID remove the restriction on salary increases from the RFP. This restriction appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007, Personnel Compensation, which is incorporated into the contract under Section H.10. Section H.10 (page 40) stipulates: “Direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel shall 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; in this respect, the limitation conflicts with AIDAR 752.7007.

USAID Response: This section will remain unchanged. IAW Section H.11 (d) “Annual salary increases of any kind exceeding these limitations or exceeding the maximum salary in Section H.10 may be granted only with the advance written approval of the Contracting Officer.” Therefore, salary increase requests above these thresholds will require approval from the Contracting Officer.

SECTION J- ATTACHMENTS

39) Section J of the RFP lists attachment J-5 as Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, however, it is not called for in Section L. Can USAID please confirm whether you would like us to attach attachment J-5 for the offeror as an annex to the cost volume?

USAID Response: Yes. See revised instructions under section L.7 Part 3 Annex to the cost proposal.

40) Would USAID please confirm that Attachment J.5. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities should be included as part of Cost Proposal?

USAID Response: See response to question 39 above.

41) Attachment J-16: Matrix of existing analyses—the following link does not work. Could

USAID provide the report?

Analysis / Report Year Link USAID Uganda, Agricultural Market Systems Workshop report

2017 https://agrilinks.org/post/ new-approaches-measuring-market-dynamics-uganda

USAID Response: See revised link below;

https://www.agrilinks.org/blog/new-approaches-measuring-market-dynamics-uganda

SECTION L-INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

42) Would USAID consider raising the size limitation for each email to 8 MB?

USAID Response: No

43) Given the e-mail submission size limitation of 4MB, may bidders submit offers in either

MS Word (Word 2010 compatible) or PDF with Optical Character Recognition, as opposed to both as ascribed on page 119?

USAID Response: See response to question 42 above.

44) Are there any page limitations for the Draft AMELP and Draft First Year Annual Work

Plan referenced on page 120 of the RFP?

USAID Response: The page limitation for the draft AMELP and First Year Annual Work Plan has been updated. Please refer to Section L.6.1 (a) of Amendment .

https://www.agrilinks.org/blog/new-approaches-measuring-market-dynamics-uganda

45) Page 121 indicates that Annex 5: Key Personnel Letters of Commitment are ‘not to exceed 1 page’. Would USAID confirm that this means 1 page per Letter of Commitment?

USAID Response: Confirmed. Language on page 112 has been updated to reflect this. Please refer to section L.6.1(b) Annex 5 of Amendment 1

46) Page 118, L.5(c): May offerors use an alternative font and size for textboxes?

47) Section L.5(d)1. of the RFP (page 118) indicates a 4MB attachment limit for each email containing proposal offers. A compiled cost or technical proposal is likely to significantly exceed this limit, thereby requiring the proposal to be split into a cumbersome number of parts. Additionally, it may not be possible to split or reduce certain files (such as spreadsheets) to be smaller than 4 MB. As a result, to aid in reading and compiling the proposals, would USAID consider allowing the maximum capacity for email transmission or increasing the 4 MB limit?

48) L.5(d)2. of the RFP (page 118) states, “Offerors must provide proposals in compatible

MS Word (and PDF with Optical Character Recognition) and budgets as text accessible, Unlocked Excel spreadsheets.” Can USAID please confirm whether the cost volume may be submitted in PDF only and the budgets in unlocked Excel spreadsheets?

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

49) Page 120, L.6.1(a): Would USAID please confirm if there is a page limit for the draft

AMELP (Annex 1)?

USAID Response: See response to question 44.

50) Page 121, L.6.a(b): Please confirm that key personnel letters of commitment are not to exceed one page each.

USAID Response: See response to question 45.

51) Section L.6.1(a) Factor 1 – Performance Work Statement (pg. 120): USAID asks offerors to submit a Draft First Year Annual Work plan that “must outline the Offeror’s proposed technical approaches, by objective, and the illustrative timing of the implementation.” Is it USAID’s expectation that offerors submit a GANTT chart or similar graphic to demonstrate sequencing of tasks or, in addition, must offerors provide a brief description of activities that will be carried out in year one?

USAID Response: Please refer to the solicitation, Section L.6.1(a) which indicates that the work plan must outline the Offeror’s proposed technical approaches, by objective, and the illustrative timing of the implementation. The presentation of the Offeror’s work plan depends on their proposed PWS.

52) Section L.6.1(a) Factor 1 – Performance Work Statement (pg. 120) USAID states, “Describe the methodology that will be utilized to evaluate engagements and how it can determine what development objective/s (indicator/s if relevant) is/are being addressed/achieved if the investment were to be facilitated by this Activity.” Could USAID verify that by “engagements” it means “interventions”?

USAID Response: No. Engagements does not mean interventions. An intervention is the action that is taken to address a specific investment challenge. An engagement could include more than one intervention for multiple investors and investees.

53) Can USAID please clarify the difference between “the methodology that will be utilized to evaluate engagements” described in the second bullet of section L.6.I(a) on Page 120 and the draft AMELP described just below this bullet?

USAID Response: The PWS should articulate the methodology that will be utilized to evaluate engagements while the draft AMELP 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). The engagements are not indicators but will determine the process of mobilizing investments which will enable the Offeror determine the required indicators.

54) The RFP’s Section L.6.1(a) Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal

(pg. 119) asks that the Draft AMELP in Annex 1 contain the following: “The overall set of indicators must include the indicators listed in Attachment J-1 with appropriate targets upon the Offeror’s analysis”. Attachment J.1 (the SOO), Section 4.1 (pg. 12), provides three “Other Indicators” to measure the Activity’s Goal, one of which is “Percentage increase in annual sales of producers and firms receiving USG assistance (disaggregated by sex, age, and marginalized group where possible).” The RFP’s Section F.4.5 (d): Minimum Activity Indicators and Targets (pg. 14), states “Below are the minimum activity indicators and targets that will be tracked and reported on in addition to the ones listed in the AMELP.” One of the three indicators mentioned on p. 15 is the same indicator mention in the SOO but the other two are not. In Annex 1, can USAID clarify if offerors should include both sets of indicators outlined in Section F.4.5 of the RFP and Section 4.1 of the SOO to measure the Activity’s goal?

USAID Response: Section F.4.5.d of the RFP highlights the minimum indicators that must be reported on. The Offeror should refer to the Feed the Future Indicator handbook for more indicators that can be progressively reported on in pursuit of the Activity’s objectives. See changes to SOO Section 4.1 that shows another illustrative indicator. Since the additional indicator is illustrative as per the revision, it is up to the Offeror to include it.

55) Section L.6.1(b) Factor 2 – Management Approach (pg. 121): USAID states that “The

Offeror must propose not more than five key personnel who have necessary qualifications and professional experience required to implement the proposed technical approach. The Offeror must describe roles and responsibilities for each key personnel position proposed including their minimum qualifications and work experience.” The same section under the instructions for Annex 4 states the same or very similar requirement “The Offeror must include Qualifications (position description, roles and responsibilities and minimum skill sets) for each proposed Key Personnel (not to exceed two pages per position) which will form the basis for future Key Personnel replacements.” Can USAID clarify if offerors should provide the same information in both the management approach and Annex 4, or can USAID provide further clarification and differentiation regarding the information required in these two sections?

USAID Response: This was an oversight. The RFP has been updated to remove the language from Factor 2 of Management Approach.

56) Section L.6.1(b) on page 122 of the RFP states that Attachment J-15 Quality Assurance

Surveillance Plan (QASP) template “informs the development of the draft QASP.”

However, attachment J-15 is a template with instructions for completion. Is this template mandatory to use, or should the guidance provided in it be used for developing the QASP in a separate document?

USAID Response: Attachment J-15 assists/provides guidance with creating a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP).

57) Section L.6.1(b) Annex 6, pg. 121: Draft Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan: The template provided as attachment J-15 states on p. 4: “If the requirement includes a statement of objectives (SOO), the QASP will be developed after contract award.” Can USAID clarify if a draft QASP needs to be submitted, and if so, how offerors should complete the QASP template given the guidance provided therein?

USAID Response: See response to question 56 above.

58) Instructions for the QASP (pg. 122) state “The QASP directly corresponds to the performance objectives and standards (i.e., quality, quantity, timeliness) specified in the AMELP…”. While the AMELP is a performance standard in Section F.5, the QASP is not mentioned. Should offerors assume that the final QASP in Year 1 follows the same delivery schedule as the AMELP or alternatively is it included in the first annual work plan, which has the same delivery schedule as the AMELP?

USAID Response: As stated in Section L.6.1 (b) Annex 6, “...The purpose of the draft-QASP submitted with the Proposal is to inform the development of USAID’s plan, thereby ensuring that the Government’s plan aligns with the Offeror’s internal monitoring system to ensure timely and quality products and services.” Therefore, the QASP is not a deliverable in Year 1 as it will be finalized by the Government.

59) Regarding page 122, Section L.6.1(c) Factor 3: Past Performance, would USAID please confirm that no narrative regarding past performance is expected as part of the technical content section, but rather, all past performance information should only to be provided within Annex 7?

USAID Response: All past performance information should be provided in accordance with Annex 7. However, USAID expects offerors to make a determination of what past performance experience is appropriate in its technical context response as long as it is within the page limit.

60) Should Factor 3 – Past Performance be included as a section within the 35-page technical narrative? Or will this Factor be evaluated solely based on the Past Performance information in Annex L?

USAID Response: See response to question 59 above.

61) Page 122, L.6.1(c)(a)(1): The RFP references “the Past Performance Matrix in

Attachment J-6” However, Attachment J-6 is not the standard USAID Past Performance Matrix. Please confirm that the offeror should complete the form included as Attachment J-6 for each of its past performance references.

USAID Response: This section has been updated to reference the correct attachment.

Additionally, the Past performance matrix has been included as part of an attachment.

62) The RFP has an incomplete sentence in section L.6.1(c) (a) as follows:

a) Would USAID please complete this instruction?

USAID Response: This was an administrative oversight. The RFP has been updated to provide the complete instruction.

b) Further, is USAID in this instruction asking Offerors to obtain a reference from each named Contracting Officer utilizing Attachment J-6? The instructions had specified that J-6 was to be completed by the Offeror and did not indicate that Offerors should be obtaining references for projects that do not have a CPAR.

USAID Response: For contracts where Offerors are unable to provide reference checks then Offerors must provide the information asked in Column “N” of the Past Performance Matrix.

63) Page 123, L.6.1(c)(a)(1)(iii) states: “For all contracts where the offeror is unable to obtain a reference utilizing Attachment J-6, please ensure the Past Performance Matrix,”.

Please provide the information that is missing at the end of this sentence.

USAID Response: See response to question #62a above.

a. In Section L.6.1(c)(d)(3)(B) Factor 3: Past Performance (page 123), offerors are instructed to “Provide a list of the recent contracts no more than 3, within the past five years for which you submitted subcontract reports to eSRS (FAR 52.219- 9(d)(10) and a copy of any similarly recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS.” In addition to our subcontract reports submitted through the eSRS, our hardcopy subcontracting reports (SF-294s) for the past five years total 129 pages and comprise 1.98 MB. Instead of submitting that large volume of material, may we submit — along with the requested list of three contracts with subcontract reports submitted to eSRS — a copy of 10 SF-294 forms that are not duplicated on the eSRS?

USAID Response: It’s not clear what is meant by “hardcopy subcontracting reports” However, the instruction is for Offerors to provide 3 of its most recent contracts that have been submitted to eSRS within the past five years. For subcontracting reports that haven’t been submitted to eSRS, Offerors must also provide a copy of the reports.

64) Section L.6.1(c) Factor 3, p. 122: The RFP states “The offeror must list up to three (3) for itself and up to an additional (3) for each major subcontractor relevant awards of 3 years”. Could USAID clarify what is meant by “relevant awards of 3 years”?

USAID Response: As mentioned in section Section L.6.1(c)(1), the most relevant indicators of performance are contracts of similar scope, size (dollar value) and/or complexity. USAID has revised this to read “..relevant awards over the past 3 years”.

65) Section L.6.1(c) Factor 3: Could USAID clarify if projects implemented under subcontracts can be submitted as past performance?

USAID Response: Projects implemented under major subcontracts can be submitted as past performance information if relevant.

66) The PPR template requires bidders to classify PPRs as either difficult or routine. Could you please provide guidance regarding the definitions of these terms?

USAID Response: Complexity of Work addresses the contractor effort and the overall technical risk associated with accomplishing the effort.

67) Section L.7 (page 124) asks offerors to “provide information sufficient to determine reasonableness of costs proposed for each grantee.” As the successful offeror will submit a grants manual within 60 days of award which details the process for identifying, evaluating, vetting, awarding, and monitoring grant activities, can USAID confirm that a plug figure may be included in the proposal submission, since the grantee selection process will be initiated after award and in coordination with USAID?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that Offerors can include plug figures.

68) Section L.7: Are budget narratives required for major subcontractors?

USAID Response: Offerors are expected to provide a detailed budget narrative to allow for complete analysis of cost. See changes in the RFP section L.7 Part 2 .3. Budget narrative

69) Section L.7 (Part 4) states that “Upon request of the Contracting Officer, the Offeror will submit policies and procedures...” Can USAID clarify whether Offerors should submit policies and procedures as part of the cost volume?

USAID Response: These policies and procedures submission will be upon request of the Contracting Officer.

70) On Page 129 of the RFP, USAID/Uganda presents an illustrative table which will be filled in at the time of award. Should Offerors assume that they do not have to include a fixed fee table in their Cost Volumes? If not, should Offerors simply use a fee percentage in their budgets?

USAID Response: The Offeror should submit the Fee schedule as part of the cost proposal. See changes to the RFP section L.7 Part 2.4.j.

71) Please confirm that Section L.7.4 (j) Fixed Fee (pg. 128) should immediately follow

Section L.7.4(i) Indirect Costs (pg. 126), before the section titled “Exemptions for FSmall Business Offerors Only” (pg. 127), to help clarify that large business offerors must provide this information in their cost proposals of which small business partners are exempted.

USAID Response: This Fixed Fee information as required in Section L.7.4.j should be provided by the Prime in its budget narrative.

SECTION M- EVALUATION FACTOR

72) Section M.3.1(a), pg. 135: The RFP states, “USAID will also evaluate how the proposed methodology intends to marshal specific effort to Agriculture, Productive Use of Electricity and Health.” Could USAID clarify the meaning of the sentence above?

USAID Response: This speaks to how the offeror will arrange and direct specific effort to Agriculture, Productive Use of Electricity and Health.

16C DATE SIGNED: