Attachment_J.6_-_Questions_and_Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 39 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 72062319R00003
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to solicitation number 72062319R00003 from the US Agency for International Development Kenya for the Regional Integration and Stronger Economies (RISE) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. The IDIQ will support economic integration and trade across East Africa through activities such as improving competitiveness of value chains, increasing access to inputs and technologies, strengthening regional policies and institutions, and facilitating regional trade. Task orders will be issued for work such as the Regional Agricultural Market Services task order to align agricultural initiatives with feed the future strategies and frameworks. The response deadline was extended to June 5th. Offerors must submit separate technical proposals for the IDIQ and RAMS task order following the instructions provided.
Attachment J.6 - Questions and Answers
View the file
Other files
Show all 30
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Request for Proposal (RFP) # 72062319R00003 |
| USAID/Kenya and East Africa (USAID/KEA) |
| Regional Integration and Stronger Economies (RISE) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) |
| ATTACHMENT J.6 - Questions and Answers |
Dear Offerors - USAID/KEA would like to thank you for your interest in working with the US Government. We are grateful for all the insightful comments and questions received. Below are the responses to the questions that are incorporated into the solicitation through Amendment # 1. The RFP has been amended in response to some of the comments and questions. The changes are highlighted in green in the amended RFP accompanying this Q&A document for ease of review. If there is any inconsistency between this document and the amended RFP, this document takes precedence.
| # | QUESTION | ANSWER |
| 1 | Given the complexity of the RISE IDIQ and need for regional partnerships, would USAID kindly consider extending the deadline for proposal submissions to June 17th | The proposal deadline has been extended to June 5. |
| 2 | In section M, USAID discusses the presentation of the “management approach” and then “corporate capabilities” but in section L (page 100), USAID notes the “corporate capabilities” and then the “management approach”. Can USAID please inform offerors which order they would like these sections to be presented in their RISE proposals? | Sections L.7 and M.2 have been amended accordingly |
| 3 | Can USAID please provide offerors a detailed description of how they would like the RAMS TO response to be submitted - as an Annex to the IDIQ proposal; as the “technical approach” to the IDIQ proposal; or as a separate submission? | As a separate submission |
| 4 | Can USAID please clarify anticipated sections for the RISE IDIQ and RAMS proposal and associated page limitations? Can USAID please provide a list of anticipated Annexes – such as CVs of key personnel? | Refer to Section L.6 and L.7 for Technical Proposal Preparation Instructions and Contents of the Technical Proposal. Also see section L of the RFTOP Attachment J.5, for instructions on preparing the Technical proposal, page limitations and annexes for the RFTOP. Guidance on page limits is "not to exceed" a set number of pages--it's a ceiling, not a required target for each section. Offerors have flexibilty in deciding how many pages to dedicate to each section. There are not authorized annexes. All references to annexes have been removed. |
| 5 | On page 100, under Contractor Past Performance, USAID states, “Offerors must provide a list of all Government contracts within the last three years using the excel template in attachment J.3. Offerors must also provide a list of up to ten relevant Federal Assistance awards or non-Government awards using the same template.” However, with the 3 pages limit, it is unlikely that Offerors will be able to list all contracts within the last three years. Can USAID amend so that only contracts within the last three years that are relevant to the scope of the IDIQ are included? | Offerors must list ten relevant contracts then list awards in chronological descending order until the 3 page limit is meet. Contractors with more than 40 awards in the last three years are only required to submit up to 40 awards including 10 relevant award. If an Offeror has received less than 40 awards then please list all awards received in the last three years. USAID may review past performance that is not included on the past performance reference sheet |
| 6 | On page 44, under Section H.2 (d), USAID writes, “Annual salary increases (e.g. cost of living and merit increases and other) of 5 percent ceiling of the current labor pool may be granted once a year.” Please clarify if the maximum ceiling increase per individual is also 5%, or if we can exceed 5% per individual as long as the total labor pool does not exceed 5%. | 5% per individual |
| 7 | On page 104, under Part 2 (B) Task Order #1 (RAMS Task Order) Budget, USAID writes, “In the RAMS task order offerors must propose cost effective salaries and costs for administrative and support staff not identified under B.6.” Can USAID clarify why the General Administrative Specialist or Operations Specialist positions would not be appropriate for these support staff? Will the IDIQ contract allow for additional labor categories to be proposed on a TO-by-TO basis? | The General Administrative Specialist or Operations Specialist positions would be appropriate for these staff. The quoted section of Part 2 (B) does not preclude assigning those roles. The flexibility of the labor categories should negate the need to negotiate additional labor categories at the task order level however that determination would have to be made at the task order level. |
| 8 | Pg.15, indirect rates table, can we add an indirect rate category that is not currently covered. | Yes |
| 9 | Can USAID provide offerors with a list of projects USDA is currently funding in the region? | Yes, Please see additional links included in Part III -Section J List of Documents, Exhibits and Other attachments |
| 10 | USAID has provided a number of grants directly to the RIGOs in the past to undertake similar initiatives envisioned under RISE. Will the Mission continue to do this or is the intention that grants for RISE-related objectives be awarded through the RISE IDIQ mechanism? | The Mission anticipates issuing grants through the GUC mechanism under the IDIQ. However, we can not determine future programming or procurements at this time. |
| 11 | Are there any ongoing or recently-ended regional or country-specific projects whose follow-on projects are being considered to come under the IDIQ as Task Order? | The only currently identified task under is RAMS. |
| 12 | Could USAID provide a list of projects that USDA funding in the region? | Please see answer to Question #9 above |
| 13 | Are there certain reports that USAID has in mind when starting on page 115 that "The contract must conduct a constraints analysis that builds on past analytical work to determine those value chains that can best be supported at the start of the contract." | Not specifically. The point of building on past reports is to acknowledge that substantial analysis has been carried out in the region, and the constraints analysis should advance this knowledge rather than replicate it |
| 14 | Section B.5 (e) indicates that fees must not be applied to Grants under Contracts (“GUCs”). Can USAID clarify what is meant by this instruction? It is not clear whether USAID’s instruction is directed at budgets submitted by grantees or if USAID seeks to exclude the value of GUCs from the TEC in Offerors’ calculation of fee. In the latter case, USAID may also wish to provide guidance to Offerors whose accounting practices treat GUCs as direct costs. | The language in the RFP has been clarified and moved to section L. USAID considers GUC as pass through costs that should not charged as be charged a fixed fee. The management cost for GUCs is typical included in NICRA. However, Offerors are free to propose any fee structure and to propose a separate fee for GUCs |
| 15 | Section B.6.3 (i) makes a reference to “an approved subcontractor from the original IDIQ competition.” However, the only reference in the RFP to subcontractor consent, in section L.8(B), falls under the heading of Task Order #01 (RAMS Task Order) Budget. Can USAID clarify its guidance on consent to subcontract, including which, if any, subcontractors require consent at the IDIQ and Task Order levels, and whether USAID approval of a proposed subcontractor under the IDIQ constitutes consent for the purposes of task orders? | Major subcontractor may be listed in the IDIQ if they part of a joint venture or teaming agreement and sufficient information is provided however subcontract consent will have to be sought at the task order level |
| 16 | Section B.6.4 indicates that “unburdened labor rates are fixed for all contract years.” Can USAID confirm that it intended to indicate that it intended this to mean that rate ceilings (including proposed escalations) are fixed? | Section B.6.4 is revised as follows-The unburdened labor rates (including any escalation) are fixed for all contract years |
| 17 | In Section B.7(d), USAID indicates that “the Contractor must not make any change in its established method of classifying or allocating indirect costs that impacts this contract without the prior written approval of the IDIQ Contracting Officer.” This would appear to place the IDIQ Contracting Officer in a position to usurp the role of the Contractor’s cognizant government agency and overrule the normal process for Contractors to establish a NICRA. Recognizing that B.7(f) clearly places ceilings on indirect cost rates that can be applied under the contract and that methods of allocating indirect costs are set at the level of a Contractor’s business and not at the level of a single contract, would USAID consider removing or clarifying this clause? | This language has been removed |
| 18 | Section L.7 (ii) indicates that the Technical Proposal is not to exceed 20 pages. However, the page limitations assigned to the sections to be included in the Technical Proposal do not add to 20 pages (Corporate Capability – 9 pages; Management Approach – 10 pages; Contractor Past Performance – 3 pages). Can USAID please confirm the total page limitation and section page allotments for the IDIQ portion of the technical proposal? | Please see answer to Question #4 above |
| 19 | Section L.7 ii (2) the RFP states, “If an Offeror proposes a consortium approach, the Offeror must describe how the partnership will operate to meet the requirements set forth in Section C”. Does USAID intend the term ‘consortium’ here to simply refer to teaming arrangements? | Yes and other partnership arrangements |
| 20 | Section L.7 (ii) (3) under Past Performance states that Offerors must provide performance information for ‘itself, the contractor teaming arrangements, if any, and each major subcontractor”. Can USAID confirm whether Offerors should provide past performance information for all proposed subcontractors under the IDIQ, or only for those considered major subs? | The RFP has been revised to only require past performance information for joint ventures or official teaming arrangements. |
| 21 | Section L.7 (ii) (3) also states “Offerors must provide a list of all Government contracts within the last three years using the excel template in attachment J.3”. Can USAID confirm whether this is only for relevant USG contracts, or also applies to other, non-USAID government contracts? Can USAID also clarify whether it intends to limit this request to US Government contracts? If offerors are to include non-USG contracts, we request that USAID allow for additional pages to fulfil this requirement. | Offerors must provide US Government and non-US contracts and grants |
| 22 | Would USAID consider allowing the submission of Past Performance Reference Short Forms to complement the information provided in the excel template (Attachment J.3)? | Past performance reference forms should not be submitted. If USAID decides to obtain past performance information the POC provided will be contact or information will be obtained from alternate sources |
| 23 | In Section L.8 (A), USAID indicates that “offerors must provide a narrative justifying the labor rates for each labor category proposed with supporting information.” Please confirm that USAID intends for offerors to justify and support proposed rate ceilings, rather than proposed rates, which would be based on actual salary costs. | Confirmed, offerors must provide information to justify the proposed ceilings. |
| 24 | Section L.8, Part 3 states that the “Offeror must submit a copy of its personnel policies, especially regarding salary and wage scales, fringe benefits, merit increases, promotions, leave, differentials, travel and per diem regulations”. Would USAID consider waiving this requirement for Offerors already doing extensive business with USAID, as is often done in similar solicitations? | If the Offeror does not have prior Federal contracting experience, submit a copy of its personnel policies, especially regarding salary and wage scales, fringe benefits, merit increases, promotions, leave, differentials, travel and per diem regulations, etc. |
| 25 | Under Section L.8(B), Task Order #01 (RAMS Task Order) Budget, Part 8, USAID indicates that the Offeror must address the elements presented in FAR 44.202-2 to support consent to subcontract “with the initial award of RISE IDIQ.” Would USAID confirm that this requirement applies only to proposed subcontractors to be included in Offerors’ Task Order #01 budgets, as suggested by this its inclusion under L.8(B) Task Order #01 (RAMS Task Order) Budget? If this is meant to apply to subcontractors to be included at the IDIQ level, would USAID consider excluding small business subcontractors from this requirement? | Please see answer to Question #15 above |
| 26 | Page 108 Section M.4 Cost/Price Evaluation states “USAID’s goal is to achieve low administrative costs and focus funds for local engagement and program implementation, hence, will be considered for the evaluation of cost/price.” Could USAID please explain how they will define and measure “low administrative costs”? | Low administrative costs will be evaluated to a number of factors including the size of home office staff and utilization of local staff. |
| 27 | Would USAID please consider authorizing a six-day workweek under this IDIQ? | Work week authorization may be provided at the task order level. |
| 28 | Page 98, Section L.6 (i) states that the technical proposal must be organized by the technical evaluation criteria listed in Section M. However, the structure presented in L.7(ii) does not reflect the Section M evaluation criteria. Please clarify how USAID wishes the IDIQ technical proposal to be organized. | Please see answer to Question #2 above |
| 29 | Page 98, Section L.6 (ii) states that the IDIQ technical proposal is limited to 20 pages. However, the page limits for the sections presented in L.7(ii) total 22 pages. Please clarify the page limit. | Please see answer to Question #4 above |
| 30 | Page 100, Section L.7 (ii)(3) Contractor Past Performance notes that “Offerors must provide a list of all Government contracts within the last three years using the excel template in attachment J.3.” | Please see answer to Question #21 above |
| a. Please confirm that this list is to be included as an annex since presenting all government contracts would exceed the three-page limit noted for Contractor Past Performance. | ||
| b. Can USAID please confirm that offerors can include non-US Government contracts in this list? | ||
| 31 | Page 100, Section L.7 (ii)(3) states that the offeror must use the Excel template in attachment J.3 to list past performance information. May the offeror use a slightly revised template that includes all of the same information but is more readily legible on 8.5x11 paper? | Please use the template provided with the RFP |
| 32 | Page 104, Section L.8 Part 5 – Subcontracting Lan and Small Business Concerns states “The Offeror must use the following TEC for the subcontracting plan $20,000,000.” Please clarify what this means. | $20,000,000 is the subcontracting amount that should be used for establishing targets in the subcontracting plan |
| 33 | Page 106-107, Section M.2 Technical Evaluation Criteria states that “The technical factors will be evaluated based on the following ranked order of importance Corporate Capability, Management Approach, Technical Approach, and Past Performance.” However, the list that follows places Management Approach first and Corporate Capability second. Can USAID please confirm the ranked order of importance? | Please see answer to Question #2 above |
| 34 | Page 107, Section M.2 Technical Evaluation Criteria, III Technical Approach, Evaluation Criteria states that “The extent to which the technical approach for the RAMS task order demonstrates the capability to successfully perform activities in Section C of the IDIQ.” This suggests that offerors for the IDIQ will be evaluated for the IDIQ based on their ability to put together a responsive proposal for RFTOP #1 RAMS. However, RAMS does not cover the breadth of the technical areas included in Section C, for example finance and investment are not featured heavily in RFTOP #1. Would USAID consider revising this criterion to better reflect the technical scope of RAMS? | The evaluation criteria will not be changed. |
| 35 | Page 107, Section M.2 Technical Evaluation Criteria, IV. Past Performance states “USAID will use the performance information to make the responsibility determination and best value decision (best value at the IDIQ level only).” Can USAID please clarify on what basis, at the IDIQ level, USAID will determine best value? | Best value will be determined based on cost and non-cost factors. |
| 36 | Given the technical and geographic breadth and budget size of RAMS, could USAID please prioritize technical and geographic focus across the nine countries to enable Offerors to distribute resources more effectively across technical areas and countries? | Offerors should propose the technical and geographical focus in accordance with the SOW. |
| 37 | RAMS RFTOP- May the offeror include a list of acronyms that does not count against the 25-page limit? | Yes, the RFP is amended accordingly on page 134 |
| 38 | Page 114 states “The RAMS Task Order will contribute specifically to the USAID/ Kenya East Africa’s Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS) Feed the Future (FTF) initiative by aligning with GFSS guidance and frameworks and will align with the USAID Journey to Self-Reliance.” Can USAID please share USAID/Kenya East Africa’s Global Food Security Strategy? | Yes, Please see response to Question #9 above |
| 39 | On page 117 USAID includes two indicators that state, “Time of moving select goods along key regional transport and agricultural corridors reduced by 25%; and Cost of moving select goods along key regional transport and agricultural corridors reduced by 25.” Does USAID view these indicators as outcomes of work directly implemented under RAMS or context indicators that track coordinated results from multiple stakeholders? | USAID will treat this indicator as outcomes of work directly implemented by the contractor under the RAMS Task Order |
| 40 | Page 120, Grants under Contract, USAID lays out its award process for grants management tasks. Considering USAID’s new Assistance and Acquisition strategy which emphasizes co-design/co-creation, can an offeror’s GUC processes deviate from the 5-stage process presented so long as they adhere to USAID policies, processes and procedures under ADS 303 and the FAR? | Yes, GUCS must be made in accordance with the approved GUC manual |
| 41 | Page 121, C.5 STATEMENT OF WORK, Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan, USAID notes that “An external mid-term evaluation as well as a final activity evaluation will be carried out by USAID in accordance with USAID Evaluation policy supported by USAID/KEA’s Program and Planning Office.” Please confirm that the Offeror does not need to budget for midterm or final activity evaluations. | Confirmed, Offerors do not need to budget for midterm or final activity evaluations. |
| 42 | Page 127, Section F.2 includes only one named key personnel position, the Project Manager. Can USAID please confirm this is equivalent to the Chief of Party role? | Confirmed, the Project Manager role is equivalanet to that of a Chief of Party |
| 43 | Page 129, Annual Work Plans, USAID states “Where projects or activities are implemented in particular locations the PMP must include a discussion on ways to map and track the type of intervention by project component and fund use.” Could USAID clarify what it means by “fund use?” | "fund use" refers to the monetary resources used in that specific intervention. |
| 44 | Page 134, Section L Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors for Preparing the Technical Proposal, USAID states “Technical proposals are limited to 25 pages excluding authorized annexes and minimizing unnecessary jargon.” Can USAID please provide offerors with a list of authorized annexes? | Please see response to question #4 above |
| 45 | Page 134, Section L.1 states that the Technical Approach must include theory of change, approach to grants under contract, draft first year work plan, and draft MELP.” Would USAID allow offerors to include the draft first-year work plan and draft MELP as annexes to the technical proposal? | No |
| 46 | Page 135 states that “Prior to award, the apparently successful offeror must present key personnel that meet at least the minimum qualifications.” Can USAID please confirm that offerors are to present key personnel at the proposal stage? | No, offerors must present the minimum qualifications for key personnel at the proposal stage. The apparently successful offeror will be asked to provide personnel that meet or exceed these requirements for USAD approval. |
| 47 | Section B.6.3, Subcontractor Rates, outlines the requirements for proposing subcontractor pricing for Cost Reimbursable Task Orders. Under this section, it is required that subcontractors be priced using either the Prime’s unburdened CDR’s or through a breakdown that shows the Subcontractor’s proposed rates and the indirect rates and fee added by the Prime. However, many USAID contractors, including small businesses, perform exclusively on a fixed price basis using alternative pricing methodologies, such as weekly team bundles, that are not based on daily rates or a cost build up. | Offerors may propose any subcontractors they choose. However subcontractor cost must be adequately supported to allow for subcontract consent. |
| In order to provide USAID with competitive and innovative proposals, that allow offerors to include all qualified subcontractors, please confirm that offerors may propose subcontractor pricing, based on such weekly rates, that is burdened by the offeror’s indirect rates and a reasonable profit? | ||
| 48 | Section C.3.2 of the RFP explains the goal of increased competitiveness through "increased access to modern agricultural inputs." Can USAID provide any guidance on how it weighs and prioritizes growth of domestic companies vs. increased imports from US companies? (e.g. the RFP notes the goal of “strengthening regional inputs industry”, but also notes the goal of opening markets in E Africa to American goods) | We are unable to offer any specific guidance on the relative weights of domestic and US companies beyond the criterion included in the RFP |
| 49 | The tremendous boost to international trade found in digitization is widely recognized, but not mentioned as a priority in the RFP. Neither are the importance of digital solutions in finance and investment, or building the strength of markets within value chains, etc. Is there guidance on whether this is a priority (in addition to policy, institutional support, and other levers noted)? | We consider digitization a means to boosting international trade, but not an end in itself. |
| 50 | The RFP mentions irrigation as one in a list of inputs under "Accessing and Scaling Technologies" and how the shift from rain-fed agriculture to irrigated directly influences a country's capacity to serve export markets. While irrigation pumps would fit in with the other products in the list (fertilizer, feed, animal health technologies), the other side of irrigation involves coordination with infrastructure strategies. Is there guidance on how the Contractor should be viewing these activities related to irrigation? | No, please make the best case from your expertise |
| 51 | Section L.7.3 of the RFP defines a major subcontractor as “one whose proposed cost exceeds 15% of the Offeror’s total proposed cost”. Would USAID consider raising this threshold, consistent with many other large USAID programs, to 25%; allowing for greater flexibility in teaming structures. | Please see answer to Question #20 above |
| 52 | Section L.8 of the RFP states that “the offeror and each subcontractor must include a complete copy of its most current NICRA or other documentation from its cognizant Government Audit Agency, if any, stating the most recent provisional indirect cost rates.” In the event that a company does not have an cognizant audit agency, they are instructed to provide alternative information including copies of audit statements and profit and loss sheets, and recent fiscal year pool and base cost compositions along with derived rates. This type of information is typically required for firms performing on a cost reimbursable basis and may not be available from companies, including small businesses, that do not possess cost account systems and perform exclusively on a firm fixed price. Please confirm that subcontractors, who will perform exclusively on a FFP basis, are not required to submit the information requested in this paragraph, but may instead request other information to allow USAID to determine price reasonableness. | If a subcontractor is being proposed on a FFP basis then a NICRA may not be required. |
| 53 | Section B.5(e) of the RFP and L(c)(8) of the RFTOP state that fixed fee must not be | We consider GUC to be pass through cost hence our negotiation objective of zero. |
| applied to grants under contract (GUCs). This appears to be inconsistent with FAR | ||
| 15.404-4 and ADS 302.3.6.9, which state, inter alia, that pre-negotiation fee | ||
| objectives must be determined according to a structured approach that considers | ||
| contractor effort, risk, and other special factors. Grants require significant effort to | ||
| administer and carry risks for the contractor. Additionally, the statutory | ||
| underpinnings of fixed fee at 10 USC 2306(d) and 41 USC 254(b) discusses fee | ||
| definitions and limitations in terms of total estimated cost, which would include | ||
| grants in this case. Given these factors, we respectfully request that USAID | ||
| reconsider its agency pre-negotiation fee objective of 0 percent on grants and allow | ||
| offerors to charge a fee that is reasonable and consistent with federal regulations. | ||
| 54 | In Section B.6.2 Minimum Qualifications, the borders between levels in Table 2 | The Table in Section B.6.2 has been clarified |
| do not appear to be aligned properly. For example, the division between junior | ||
| and mid-level should be between the BS/BA and the Ph.D., not between Ph.D. | ||
| and JD/ABD. Could USAID please confirm the requirements for each | ||
| qualification level in Table 2? | ||
| 55 | Section B.6.5 Billing Central Management Costs states: “The Contracting | Per section B.6.5 the cost of a IDIQ manager is not authorized for the basic IDIQ. |
| Officer has determined that a key (full time) technical manager is not necessary | ||
| or required to administer this basic IDIQ Contract. Contractors will not be | ||
| authorized to bill USAID directly for IDIQ management costs under this IDIQ | ||
| Contract or under task orders. Contractors must propose a centralized | ||
| management structure that allows for recovery of IDIQ management costs as part | ||
| of its indirect costs.” Based on each organization’s cost structure and in | ||
| accordance with CAS 418 – Allocation of Direct and Indirect Costs, the cost of | ||
| the IDIQ manager can be considered direct. We respectfully request that prime | ||
| and subcontractors be allowed to follow their indirect cost structure under this | ||
| contract. | ||
| 56 | Section B.7, under the last note on page 16, states that contractors are allowed to | Contractors should follow their approved NICRA and cost practices when allocating and billing costs. |
| recoup indirect costs (OH, G&A, etc.) as other direct costs if it is part of the | ||
| contractor’s usual accounting procedures, consistent with FAR Part 31 and the | ||
| contractor’s NICRA. Please confirm that prime and subcontractors will be able | ||
| to recover all indirect costs normally assessed on travel and other direct costs | ||
| consistent with their NICRA and standard practice. | ||
| 57 | Sections F.3. Deliverables on page 128 and Section F.5 Reports and Deliverables or | The GUC manual must be provided at the IDIQ level. It is not required at the task order level unless requested by the TOCO. |
| Outputs on page 29 indicate that a grants manual is due at both the IDIQ level and at | ||
| the TO level. However, given that each task order will be different, we respectfully | ||
| request that USAID remove the requirement of an IDIQ-level grants manual and | ||
| require that a grants manual be submitted at the TO-level only, within 90 days of TO | ||
| signing. This will allow the manual to be tailored to the specific activities, tasks, | ||
| staffing, and operating environment of the task order. | ||
| 58 | Section H.2(a)(2) references “AIDAR 752.7007 above,” but this clause is not included. Could USAID please include the referenced AIDAR? | See Section I.17 |
| 59 | Section H.2(d) Annual Salary Increases allows for a 5 percent ceiling of current labor pool and references salary increases exceeding limits or maximum salary in Section H.X need contracting officer approval. Section H.X does not exist. Is USAID referring to the ceiling daily rates proposed in Section B.6.1? | The ceiling daily rates must not be exceeded without CO or TOCO approval. Contractors may increase salaries by up to five percent as long as the ceiling daily rates in Section B.6.1 are not exceeded. Section H.2 has been revised to specifically reference to B.6.1 |
| 60 | Section H.3 on page 45 states, “The authorized geographic code for procurement | The geographic code for RAMS Task Order is 935 and is specified in Attachment J.5. |
| of goods and services will be specified in task orders.” However, there is no | ||
| geographic code listed within Attachment J.5. RAMS RFTOP. Can USAID | ||
| please provide the geographic code for the RAMS task order? | ||
| 61 | Section H.10 of the RFP gives authorizing language to award grants under the IDIQ. | The ADS provides guidance to USAID personnel. The clause has been updated to state that GUC will be administered in accordance with ADS 302.3.5.6. |
| Would USAID kindly update this to include a reference to the specific ADS clauses | ||
| giving contractors the authority to have a GUC program (ADS 302.3.5.6 and ADS | ||
| 302.3.4.13)? | ||
| 62 | Section H.10 of the RFP, which authorizes GUC, includes a statement that an | Confirmed, this statement applies to the Contract as a whole |
| external mid-term evaluation and final activity evaluation will be carried out by | ||
| USAID. Can USAID please confirm that this sentence regarding evaluations | ||
| does not apply to GUC, but rather to the contract as a whole? | ||
| 63 | Per Section L.7 (ii) (3), offerors are required to submit a list of all government | USAID understands the concern however the language will be maintained |
| contracts within the last three years using the template in Attachment J.3. Given that | ||
| USAID has access to Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) | ||
| for all government contracts, would USAID consider removing this requirement and | ||
| allow for offerors to only submit ten relevant awards using the template in | ||
| Attachment J.3? For offerors with extensive federal contracting experience, this could | ||
| result in completing Attachment J.3 for hundreds of awards and cause undue burden. | ||
| 64 | Section L.6(iv) states on page 99 that the page limit does not include the cover | Confirmed, section dividers do not count towards page limits |
| page, table of contents, list of acronyms, executive summary, or annexes. Would | ||
| USAID please confirm section dividers also do not count against the page limit | ||
| for the RISE IDIQ technical proposal in line with the instructions for the RAMS | ||
| technical proposal in Attachment J.5, Section L, which explicitly state on page | ||
| 134 that dividers are not subject to the page limitations? | ||
| 65 | The last paragraph of Section L.6, on page 99, states that “additional documentation | Please see response to question #4 above |
| beyond 20 pages and the referenced annexes will not be read or evaluated by | ||
| USAID.” However, the sum of allowed pages per Section L.7 (ii) Technical Proposal | ||
| is 22 pages (see below): | ||
| (1) Corporate Capability (not to exceed 9 pages) | ||
| (2) Management Approach (not to exceed 10 pages) | ||
| (3) Contractor Past Performance (not to exceed 3 pages) | ||
| Can USAID please clarify the technical proposal page limits for the RISE IDIQ? | ||
| 66 | Section L.8, Part 3, of the RFP requires offerors to submit a copy of their most recent personnel policies. Given that our personnel policies are 2.5 MB and more than 100 pages, can USAID confirm that offerors with prior federal contracting experience do not need to submit organizational policies? | Please see response to question #24 above |
| 67 | Could USAID please confirm the order of the technical evaluation criteria as | Please see response to question #2 above |
| there is a discrepancy between the second paragraph of Section M.2 and the list | ||
| provided in Section M.2(a)? | ||
| 68 | Section L.7(ii), page 100, of the RFP states that the proposal shall not exceed 20 pages, but it is followed by three required sections, each with its own page limit. Together, they amount to 22 pages. Can USAID rectify this discrepancy? | Please see response to question #4 above |
| 69 | Section L.7.3, page 100, the RFP states that “Offerors must provide a list of all Government contracts within the last three years using the excel template in attachment J.3. Offerors must also provide a list of up to ten relevant Federal Assistance awards or non-Government awards using the same template.” Could USAID clarify if it wants all Government contracts within the last 3 years or all relevant Government contracts within the last 3 years alongside 10 relevant Federal Assistance awards or non-Government awards? Given the 3-page limit on this section, a listing of all Government contracts awarded to a large Government contractor in the last 3 years could easily exceed this limit. | Please see response to Question #5. |
| 70 | Section L.7.3, page 100, states that “Offerors must provide a list of all Government contracts within the last three years using the excel template in attachment J.3. Offerors must also provide a list of up to ten relevant Federal Assistance awards or non-Government awards using the same template.” The Past Performance Matrix provided as Attachment J.3 in the RFP contains 14 columns, which is so wide that it does not print out on 8.5x11 or on 11x14 paper unless it is scaled down to under 45%. At this size, the text becomes so small that it “interferes with readability,” mentioned as a requirement in Section L.6.iii. In order to address the required information, would USAID kindly allow Offeror’s to submit the Past Performance Matrix on size 11x17 paper, using font size 9? | Offerors must submit the past performance document in excel. The Government will expand for readability if needed. |
| 71 | Section L.6, page 98 states that the technical proposal must be organized by the technical evaluation criteria listed in Section M. | See response to question #2 and #4 above. RAMS Task Order Proposal is required as a separate document. |
| Section M on p. 106 orders the technical evaluation criteria as follows: | ||
| Management Approach | ||
| Corporate Capability | ||
| Technical Approach | ||
| Past Performance |
| However, section L.7, page 99 states that “the outline of the technical proposal will be as follows” and orders the sections as follows (page 100): |
| Corporate Capability |
| Management Approach |
| Contractor Past Performance. |
There is no Technical Approach listed in section L.7, but page 99 states that “All Offerors are required to submit a technical proposal for the RAMS task order. This will form the basis for technical approach evaluation under the IDIQ.”
Can USAID kindly clarify in which order the sections should be included (Management Approach or Corporate Capability section first)? And, whether the Technical Approach from the RAMS task order proposal is meant to be embedded within the IDIQ proposal before the Past Performance References section to adhere to the ordering in Section M on page 106 or as a standalone document?
| For example, is USAID looking for offerors to structure the full response as follows: | ||
| I. Cover Page | ||
| II. Table of Contents | ||
| III. List of Acronyms | ||
| IV. Executive Summary | ||
| V. Corporate Capability | ||
| VI. Management Approach | ||
| VII. Contractor Past Performance | ||
| VIII. Task Order Response, including a (1) technical approach and (2) management plan and key personnel | ||
| Required Annexes, if included in the revised RFP (please see next question) | ||
| 72 | Section L.7.4, page 99, states that “For submission of the RAMS task order proposal, Offerors must follow the requirements under Section L.6 of Attachment J.5 below.” Attachment J.5 does not include a reference to Section L.6. Could USAID confirm if additional instructions are missing or if Offerors are to just include sections for 1) Technical Approach and 2) Management Plan and Key Personnel? If the latter, would USAID consider adding additional annexes where Offerors may include the following required pieces: the draft Year One work plan, the draft MEL plan, qualifications for proposed key personnel positions, and an organizational chart? | Please see response to question #4 above. Additional Annexes are not authorized |
| 73 | Section F.2.2, page 127, states that “The contractor must propose four Key Personnel positions for the RAMS Task Order…” Could USAID confirm that offerors are not required to propose candidates for the additional 4 key personnel, but that they are only required to present a position with minimum qualifications? | Confirmed, offerors are not required to propose actual candidates in the proposal. |
| 74 | Section B.5(3) on page 10 of the RFP states that “Fees must not be applied to Grants under Contracts (“GUCs”) and Section L(8) of Attachment J.5 on page 136 states that “fixed Fee is not applicable to GUCs.” This appears to be inconsistent with FAR 15.404-4 and ADS 302.3.6.8, which state, inter alia, that pre-negotiation fee objectives must be determined according to a structured approach that considers contractor effort, risk, and other special factors. Grants require significant effort to administer and carry risks for the contractor. | Please see response to question 14. |
| 75 | Additionally, the statutory underpinnings of fixed fee at 10 USC 2306(d) and 41 USC 254(b) discuss fee definitions and limitations in terms of total estimated cost, which would include grants in this case. Given this, we respectfully request that USAID reconsider its agency prenegotiation fee objective of 0 percent on grants and allow offerors to propose a reasonable fee ceiling that considers grants under contract as a part of the total estimated cost of applicable task orders. | Please see response to question 14. |
| 76 | Section L.8 Part 2, page 101, states that “Offerors must submit a cost proposal for the IDIQ including proposed unburdened labor rates, indirect costs, and other direct costs. These will be reviewed as part of the evaluation as indicated in Section M. Cost proposals must be submitted under separate cover from the technical proposal.” Can USAID please confirm that this reference to “other direct costs” pertains only to the Task Order #1 budget, and not to the cost information required for the IDIQ portion of the cost proposal? | We do not anticipate other direct costs under the IDIQ cost submission. |
| 77 | To enhance consistency among bids, could USAID please provide a standard USD-KES exchange rate for bidders to use in their proposals? | Yes, offerors must use $1=100KES |
| 78 | In section B.6.1(1)(b), page 10, the CDRs set forth are fixed for the contract period and are for a productive eight (8) hour day. The CDRs apply to all labor (i.e., the prime contractor, subcontractor, Third Country Nationals (“TCNs”), Cooperating Country Nationals (“CCNs”), and consultant salaries) on cost-type task orders. CCN and TCN labor are also governed by the local compensation plan limitations. Could USAID please provide the current Local Compensation Plan for USAID/Kenya? | Unfortunately, USAID is unable to provide the LCP. In addition, because this contract will take place across East Africa the LCP's for respective countries will govern each particular Task Order. |
| 79 | Section L.5(ii)(2), page 98, states that the proposal can be submitted “In either Adobe Acrobat PDF and MS Word (software versions 2003 or newer) for the technical proposal, budget narrative, and all other required documents that form part of the proposal…” Could USAID please confirm that the offeror may submit in either Adobe Acrobat PDF or MS Word Format? | Confirmed, as long as both documents are searchable and unlocked. |
| 80 | Section H.3 indicates that the authorized geographic code will be specified in each task order. Given this, could USAID please provide the authorized geographic code for the RAMS effort? | See answer to question 60 above |
| 81 | Could USAID kindly remove FAR clauses 52.215-10, 52.215-13 and 52.215-20 given that certified cost and pricing data is not required for this effort? | Certified cost and prices may be required at the task order level |
| 82 | Cover Page- Would USAID please clarify how small business set-aside task orders will be completed upon award given that only one (1) small business IDIQ holder is contemplated? | As stated task order under $1 million dollars will be set aside for small businesses. All other task orders will be fully completed. |
| 83 | Page 19 C.3.1- Would USAID please describe how it envisions this program will coordinate with various, current and future, Market Systems Development efforts procured out of BFS/Washington and/or through bilateral mission buy-ins? | We envision that the program will appropriately coordinate in the best interests of achieving its objectives. |
| 84 | Section L -Would USAID please clarify the submission requirements for the IDIQ and RAMs Task Order Technical response – are offerors required to submit Task Order responses as a separate document or within the IDIQ Technical Volume response? | As a separate submission |
| 85 | Page 99, Section L.6- In the instructions for the preparation of the technical proposal, USAID requests that all information from appendices must be referenced in the technical proposal and summarized and included in the annex section. Can USAID please clarify which elements of the appendices will be included as part of the technical evaluation? | The following language has been removed "All critical information from |
| appendices/annexes clearly identified and summarized in the technical proposal will be | ||
| evaluated as part of the basis of award." | ||
| 86 | Page100, Section L.7- Content of Technical Proposal, USAID notes that the Technical Proposal is not to exceed 20 pages total for the IDIQ Technical Volume Response. However, the allocated page count totals 22 pages (listed as follows): | Please see answer to Question #4 |
| · Corporate Capability (9 pages) | ||
| · Management Approach (10 pages) | ||
| · Past Performance (3 Pages) | ||
| Can USAID please clarify the total page limitation for the IDIQ proposal and allocations for each subsection respectively? | ||
| 87 | Please confirm that an Executive Summary is not required for TO1. | Please see response to question #4 above. A cover letter is required for Task Order #1. Refer to Section L.7 for contents of a Cover Page |
| 88 | Does the TO1 cover work that is currently being done under the East Africa Trade and Investment Hub, or is there an anticipated follow on to the Trade Hub that will be released at a later date? | Yes, some of the tasks are currently being performed on existing mechanisms. Please monitor Fedbizopps, grants.gov or the USAID business forecast for information on upcoming procurements. |
| 89 | Please confirm that cover letters can be included with both the IDIQ and TO. | Please see response to question #4 above. A cover letter is required for Task Order #1. Refer to Section L.7 for contents of a Cover Page |
| 90 | Will USAID authorize a 6 day work week for short term technical assistance? | Not at the IDIQ level. |
| 91 | For the TO1 budget, please confirm that bidders should not propose ceiling indirect rates. | The CDR will be established at the IDIQ level and used for the RAMS task order. |
| 92 | Please advise on the estimated start date for TO1. | USAID intends the Task Order will be issued concurrently with the IDIQ award by the 1st Qtr of 2020. |
| 93 | Can USAID confirm whether new labor categories can be requested if there is not a suitable labor category. | USAID does not plan to add new labor categories to the IDIQ as the labor categories are broad enough to include multiple technical areas. |
| 94 | Can Offerors propose indirect ceiling rates for each year? | No, offerors must propose their latest approved provisional rate. |
| 95 | Section L.8 of the RFTOP states that Fixed Fee is not applicable to Grants under contract. However, can we charge Management Fee on Grants? | Please see answer to question #14. |
| 96 | The RFP notes that the “lack of investment, including in good roads, irrigation, cold chain facilities and other necessary infrastructure, inhibits the ability of businesses to bring goods to domestic, regional and international markets.” Can USAID clarify the role that RISE will play in supporting the development of such infrastructure? | USAID does not plan on large scale construction under this IDIQ. |
| 97 | Can USAID please confirm that the MEL plan, M&E plan, and PMP mentioned on pages 128 through 132 refer to the same deliverable? | The MEL plan and the M&E plan are the same deliverable; the PMP is related but different. |
| 98 | Please confirm the key personnel meant to be furnished per Section F (page 127 of the RFP) are applicable to the RAMS task order, not the RISE IDIQ more generally. | Confirmed, the Key Personnel required to be furnished in Section F are applicable at Task Order level |
| 99 | Section L.6(iv) (page 98 of the RFP) indicates that the cover letter will not count against the 20 page limitation. Section L.7 on page 99 of the RFP, however, does not include the non-page counting cover letter as part of the outline for the technical proposal. Please confirm offerors may include a cover letter as a non-counting element of the technical proposal. | Confirmed, a Cover Letter does not count towards the page limits |
| 100 | Section L.6(iv) (page 98 of the RFP) states that annexes do not count against the 20 page limitation, and later goes on to note in sub-section (vi) that “all critical information from appendices/annexes clearly identified and summarized in the technical proposal will be evaluated as part of the basis of award.” The subsequent outline for the technical proposal (Section L.7 on page 99) does not mention specific annexes/appendices that are meant to be included as part of the technical proposal. Would USAID please clarify which non-page counting annexes/appendices are required as part of the technical proposal submission? | See response to question #4 above. This language will be clarified |
| 101 | Page 98 of the RFP (Section L.6(1)) indicates that “the technical proposal must be organized by the technical evaluation criteria listed in Section M.” Section M.2 (page 106 of the RFP) later notes that “the technical factors will be evaluated based on the following ranked order of importance Corporate Capability, Management Approach, Technical Approach, and Past Performance” in which the technical approach section will be evaluated on “the extent to which the technical approach for the RAMS task order demonstrates the capability to successfully perform activities in Section C of the IDIQ.” | Please see Responses to Question #2 and #4 above |
The instructions for the content of the technical proposal (page 100, Section L.7), however, do not include the technical approach section/request for the RAMS task order as part of the outline for the technical proposal, even though it is referenced in Section M (see above) and also on page 99 of the RFP, which states that “all Offerors are required to submit a technical proposal for the RAMS task order. This will form the basis for technical approach evaluation under the IDIQ.”
| o Please confirm what is meant to be included as part of the 20 page technical proposal. | ||
| o Please clarify that offerors’ responses to the RAMS task order (per Attachment J.5; page 134 of the RFP) should be a separate 25 page section or document (see below question) and not included as part of the 20 page technical proposal. | ||
| o Please clarify if offerors should submit separate documents for the technical proposal (20 pages plus annexes) and response to the RAMS task order (25 pages), or if the response to the RAMS task order should be embedded as part of the technical proposal. | ||
| o Please clarify if CVs, references, and letters of commitment are being requested at this time. | ||
| o If so, please clarify where they should be included (part of the technical proposal or response to the RAMS task order). | ||
| 102 | As referenced above, Section M.2 (page 106 of the RFP) states that “the technical factors will be evaluated based on the following ranked order of importance Corporate Capability, Management Approach, Technical Approach, and Past Performance” while the following section (M.2.a) includes management approach first, followed by corporate capability. Please clarify which section—management approach or corporate capability—should be presented first in our proposal. Also, please clarify the ranking of each of the sections. | Please see response to question #2 above. |
| 103 | Section B.5.e, on page 10 states that no fee will be applied to grants under contract. We respectfully request that USAID reconsider the fee applicable to grants as grants require a significant effort to administer, and therefore carry risk to the offeror. Will USAID allow offerors to apply a reduced fee on grants under the IDIQ? | Please see answer to question #14 above |
| 104 | Section B.6.2 Table 2, page 13: The minimum qualifications seem to be inconsistent across the different levels. For example, for Mid level staff, “Less than BS/BA” is listed, but “Less than BS/BA” is not listed under Junior level requirements. Will USAID consider revising the table? | The Table in Section B.6.2 is correct as it is |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .