Attachment_1_-_STATE2STATE_QUESTIONS_AND_ANSWERS.pdf

Solicitation Number: 72062018R00004 State Accountability, Transparency and Effectiveness

(State2State) Activity

STATE2STATE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

A. GENERAL

1. The cover letter indicates that proposals are due on January 8, 2019 at 4:00 p.m. D.C.

time, which would be after the embassy is closed at local Nigeria time. Please confirm that only electronic submissions via email are due by the January 8, 2019, 4:00 p.m., D.C.

time deadline.

USAID Response: Both hard copy and electronic submission of proposals is required. Closing date has been extended to January 21, 2019 at 4:00 p.m. D.C. time.

2. In light of the year-end holidays and office closures in Nigeria between December 20 and

January 3, would USAID consider extending the submission deadline for this solicitation?

USAID Response: USAID has extended the submission deadline to Monday, January 21, 2019 at 4:00pm D.C. time.

3. The cover letter indicates that proposals are due on January 8, 2019 at 4:00 p.m., D.C.

time. To allow offerors to provide the most complete and responsive proposals and due to staff travel schedules for the Christmas and New Year holidays, we respectfully ask that USAID consider extending the due date for receipt of proposal submissions to January 25, 2019.

4. With the reduced number of working days in December and early January due to holidays, would USAID consider removing the requirement for submission of hard copies on page 165 of the RFP, Section L.4(g)? In addition, would USAID consider extending the closing date for receipt of proposals, as indicated on the cover page of the RFP, beyond January 8? We believe this will allow for a higher-quality proposal delivered to the U.S. government.

5. The cover letter states that offers remain valid for 180 calendar days from the RFP closing date. However, Block 12 of the included Standard Form 33 indicates “0 calendar days”. Please confirm that offers should, in fact, remain valid for 180 calendar days from the RFP closing date and provide a revised SF 33.

USAID Response: Block 12 of SF 33 is hereby updated to read “180 calendar days”

B. COVER PAGE

6. The cover page of the RFP states that the geographic code is 937, but Section H.8 (page

82) states it as 935. Which is the correct geographic code for this contract?

USAID Response: H.8 is corrected to read 937.

7. The RFP cover page and Section H.8, page 82, indicate a geographic code of 937. Page

184, however, indicates 935. Could USAID please clarify the correct geographic code?

USAID Response: Page 184 is corrected to read 937.

C. SECTION B

8. Page 5, Section B2. The draft contract states that this is a multi-year, non-severable contract. Because the Bona Fide needs rule requires full funding for non-severable multi-year contracts and it does not require cancellation ceilings, do we assume correctly that at least the Base Package CLINs will be funded in full at the time of the award?

USAID Response: Corrected to read multi-year contract.

9. Section B.3 of the RFP shows the EMMP as a fee earning deliverable, which is supported by section H.27 (referenced as H.28 in Sections F.6 and L.7), while Section L.7 and F.6 mention the EMMP as a pre-award deliverable. Please confirm that a draft EMMP is to be submitted as part of the proposal. Additionally, please confirm the final approved EMMP will be a fee earning deliverable.

USAID Response: If an offeror proposes activities that require EMMP, then EMMP is required.

However, EMMP will be a fee earning deliverable if it is applicable.

10. Page 9, Section B.3 (c). The budget table includes $75,000 each for Optional Services 2 and 3 for all five years. However, on page 180, the RFP suggests two years of sub grants at $75,000 each. Are we to assume a budget therefore of a total of $150,000 for Optional Services 2 and 3 and not $75,000?

USAID Response: The budget table on page 9 is correct: $75,000 for the Grants Under Contract for each of Optional Services 2 and 3 for all five years, ($25,000 per CLIN for each of CLINs 10-15) for a total of $150,000. The relevant language on page 180 is incorrect.

11. The Budget Template on page 9 of the solicitation includes a $75,000 plug figure for

Grants Under Contracts for Optional Services 2 and 3. However, Section B.4 Budget:

Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN) on page 10 does not include a line item for grants under the corresponding optional services. Can USAID confirm the amounts for Grants Under Contracts for optional services CLINs?

USAID Response: The budget table on page 9 is correct: $75,000 for the Grants Under Contract for each of Optional Services 2 and 3 for all five years ($25,000 per CLIN for each of CLINs 10- 15), for a total of $150,000.

12. Section B.4 of the RFP (page 10) lists separate CLINs for grants under contract (GUC) under Basic Package and Additional Core State. For GUC related to the Optional Services: Consulting Firm Components, should offerors divide GUC among the three CLINS within each component without a separate GUC-specific CLIN?

USAID Response: Yes, for GUCs related to the Optional Services: Consulting Firm Components, offerors should divide the $75,000 for the GUCs for each of Optional Services 2 and 3 for all five years ($25,000 per CLIN for each of CLINs 10-15), without separate GUC-specific CLINs.

13. According to CLIN 7 in section B.4 pg. 10, total basic package grants under contract for the five core states is listed at $8.6 million. According to CLIN 9 in section B.4, total grants under contract for the additional sixth core state is $2.2 million. As these figures do not represent a proportional distribution of grants funds across the states, could USAID please confirm the $2.2 million in grants under contract in CLIN 9 is for services supplied only in the sixth core state?

USAID Response: Yes, the $2.2 million for GUCs in CLIN 9 is for services supplied only in the sixth core state.

14. Section B.5 on page 11 states that “the cancellation ceiling for each cancellation date is

(TBD at time of award).” Please confirm if offerors need to provide cancellation ceilings for optional services 1, 2 & 3.

USAID Response: No, the Contracting Officer will negotiate at the time of award.

15. Page 14, Section B.9 (b). This clause refers to a retainer to be withheld by the

Contracting Officer (CO) against the fixed fee due under the contract. This paragraph allows the CO to release 75%-90% of the withheld retainer once the final indirect costs are settled. Please provide clarity on when the remaining 10-15% of retainer will be released.

USAID Response: Upon acceptance of contract final deliverables.

D. SECTION C

16. There do not appear to be any recent USAID/Nigeria LEAD project reports (e.g., quarterly and annual reports) available on the U.S. Government Development Experience Clearinghouse website. Can USAID make those reports (and any other relevant reports) available to offerors?

USAID Response: LEAD has now posted all quarterly and annual reports on the Development Experience Clearinghouse website for any offerors to access.

17. Page 24, Section C.4.1. USAID requires that “the Contractor must establish a field office in each core state that will manage implementation and provision of technical assistance to the state; one of these state field offices must also serve as the State2State country office.” Could USAID define what it means by country office in terms of personnel expected to be located there and functions that office would undertake? Also, how would those functions be different from those performed by the small Abuja based staff and office?

USAID Response: The country office is the main office for State2State technical and administrative staff, including at least one (or both) of the two main leadership positions (Chief of Party or Deputy Chief of Party). Per Section C.4.1 on page 24 of the RFP, the small Abuja-based staff and office would only “facilitate coordination with the Mission’s other sectoral activities and oversee federal-level activities.”

18. Section C.4.1 of the RFP states that “To ensure operational and cost effectiveness, the

Contractor must establish a field office in each core state…one of these field offices must also serve as the State2State country office.” Since travel around the country generally entails passing through a hub that is not in any of these states, will USAID consider broadening the possible sites of the country to include Abuja?

USAID Response: No, per Section C.4.1 on page 24 of the RFP, the small Abuja-based staff and office would not serve as the country office, but instead would only “facilitate coordination with the Mission’s other sectoral activities and oversee federal-level activities.” However, either the Chief of Party or the Deputy Chief of Party could be based in the Abuja office (but not both), or both could also be based in the field-located country office.

19. Regarding Section C.4.4.2 (page 33), Consulting Firm Component:

● Could USAID provide further details on the contractor’s responsibilities with respect to the coordination of funds coming from the states?

● Could USAID clarify how offerors should budget the referenced approximately $150,000 given that the states’ potential contributions are unknown at this time?

● Does USAID intend for offerors to determine the design phase components using a variety of means (e.g., consultants, home office STTA, and/or subcontracts) or with a design phase team consisting of consultants only?

● For proposal budgeting purposes, does USAID have a preferred timeline for implementation of the consulting firm component?

USAID Response: USAID envisions a process something like the following. State governments may express interest in the Consulting Firm Component to either the Contractor or to USAID. A meeting will then be held between the state government, USAID and the Contractor to clarify the state government’s specific interests and available funding, as well as what USAID can support via the Contractor. If all three parties are in agreement that discussions can proceed, then the Contractor will design a program of assistance to meet those specific interests within the state government’s available funding and submit that design to the USAID COR for his/her review to determine that it fits within State2State’s Statement of Work. If the USAID COR approves, then the Contractor will submit that design to the state government for its review and negotiation.

Once all three parties have agreed on the design and cost of the program of assistance, then USAID and the state government will sign an MoU (or an addendum to an existing MoU) governing the respective responsibilities of each party. Next the state government will gift its funding to USAID. At that point, USAID will activate the relevant CLIN under Optional Services 2 or 3, and obligate the entire amount of the state government’s funding to the Contractor to carry out the agreed-upon program of assistance. Per Section C.4.4.3 on page 33, the “Contractor must have or develop accounting systems that allow it to report to the states (via reporting to USAID) how it expended their funds.”

The reference to the $150,000 is the total value of the Grants Under Contract for Optional Services 2 and 3 (CLINS 10-15). Since the states’ potential contributions are unknown at this time, offerors may use plug figures in these CLINs for the design costs and (for CLINs 10-12) the 50 percent of the cost of the consultants for the first year. In doing so, offerors may also indicate what assumptions they are making about the approximate value of states’ potential contributions.

Offerors may propose to conduct the design phase of the Consulting Firm Component using whatever mix of personnel they believe is best suited to the task. In order for there to be sufficient time for a program of assistance arranged under the Consulting Firm Component to achieve impact, that program of assistance should begin to be implemented sometime during the first three years of the contract.

20. Page 32, Section C.4.4.2, (d). The RFP refers to “internationally inspired reform initiatives” in connection to the development of case studies on best fit innovations.

Please indicate if we are to infer that only internationally inspired reform initiatives will qualify as best fit innovations.

USAID Response: No, in fact State2State should focus first on best fit innovations already being tried in Nigeria. Please note that the entire first paragraph of Section C.4.4.2(d) is about “relevant public sector reform initiatives already being implemented by any [Nigerian] state.” Only once these domestic initiatives have been thoroughly inventoried should the Contractor turn to “internationally inspired reform initiatives,” if the Contractor believes that the latter are more appropriate than the former to implement in State2State partner states.

21. Page 33, Section C.4.4.3. The Consulting Firm Component shows a dollar value of

$150,000. Would you please provide clarity on its significance?

USAID Response: The $150,000 is the total value of the Grants Under Contract for Optional Services 2 and 3 (CLINS 10-15), per the Budget Table on page 9 in Section B.3(c).

22. Page 33, Section C.4.4.3. The Consulting Firm Component states that all state contributions will be made to USAID, which will then obligate the full amount of that state funding into the Contract. Would USAID please indicate if Offerors should assume the full cost of the consulting services in their budgets (specifically CLINS 10 to 15) regardless of source funding?

USAID Response: Since the states’ potential contributions are unknown at this time, offerors may use plug figures in CLINs 10-15 for the design costs and (for CLINs 10-12) the 50 percent of the cost of the consultants for the first year. In doing so, offerors may also indicate what assumptions they are making about the approximate value of states’ potential contributions.

Offerors must also include the plug figure of $25,000 per state for Grants Under Contract for each of CLINS 10-15. Per Section C.4.4.3 on page 33, the “Contractor must have or develop accounting systems that allow it to report to the states (via reporting to USAID) how it expended their funds.”

23. Section C.4.4.3 on pg. 33 states the maximum amount for the consulting firm component is $150,000. This is the same amount as the plug figure for GUCs for CLINs 10-12 and 13-15 combined in the table on page 9. Can USAID confirm that the operating costs for identifying and issuing grants for the consulting component in the six states can be covered in the budget under CLINs 10-12 and 13-15, thus increasing the amount that can be expended in this CLIN above the $150,000 stated on page 33?

USAID Response: Yes, the figure of $150,000 is only the total value of the Grants Under Contract for CLINs 10-15. Since the states’ potential contributions are unknown at this time, offerors may use plug figures in CLINs 10-15 for the design costs and (for CLINs 10-12) the 50 percent of the cost of the consultants for the first year. In doing so, offerors may also indicate what assumptions they are making about the approximate value of states’ potential contributions.

Offerors must also include the plug figure of $25,000 per state for Grants Under Contract for each of CLINS 10-15.

24. Page 40. Section C.4.4.6 (2). The RFP references the Organizational Capacity

Assessment Tool (OCAT) to score state partner ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs). Does USAID expect Contractors to use a specific tool for measuring improvements in MDAs? If so, would you please make it available to all bidders?

USAID Response: Offerors may propose any tool they believe is appropriate for assessing the organizational capacity of state partner ministries, departments and agencies.

25. Page 45, Section C.7.2. The RFP refers to “eventual Nigerian ownership of the

State2State activity”. Could USAID elaborate on what it means by “eventual ownership”?

USAID Response: “Eventual Nigerian ownership of the State2State activity” refers to the principle that State2State must be implemented in a way that from the beginning of the Contract, Nigerian organizations (in particular state governments, and also the federal government and

Nigerian civil society organizations) are determining their public financial management reform agendas, and that increasingly over the life of the Contract these organizations are coming to see State2State assistance activities to those reform agendas as their own. In this way, these organizations are much more likely to continue carrying out these reform agendas after the end of the State2State Contract. This phrase does not imply direct legal or financial ownership of the State2State activity.

26. Section C.5.1—Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on page 41 states that “It is the intention of USAID to negotiate one or more sectoral MoUs with each participating state.” Can USAID please confirm with which of the target states have MOUs been established?

USAID Response: As of December 17, 2018, USAID has established MoUs with Sokoto and Bauchi States.

27. Given the critical role that Nigerian civil society organizations will play in State2State’s implementation, regardless of who is awarded the subject contract, and given that some bidders are signing organizations to exclusive agreements, would USAID consider prohibiting exclusive partnerships with Nigerian organizations? We believe this will ensure that all key Nigerian civil society organizations can contribute to State2State’s goals.

USAID Response: USAID agrees to prohibit exclusive partnerships with Nigerian organizations.

E. SECTION F

28. Section F.5 (pages 51 and 54) of the RFP references a “Director of Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning” while Attachment J.10, Key Personnel Matrix, refers to the “Monitoring and Evaluation Advisor.” Please confirm the correct title for this key personnel position.

USAID Response: Director of Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning is the correct title for this key personnel position. However, Attachment J.10 is updated with the correct title for this key personnel position.

29. Would USAID please clarify if the key personnel position title is “director of monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL)” as indicated in Section F.5 on page 51 of the RFP, or “monitoring and evaluation (M&E) advisor” as indicated in the personnel matrix on page 243 of the RFP?

USAID Response: Director of Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning is the correct title for this key personnel position. However, Attachment J.10 is updated with the correct title for this key personnel position.

30. Per Section F.6.(17)(c)(1) on page 64 of the RFP, “The Contractor has sole responsibility for approving all travel plans for its employees and/or their dependents traveling to post for its employees and/or their dependents traveling to post if allowed by the Contractor’s personnel policies.” However, the RFP also includes AIDAR 752.7032 as Section H.13 on page 83, which requires international travel approvals from USAID. Would USAID please confirm if the above language from Section F.6.(17)(c)(1) on page 64 should be removed?

USAID Response: The Contractor has sole responsibility for approving all travel plans while USAID provides approval for all international travel.

31. Page 66, Section F.6 (21). USAID states “The Contractor must provide a proposed plan for disposition of commodities procured under the Contract. USAID will approve or disapprove the proposed disposition plan in writing, at least 45 days prior to the comple00.tion of the Contract.” Since this deadline is close to the project completion date, and activities and staff may be winding down in the last 45 days, would USAID consider changing “45 days” to “60 days”?

USAID Response: The requirement for this deliverable remains unchanged.

32. Section F.6, Reporting and Deliverables or Outputs, of the RFP, 13 Environmental

Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP), describes that the EMMP must describe in specific terms the IEE conditions that apply to proposed activities under the Contract for the life of the program, consistent with Section H.28 (H.27) of this Contract.

Additionally, Section H.27 of the RFP references the FY13-18 IEE for USAID/Nigeria Peace and Democratic Governance Programs with the statement that “the contractor shall be responsible for implementing all IEE conditions pertaining to activities to be funded under this award including the development of an EMMP”. Can USAID provide a copy of the referenced FY13-18 IEE for USAID/Nigeria Peace and Democratic Governance Programs, to enable bidders to develop the required pre-award EMMP in accordance with the IEE?

USAID Response: USAID has attached the relevant IEE to this RFP.

33. Many USAID Missions and Regional Offices have specific format/templates to be used by contractors to develop project EMMPs. Will USAID/Nigeria please share a format/template for the required EMMP?

USAID Response: An EMMP is only required at this stage if the offeror’s proposal includes activities that impacts the environment. Otherwise, the intervention under this activity do not require an EMMP unless in the course of implementation the need arise.

34. The Deputy Chief of Party key personnel position includes a requirement for: “prior experience in awarding and managing grants to local organizations to promote democracy and governance goals” which may eliminate highly qualified technical candidates. Ensuring that grant coverage is handled by proposed personnel, rather than the DCOP, would expand the pool of candidates. Would USAID consider waiving this requirement for the DCOP?

USAID Response: USAID is willing to waive the requirement “prior experience in awarding and managing grants to local organizations to promote democracy and governance goals” for the DCOP only for those offerors who propose another management team member with the relevant experience, thus “ensuring that grant management coverage is handled by proposed personnel.”

35. Regarding the Director of Finance and Administration key personnel position, the requirement of “ACA/ACCA/CPA, or other recognized professional accounting qualification” may eliminate highly qualified candidates. Would USAID consider allowing practical experience in accounting, operations, grants and financial management of USAID-funded contracts in lieu of the professional ACA/ACCA/CPA, or other recognized professional accounting qualification?

USAID Response: This requirement remains unchanged.

36. Regarding the Director of Finance and Administration key personnel position, the requirement of a “Master’s degree” may eliminate highly qualified candidates. Would USAID consider allowing practical experience in operations, grants and financial management of USAID-funded contracts in lieu of a Master’s degree?

F. SECTION H

37. Page 74, Section H.3.a.1. states: If, during Contract performance, the contractor proposes salary or wages for a new individual(s) that exceeds the individual’s current salary or wage or the highest rate of annual salary or wage received during any full year of the immediately preceding three (3) years, the Cognizant Contracting Officer’s approval is required. Generally, it is not feasible to attract new staff without giving them a rate increase over their current salary. Would USAID please consider modifying the language in H.3.a.1 to “that exceeds 5% over the individual’s current salary … the Cognizant Contracting Officer’s approval is required.”

USAID Response: The language in H.3.a.1 is modified is to read “If, during Contract performance, the contractor proposes salary or wages for a new individual(s) that exceeds the individual’s current salary or wage or the highest rate of annual salary or wage received during any full year of the immediately preceding three (3) years, that exceeds 5% over the individual’s current salary, the Cognizant Contracting Officer’s approval is required

38. Section H.3(d)(1) on page 75 of the RFP states that for U.S. staff, including expatriates, “…Annual salary increases of not more than 3% of the current labor pool may be granted after the employee’s completion of each twelve-month period…” We respectfully request that the above-mentioned restriction for salary increases be removed from the RFP, as it appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007 Personnel Compensation, incorporated in the contract under Section H.2, which stipulates that personnel compensation be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, with reimbursement subject only to USAID’s Contractor Salary Threshold. The limitation on salary increases may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices, as required by AIDAR 752.7007.

USAID Response: This requirement remains unchanged. Any increase above the stated percentage requires advance written approval of the Contracting Officer.

39. Page 75, Section H.3.d.1. Please consider editing this language, as below, allowing compensation of U.S. staff including expats to be in accord with H.2.a, which states “Direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this Contract.” (p. 74). This would provide for consistency among the clauses and would enable contractors to implement their established remuneration and performance review processes, including on timetables consistent with corporate practice.

Proposed edit (p. 75)

H.3.d.1

(d) Annual Salary Increases

(1) U.S Staff including expats: Annual salary increases (e.g. cost of living, merit, promotion increase, or any other type) of not more than 3.0% of the current labor pool may be granted according to the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, after the employee's completion of each twelve-month period of satisfactory services under the Contract. Annual salary increases of any kind exceeding these limitations or exceeding USAID maximum SES established rate (AWCPAS), or the USAID CST, require the advance written approval of the Contracting Officer.

40. Section H.3(d)(2) on page 75 of the RFP states that for third-country national (TCN) and cooperating-country national (CCN) staff, “…one salary increase of not more than 5% may be granted after the employee’s completion of each twelve months of satisfactory services under the Contract.” Additionally, this section states that “annual salary increases exceeding the maximum salary of the highest senior FSN position requires advance written approval of the Mission Director through the contracting officer.” We respectfully request that the above-mentioned restrictions for salary increases be removed from the RFP as it appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007 Personnel Compensation, incorporated in the contract under Section H.2, which stipulates that personnel compensation be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, with reimbursement subject only to USAID’s Contractor Salary Threshold. The limitation on salary increases may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices, as required by AIDAR 752.700.

41. Per section H.3 (e)(2) of the solicitation, “Compensation must not exceed the maximum rate of the highest senior FSN position authorized under the prevailing Mission Local Compensation Plan.” Would USAID kindly provide the most updated Mission Local Compensation Plan.

USAID Response: Mission Local Compensation Plan is hereby attached as attachment J.3 to the solicitation. However, salaries apply to the USG staff and therefore is to be used only as a guide in preparing your cost proposal to comply with threshold limitations.

42. Could USAID please provide offerors with the latest local compensation plan for

Nigeria?

USAID Response Mission Local Compensation Plan is hereby attached as attachment J.3 to the in preparing your cost proposal to comply with threshold limitations.

43. Per Section H.3(e)(2) on page 76 of the RFP, “Compensation must not exceed the maximum rate of the highest senior FSN position authorized under the prevailing Mission Local Compensation Plan.” However, USAID Ombudsman Crista Wise noted during a roundtable on October 2, 2018, that AIDAR 722.170 applies to employees and does not apply to consultants (subcontractors). Would the contracting officer kindly consider revising the RFP to match USAID/OAA’s position on applicability of AIDAR 722.170 to consultants’ compensation?

USAID Response: Section H.3(e)(2) has been deleted in its entirety.

44. Page 76, Section H.3.f. Related to the Work Day, Work Week, this section states that…“

The length of the contractor's U.S., non-overseas employees workday must be in accordance with the contractor's established policies and practices and must not be less than 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week.” Nevertheless, page 190, Section L.11.9 Part 9 indicates that: “The length of the contractor's US, non-overseas employees’ workday must be in accordance with the contractor's established policies and procedures. Typical work day is 8 hours per day and typical work week is 40 hours per week. However, some organizations do not have an 8-hour workday, and some accounting systems normally provide for direct recovery of paid absences by using a work-year of less than 2,080 hours to compute individuals' unburdened daily rates.”

Would USAID please confirm that it is acceptable to propose a work day, work week in accordance with the contractor’s established policies and procedures?

USAID Response: Yes, it is acceptable to propose a work day, work week in accordance with the contractor’s established policies and procedures.

45. Page 79, H.7.a.3. Would USAID consider allowing annual leave to be paid out in accordance with the contractor's policies and procedures?

USAID Response: Yes, annual leave is to be paid out in accordance with the contractor’s established policies and procedures.

46. According to Section H.27 (d) (page 91), an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) determined that a negative determination with conditions applies to one or more of the proposed State2State activities. The IEE available online lists a categorical exclusion for the activities of the USAID/Nigeria Peace and Democratic Governance, Assistance Objective. Could USAID please provide the referenced IEE that lists activities with a negative determine with conditions so offerors can prepare an Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan?

USAID Response: IEE is hereby attached as an attachment J.13 to the revised RFP.

47. Per Section H.27(d) on page 91 the RFP, USAID states that “An Initial Environmental

Examination (IEE) has been approved for FY13-18 USAID/Nigeria Peace and Democratic Governance Programs for this Contract. The IEE covers activities expected to be implemented under this Contract.” Also, Section L.7 on page 177 states that the “Offeror must submit an Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) as part of the Technical Proposal. The EMMP must be in accordance with the environmental compliance in Section [H.27] of the RFP.” It is our understanding that the above-referenced IEE is set to expire at the end of December 2018. While we have been able to identify an amendment to this IEE (Amendment #1) in USAID’s Environmental Compliance Database, which extends the period of performance for this IEE through 2020 for four specific ongoing programs, State2State does not seem to be included as one of those programs. Would USAID clarify whether another amendment to the IEE is forthcoming to further extend the period of performance through fiscal year 2024, thereby encompassing this anticipated program, or does USAID anticipate drafting a new IEE? Given that the current IEE and Amendment #1 to that IEE do not technically cover the full five years of the State2State Activity, would USAID consider waiting until contract award to require the contractor to draft an EMMP, and instead require offerors to submit a one-page annex detailing our approach to environmental compliance and management upon startup and through implementation?

USAID Response: The PDG IEE has been extended to Dec. 31, 2020 but it is expected that before this end date, the process for developing a new IEE (coinciding with the new CDCS process) should have started. The new IEE would cover all ongoing projects/activities (including state to state) and the planned ones between 2020/2021 and 2025/2026 as the case may be.

State2State as part of the original IEE that was extended to December 31, 2020 therefore enjoys the same coverage period.

48. Section H.41 of the RFP states, “Non-Governmental Organizations: The total value of an individual grant to a U.S. NGO must not exceed $150,000.” Per ADS302.3.4.13, would USAID confirm that the amount should be $100,000?

USAID Response: Section H.41(a)(1) of the RFP has been corrected to read the “Non- Governmental Organizations: The total value of an individual grant to a U.S. NGO must not exceed $100,000. This limitation does not apply to grant awards to non-U.S. NGOs.

G. SECTION K

49. Per Section K.4(a)(2) the small business size standard is $7 million. However, the cover letter of the solicitation (page 1) states that the small business size standard is $15 million. Please confirm that the small business size standard is $15 million.

USAID Response: Confirmed. The small business size standard under this solicitation is $15 million

H. SECTION L

50. Page 162, Section L.2 (a). Please confirm if the proposal checklist does not need to be submitted with the proposal and if it should be treated as a tool only. Also, we noticed that elements of it are not aligned to the RFP. Will a revised proposal checklist be shared with the Offerors?

USAID Response: The guidance under Section L.2 (a) is clear and remains unchanged. No, the government will not share/issue any revise proposal checklist.

51. Section L.4(b) and L.4(g), pages 164-166: Section L.4(b) states: “The Offeror will submit the proposal in both hard copies and electronically. All hard copies must be post-marked on the closing date of the solicitation. The post mark will be from the postal station of the proposal origin, and not the postmark/date stamp of receipt in Nigeria.” Section L.4(g) also indicates a hand-delivery option for submitting the proposal and provides instructions for submission of hand-carried copies to USAID/Nigeria during the U.S.

Embassy Office Abuja, Nigeria delivery hours. Please confirm that proposals may be hand-delivered. And, if so, that the date stamp of receipt by USAID at the U.S. Embassy Office Abuja, Nigeria could be substituted for a post mark from the postal station of the proposal origin.

52. USAID Response: Yes, proposal may be hand-delivered. However, if hand-delivered, the date stamp of receipt by USAID at the U.S. Embassy Office Abuja, Nigeria could be substituted for a post mark from the postal station of the proposal origin.

53. Section L.4(b), page 164 indicates that hard copies must be post-marked on the closing date of the solicitation, thus arriving at USAID/Nigeria on a later date. Please confirm that it is USAID’s intention that the hard copies for submission are “trailing copies” and do not have a specific due date to be received in Nigeria. And if so, could USAID confirm that hand-carried proposal copies delivered to USAID/Nigeria do not have a specific due date?

54. USAID Response: USAID confirms that the hard copies for submission via postal services are trailing copies that must be post-marked on the closing date of the solicitation. Hand-delivered proposals must be received and date-stamp by closing date of the solicitation.

55. Section L.4(d) on page 165 has a table which states that there should be 1 “original” technical proposal copy and 1 “original” cost proposal copy, alongside the 3 “paper copies (binders)” of the technical proposal and 2 “paper copies (binders)” of the cost proposal. Could USAID please confirm the total number of hard copies of the technical and cost proposals that the Offeror is required to submit?

56. Section L.4(f) on page 165 states that “submissions per email must not exceed 10MB in total file/data size.” Due to the anticipated large size of excel budget documents, please confirm that USAID will allow Offerors to submit detailed budgets in separate clearly marked excel files if needed?

57. Section L.4(f) on page 165 states that electronic submissions must be “in both Adobe

Acrobat PDF and MS Word for the technical proposal, budget narrative, and all other required documents that form part of the proposal.” Due to the limit on the file size for email submissions, would USAID accept the technical proposal, budget narrative, and other required documents in Adobe Acrobat PDF format only?

58. Per Section L.5(c) on page 167 of the RFP, USAID requests a monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) plan in both the technical narrative and as an annex. Would USAID please clarify the difference in what is expected in each section?

USAID Response: The discussion of the MEL plan in the technical narrative is limited to the general MEL principles proposed by the offeror, and how those principles contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the Contract. The annex contains the full draft MEL plan.

59. Section L.5(c) (pages 167and 170) lists the MEL plan both within the technical volume and as an annex. Could USAID please clarify where the MEL plan should go? If it is to go in the technical volume, does the MEL plan count against the 40-page technical response limit?

achievement of the objectives of the Contract. The annex contains the full draft MEL plan.

60. Page 167, Section L.5 (c). In the Format and Presentation, Monitoring, Evaluation and

Learning (MEL) Plan is mentioned twice – first as a section in the technical proposal, and second as an Annex. Please clarify what USAID expects to be included in each of the two sections, and how they should be distinguished.

achievement of the objectives of the Contract. The annex must contain the full draft MEL plan.

61. Section L.5(c) on pg. 167 lists (6) Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Plan and

(9) Contractor Performance Information part of the technical proposal. However, in that same list, the MEL Plan is also listed in the annexes, and Section L.5.5(e) (i) on pg. 173 indicates the Contractor Performance Information should be listed as an attachment.

Please confirm that both sections can be included as annexes and are not included in the 40-page limit.

achievement of the objectives of the Contract. The annex must contain the full draft MEL plan.

62. Section L.5(c) on pg. 167 lists (6) Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Plan and

(9) Contractor Performance Information part of the technical proposal. However, in that same list, the MEL Plan is also listed in the annexes, and Section L.5.5(e) (i) on pg. 173 indicates the Contractor Performance Information should be listed as an attachment.

Please confirm, that the only sections included in the 40-page limit for the Technical Proposal are: Technical Approach, Key Personnel and Staffing, and Institutional Capability and Management Plan.

achievement of the objectives of the Contract. The annex must contain the full draft MEL plan.

63. Page 167, Section L5 (c). The Contractor Performance Information is not listed as an

Annex as we have seen in other RFPs. Is such an Annex permitted?

USAID Response: Contractor Performance Information counts towards the 40 page limitation and is not to be included as an Annex.

64. Per Section L.5(c), the list of annexes provided is not all-inclusive. Please confirm that offerors are given authority to decide on the total number and type of annexes required.

USAID Response: Annexes listed in L.5(c) are the minimum requirements to be submitted with offeror’s proposal.

65. Section L.5 (page 167) of the RFP lists “Small Business Participation Plan” as an annex to be submitted with the technical proposal. This requirement seems to align with Attachment J.7 (page 217). However, Section L.5.5(d)(i) (page 172) instructs offerors to fill out the table in Attachment J.3, Small Business Subcontracting Plan Template (page 204). Please confirm that offerors are to submit the table provided in Attachment J.7 as an annex to the technical proposal.

USAID Response: Section L.5.5(d)(i) is revised to align with Attachment J.7 requirement.

Attachment J.3 is now the Local Compensation Plan.

66. Page 169, Section L.5.5 (a) (1). The RFP mentions that the Offeror should develop a

Gender Plan. Would you please confirm if this document should be presented as an Annex to the technical proposal? Also, would USAID/Nigeria expect Contractors to conduct gender analysis/analyses in each of the six States?

USAID Response: Section L.5.5(a)(1) on page 169 instructs offerors to include a “gender plan of action” as part of the discussion of Implementation Strategy and Methodology. This is in reference to Sections C.4.4.1(h) and C.5.2. This is not an instruction to develop a Gender Plan as a separate document, but rather to indicate how gender will be integrated throughout the entire Technical Approach.

67. Section L.5.5(a) of the RFP (page 169) instructs offerors to propose a gender plan of action. However, this is not referenced in Section C of the RFP nor does it appear in the list of approved annexes. Please confirm that offerors are not expected to submit a gender plan of action with their technical proposals.

USAID Response: Section L.5.5(a)(1) on page 169 instructs offerors to include a “gender plan of action” as part of the discussion of Implementation Strategy and Methodology. This is in reference to Sections C.4.4.1(h) and C.5.2. This is not an instruction to develop a Gender Plan as a separate document, but rather to indicate how gender will be integrated throughout the entire Technical Approach.

68. Section L.5(a)(5) on pg. 166 indicates that additional documentation beyond referenced annexes will not be read or evaluated by USAID. However, Section L.5(c) on pg. 167- 168 notes that “offerors will determine the type of information to be submitted as annexes to their technical proposal in response to the instructions provided in the RFP. The list provided above is not all-inclusive.” Please confirm what additional annexes, if any, are required.

USAID Response: Annexes listed in L.5(c) are the minimum requirements to be submitted with offeror’s proposal.

69. Section L.5.5(c) (1) on page 171 requests a “personnel matrix (see Attachment J.10) of all proposed key personnel, providing an analysis of how their relevant skills match or exceed the minimum requirements in Section F.5 of this RFP, must be submitted along with the resumes,” but there is no mention of it in L.5.(c) under Annexes. Please confirm that the personnel matrix should be included in the same annex as the personnel resumes and letters of commitment.

USAID Response: The personnel matrix may be included in the annex “Personnel Resumes and Letter of Commitment,” and thus does not count against the 40-page limit.

70. Page 171, Section L.5.5 (c) (1). The submission instructions indicate that Key Personnel resumes are limited to 2 pages each. Would USAID consider increasing the page limit to 4 to adequately showcase Key Personnel expertise in line with the personnel requirements?

USAID Response: Yes, each Key Personnel resume may be up to four (4) pages. However, this is inclusive of the 40 page limit for the entire technical proposal.

71. Page 171, Section L.5.5 (c) (1), refers to the personnel matrix found in Attachment J. 10.

Please clarify whether USAID expects the matrix to be included in the Key Personnel section of the technical proposal and count against the 40 page limitation, or if it should be placed as an Annex.

USAID Response: The personnel matrix may be included in the annex “Personnel Resumes and Letter of Commitment,” and thus does not count against the 40-page limit.

72. Given the strict page limit, would USAID consider allowing the personnel matrix to be placed in the annex as opposed to the body of the technical proposal?

USAID Response: The personnel matrix may be included in the annex “Personnel Resumes and Letter of Commitment,” and thus does not count against the 40-page limit.

73. Page 171, Section L.5.5 (c) (2). The Staffing Plan states that the Offeror should include an organigram showing the proposed team composition. However, page 172, Section L.5.5 (d), Management Plan, indicates that the organizational chart should be included as part of this section.

USAID Response: Per Section L.5(c) on page 167, offerors may include the Organizational Chart as an Annex, and may reference it in either the Staffing Plan or the Management Plan section, or both.

74. Per Section L.5.5. (d) Institutional Management Plan, (1)(ii), "Other than Small Business

Offerors must: Fill out the table in Attachment J3 in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 and provide narrative and type of subcontracting work anticipated. The Offeror must provide a supporting narrative to make a clear connection between the information provided in the table and the Offeror's technical table" (page 172). Attachment J3 is the Subcontracting Plan Template. In addition, Section L.11 Instructions for the Preparation of the Business/Cost Proposal (f)(5) lists Small Business Subcontracting Plan as part of the cost proposal. Can USAID confirm that Attachment J3 shall not be included in the technical proposal, as it contains cost information?”

USAID Response: Attachment J.3 shall not be included in the technical proposal. Section L.5.5(d)(i) is revised to align with Attachment J.7 requirement. Attachment J.3 is now the Local Compensation Plan.

75. Page 172, Section L.5.5 (d) (1). The Institutional Capability section lists a series of requirements, including the participation of small business concerns, copies of any enforceable agreements with subcontractors, etc. Could USAID please explain what information should be included in the main technical section and count against the 40-page limit and as part of an Annex?

USAID Response: The Institutional Capability section, which counts against the 40-page limit, must include “a narrative to describe the proposed prime contractor’s and their subcontractors’ capability” and a description of “what the proposed partner organizations’ institutional responsibilities are, and how those responsibilities complement one other.” Section L.5.5 (d) (i) has been revised to align with Attachment J.7 Small Business Participation Plan requirement.

76. Page 172, Section L.5.5 (d) (1). Please confirm if the table referenced in Attachment J.3 is part of the 40-page limit or if it can be placed as an Annex. It also refers to a “supporting narrative”. Would this information be part of the Small Business Participation Plan, or should it be part of the technical proposal?

USAID Response: The Institutional Capability section, which counts against the 40-page limit, must include “a narrative to describe the proposed prime contractor’s and their subcontractors’ capability” and a description of “what the proposed partner organizations’ institutional responsibilities are, and how those responsibilities complement one other.” Section L.5.5 (d) (i) has been revised to align with Attachment J.7 Small Business Participation Plan requirement.

77. Section L.5.5(d) on page 172 instructs the Offeror to fill out Attachment J.3 regarding small business subcontracting for the technical proposal. However, Section L.8 indicates that Offerors should complete Attachment J.7 to satisfy the Small Business Participation Plan Annex of the technical proposal. Further, Section L.11(f)(5) indicates a Small

Business Subcontracting Plan in the cost volume. Please confirm that Attachment J.3 is meant to be included in the cost volume.

USAID Response: Section L.5.5 (d) (i) has been revised to align with Attachment J.7 Small Business Participation Plan requirement. Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirement has been removed from Section L.11(f)(5).

78. Since the small business participation plan mentioned in Section L.8 on page 177 of the

RFP includes cost information, would USAID please clarify whether the small business participation plan should be submitted as part of the cost proposal and not the technical proposal as it is currently stated?

been removed from Section L.11(f)(5).

79. Page 172, Section L.5.5 (d) (1) (ii). Would USAID confirm what is meant by enforceable agreements with subcontractors? Will Teaming Agreements with partners satisfy this requirement?

USAID Response: Teaming Agreements with partners will satisfy this requirement of an enforceable agreement.

80. Section L.5.5(d)(ii) on page 172 states that “Prime Offerors must provide copies of any enforceable agreements with subcontractors.” Please provide guidance as to what constitutes an “enforceable agreement.” Please also confirm whether this information should be attached as an annex to the technical proposal or the cost proposal.

USAID Response: Teaming Agreements with partners will satisfy this requirement of an enforceable agreement. Yes, this can be submitted as an annex to the technical proposal.

81. Page 172, Section L.5.5 (d) (2). Please confirm whether the organizational chart is to be included as an annex.

USAID Response: Yes, per Section L.5(c) on page 167, offerors may include the Organizational Chart as an Annex, and may reference it in either the Staffing Plan or the Management Plan section, or both.

82. Section L.5.5(d) on page 172 states that “The Offeror must describe what the proposed partner organizations’ institutional responsibilities are, and how those responsibilities complement one another.” Please confirm if proposed partner organizations are the same as subcontractors.

USAID Response: Proposed partner organizations are the same as subcontractors.

83. Section L.5.5 Institutional Capability and Management Plan, page 172, ask that offerors “Provide evidence of proposed small…