Attachment A. Q&A - RFP No._ 72066025R00005_A01.pdf

RFP # 72066025R00005

Feed the Future Democratic Republic of the Congo Resilient Food Systems

Amendment No. 01 Attachment A: Questions and Answers

Attachment A: Questions and Answers

COVER PAGE

Question #1 We appreciate the urgency of the DRC FTF Resilient Food Systems procurement process, however, we kindly request that USAID consider extending the submission deadline to January 31, 2025 accommodate the Christmas, Hannukah, and New Year's holidays which fall between December 25, 2024 - January 2, 2025. Adjusting the deadline will improve proposal quality and allow Offerors to fully incorporate USAID Q&A responses. We would appreciate USAID’s consideration of this question now, rather than after December 20, so that offerors can plan accordingly and cancel planned leave only if absolutely necessary.

Answer: The due date for submission of proposals has been extended to January 27, 2025, 17:00 Kinshasa Local Time (11:00 EST).

Question #2 Relevant RFP Language: “Closing Date: 01/13/2025”.

Question: In responding to this proposal, we seek to meaningfully incorporate input from local partners and stakeholders. Given the upcoming holidays, during which time many DRC organizations are closed, and to provide adequate time for local co-creation, would USAID kindly extend the closing date for receipt of proposals to January 27, 2025?

Answer: See response to Question #1.

Question #3 ... we note that this RFP was released two weeks early and right as most of our internal team, our partners, and the stakeholders in DRC are going offline for the Christmas and New Years holidays. Given this, we kindly ask that USAID consider extending the due date for this proposal effort to February 13, to allow for a 60-day turnaround over the holidays. This will also ensure that USAID receives the best quality proposal submissions that have been informed by critical inputs from experts in the DRC.

Answer: See response to Question #1.

Question #4 Given that there are two public holidays that are observed in the U.S. and the Democratic Republic of the Congo during the duration of the proposal, we respectfully request an extension for the due date by at least one week. The short turnaround time presents a challenge in particular to our local partners in the DRC whose offices are closed during the holidays. This gives them very limited time to contribute to the technical design and prepare budgets and necessary documentation.

Answer: See response to Question #1.

Amendment No. 01 Attachment A: Questions and Answers

Question #5 Given the Christmas, Hannukah, New Year’s, and Martyr’s Day holidays taking place between December 25, 2024 – January 4, 2025, would USAID please consider extending the submission deadline to January 31, 2025?

a. Cover Letter and SF-33. If USAID intends to maintain the current deadline of January 14, 2025, could you please confirm the submission due time. The RFP cover letter says that the submission time is 17:00 EST, but proposals are to be submitted to the DRC OAA. Should this be 17:00 Kinshasa time? Furthermore, the SF-33 indicates that the due time is 14:00. Kindly clarify the due time and relevant time zone.

Answer: See response to Question #1.

Question #6 Would the government consider extending the proposal due date?

Answer: See response to Question #1.

Question #7 Could USAID please confirm the RFP Number? On the cover page, the RFP number is listed as 72066025R00005, while the header on page 4 states the RFP number is 72066025R00001.

Answer: The correct RFP number is 72066025R00005.

Question #8 The cover letter and SF-33 use “RFP No. 72066025R00005,” but the header of the rest of the RFP uses “No. 72066025R00001.” Would USAID please confirm which RFP number the submission should reference?

Answer: See response to Question #7.

SECTION B

No questions received.

SECTION C

Question #9 RFP Reference: C.4.7, Page Number: 19, Relevant RFP Language: “the majority of RFS resources dedicated to interventions in the field (at least 60%) should be allocated to the portion of the ZOI located in Kasai Central. Approximately 40% of the field-focused level of effort should be dedicated to the Kongo Central portion of the ZOI.”

Question: Could USAID confirm that the request that “40% of the field-focused level of effort” be dedicated to Kongo Central means that of the total number of staff located in Kasai Central and Kongo Central, 60% should be located in Kasai Central (i.e., staff located in Kinshasa and Home Office staff do not count as part of this calculation)?

Amendment No. 01 Attachment A: Questions and Answers

Answer: USAID confirms that any staff based in Kinshasa does not count as part of the calculation for the level of effort dedicated to Kongo Central or Kasai Central.

Question #10 RFP Reference: C.4.8, Page Number: 20, Relevant RFP Language: “Multi-zone Approach: The agro-ecological, private sector landscape, market access, and comparative advantages and needs vary greatly between Kongo Central and Kasai Central provinces.

Different sets of interventions, choice of focus crops and animals, or market-based solutions necessary to advance the stated objectives are expected. Additionally, the portion of the ZOI located in Kasai Central fully overlaps with BHA’s Tudituale activity, but also has a significant portion located separate from and adjacent to the Tudituale activity.”

RFP Reference: C.4.8, Page Number: 21, Relevant RFP Language: “The inception phase will end with a workshop and launch event involving USAID, Tudituale staff, RFS staff, and other interested stakeholders where summaries of the analyses will be presented and discussed.”

Question: USAID calls for a six-month inception phase at the outset of the project, which will culminate in a workshop and launch event with USAID, Tudituale staff, RFS staff, and other interested stakeholders where summaries of the analyses will be presented and discussed.

However, given the distances and travel complications between the three geographic zones, and the necessity of including regionally based stakeholders in the workshops, is it USAID’s expectation that offerors will hold separate culmination workshops/launch events in each of the three targeted zones?

Answer: A single culmination workshop in Kinshasa is expected. Additionally, it is anticipated that a launch event will be planned for Kinshasa, Kongo Central and Kasai Central in August of 2025.

Question #11 RFP Reference: C.4.8, Page Number: 26, Relevant RFP Language: “The Contractor should propose a GUC budget for achieving these critical results and include their assumptions and justifications in the budget narrative.”

Question: USAID requests that the Contractor include assumptions and justifications related to the GUC budget in the budget narrative. Can USAID confirm that what is expected is a lump sum budget for the GUC mechanism and that the justifications to be included relate to a description of the types of grants and grantees anticipated?

Answer: USAID confirms that a lump sum budget for the GUC mechanism is expected and that the offeror should determine the appropriate amount based on their technical approach and provide a justification for the dollar amount in the budget narrative. The types of grants and grantees are already described in the “Grants Under Contract (GUC) approach” located on pages 25 and 26 of the solicitation. Offerors should propose an amount in accordance with their technical approach, in particular their approach to working with Congolese organizations, as

Amendment No. 01 Attachment A: Questions and Answers stated on pages 25 and 26 of the RFP. This amount should not be less than $4 million in GUCs (not including indirect costs or fees), but offerors may propose more in accordance with their own technical approaches.

Question #12 On page 35 of the RFP, USAID notes, “This may be reflected in the Contractor’s approach to GUCs, program activities, subawards, or elsewhere as appropriate in the Offeror’s technical approach.” Will USAID please clarify if this should say subcontracts rather than subawards?

Answer: USAID confirms that “subaward” is synonymous with “subcontract” throughout the solicitation.

Question #13 With reference to the draft results framework in RFI 72066025RFI0001, can USAID share any details on whether the geographic focus of upcoming CARPE activities focused on increased civil society capacity and private sector investment to promote local community development will include the FTF ZOIs? And, if there will be geographic overlap, is there any detail available on the types of interventions those activities would carry out that are pertinent for coordination with the Resilient Food Systems Activity?

Answer: According to the NOFO for the USAID/CARPE Promoting Alternative Technologies and Fuels to Reduce the Use of Charcoal for Cooking in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) activity, the geographic area for the activity encompasses the cities of Kinshasa, Goma, Bukavu, and Kisangani in the DRC and their surrounding areas, including their charcoal supply basins. These urban area residents are the primary users of charcoal for cooking, which is trucked into the city through supply lines that originate from forested rural areas well beyond the city limits. Whereas it is possible, but unlikely, that the Kinshasa charcoal supply basin would extend to Kasai Central, it is reasonable to assume that it may extend to the FTF ZOI located in Kongo Central (Seke Banza and Lukula Territories) and would therefore result in potential, yet to-be-determined, overlap with the FTF DRC Resilient Food Systems activity.

Question #14 C.4.5.2 Component 2 (p. 30 of RFP): With respect to Component 2 and the third cross-cutting focal area “climate change adaptation and mitigation” of the planned activity, can USAID provide guidance on how this RFS program may relate to future USAID-funded activity focused on charcoal alternatives in either or both ZOIs?

Answer: See response to Question #13.

Question #15 C.4.5.4 Cross-Cutting Focus Areas (p. 34 of RFP): With respect to CCFA 4:

Governance and Policy Environment in this RFP and CC IR 7 (focusing on more effective governance, policy, and institutions) of the DRC GFSS, and recognizing the estimated budget allotment to this activity relative to the overall GFSS budget, should offerors anticipate that their cross-cutting governance and policy environment work should be planned and budgeted with

Amendment No. 01 Attachment A: Questions and Answers the assumption of coordination with a future USAID project specialized in policy reform and governance, or with the assumption that the Resilient Food Systems activity will be the primary USAID investment in improving the business enabling environment, in collaboration with the current donor and private-sector activities?

Answer: With respect to CCFA 4: Governance and Policy Environment in this RFP and CC IR 7 (focusing on more effective governance, policy, and institutions) of the DRC GFSS, the primary focus for this contract should be on the local-level business environment. Coordination with any potential future Feed the Future policy activity will be determined through discussions with the COR and integrated into future work plans.

Question #16 C.4.6 Expected Results (p. 36 of RFP) speaks to the results the Contractor must contribute to, whereas F.8.II.5 Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (p. 54 of RFP) indicates that life-of-project indicator targets will be set in the AMELP during the inception phase and finalized in discussion with USAID. Can USAID confirm it does not wish offerors to propose life-of-project indicator targets in their responses to this solicitation?

Answer: USAID confirms that there is neither a requirement nor restriction for indicating life-of-project indicator targets in any response to this solicitation.

Question #17 In Section C.4.7 (pg. 19), USAID notes that “the majority of RFS resources dedicated to interventions in the field (at least 60%) should be allocated to the portion of the ZOI located in Kasai Central” and “approximately 40% of the field-focused level of effort should be dedicated to the Kongo Central portion of the ZOI.” Would USAID please confirm that “resources” refers only to the level of effort (LOE) as referenced at the end of this sentence and not to all costs spent in each region? If USAID requires resources other than LOE to be allocated in this manner, could they please confirm what resources should be included in this calculation?

Answer: USAID confirms that the percentage for resources allocation refers to the level of effort (LOE). Also see response to Question #9.

SECTION D

No questions received.

SECTION E

Question #18 Page 43, Section E.3: Could USAID please remove the reference in paragraph E.3 to FAR 52.246-4, Inspection of Service-Fixed Price? As this is anticipated to be a cost reimbursement type contract, the fixed-price reference is not applicable.

Amendment No. 01 Attachment A: Questions and Answers

Answer: Reference to FAR 52.246-4 removed.

SECTION F

Question #19 RFP Reference: F.7.5, Page Number: 49, Relevant RFP Language: “The Contracting Officer’s approval is not required for non-key personnel under this Contract, unless their rates exceed the ceiling rates for the local compensation plan for CCN personnel.”

Question: Would USAID provide a copy of the DRC Mission Local Compensation Plan to ensure alignment of offered compensation analysis?

Answer: Pursuant to AIDAR 752.7007 each contractor should compensate their employees based on the market conditions and their established policies. To support this, USAID conducted a market survey which took into account historical amounts paid, the NGO market, and an economic assessment to determine what reasonable compensation is in the development industry. This analysis has been shared as an attachment J.9 to the RFP. Upon award, the contractor will submit its local compensation plan for the Contracting Officer’s review and approval; salaries within the established pay ranges will not require approval. The solicitation has been updated accordingly.

Question #20 Will USAID please share what start date offerors should use for the project?

Answer: Offerors should assume June 1, 2025 as the tentative contract performance start date.

Question #21 Will USAID please clarify when the Year One workplan is due?

Answer: The initial Annual Work Plan will be due 120 days after the contract start date.

Subsequent Work Plans will be due on August 15 as specified in Section F, Table of Deliverables. The RFP has been amended accordingly.

Question #22 F.8 #2 Inception Report: In this section USAID notes the elements required of the Inception Report, which includes “11) Gender and Inclusion Analysis and Strategy” under the summary of required analyses in the second bullet as well as a fifth bullet requiring a brief summary of the “GESI Analysis and Strategy” deliverable. Will USAID confirm whether these are the same deliverables and only one summary is needed in the inception report?

Answer: USAID confirms that only one summary is needed in the inception report.

Question #23 Could USAID confirm an estimated start date for the Activity?

Answer: See response to Question #20.

Amendment No. 01 Attachment A: Questions and Answers

Question #24 F.8.II.2 Inception Report (p. 52 of RFP): USAID states: “The Inception Report will summarize analyses, strategies and action plans for several key areas of the Resilient Food Systems activity. Note that although the necessary analyses must be completed prior to the inception report, they will not be submitted as deliverables. Summaries of the analyses are to be submitted with the inception report, and each complete analysis will be accessible as needed to the COR during implementation to inform programmatic decisions. The format and length for these reports must be finalized in collaboration with the COR in advance.” The phrase “and may be revisited as needed,” creates a contingent liability for work by the Contractor that could continue throughout the life of the activity. If additional analyses are needed, we respectfully request that USAID integrate these additional analyses as part of the annual workplan and budget, rather than as an undefined at will contingent work liability.

Answer: USAID confirms that if additional analyses are needed, USAID will integrate these additional analyses as part of the annual workplan and budget, rather than as an undefined at will contingent work liability. With this clarification, USAID would also like to highlight requirements related to the Adaptive Management Report requirements.

Question #25 Page 50, Section F.8 – Table of Deliverables: Could USAID please clarify whether the first annual workplan is due 120 days after the contract effective date, the same as the EMMP (since the EMMP is to be part of the workplan)? The table only states that the annual workplan is due by Aug 15 of each year, which does not seem applicable to the first annual workplan.

Answer: See response to Question #21.

Question #26 Page 52, Section F.8 – Table of Deliverables: The final programmatic report is indicated as due 30 days before the end of the contract. Would USAID consider changing this due date to be at least 60 days after the end date of the contract?

Answer: USAID confirms that the final programmatic report is due 30 days prior to the end of the contract as currently specified in Section F.

Question #27 Section F.2 (p. 44) states that the base period of performance for this contract is from the effective date of the award through September 30, 2028. Would USAID please provide the anticipated effective date of award so all Offerors can use the same Base and Option periods for their budgets?

Answer: See response to Question #20.

Question #28 Attachment J.14 Responses to Questions From Presolicitation No.

72066025R00001: In response to questions 3 and 19, USAID stated: “USAID/DRC intends to use revised summaries of the analyses to inform work planning and identify necessary pivots to

Amendment No. 01 Attachment A: Questions and Answers the activity during implementation. Please note that this Contract will not require the Contactor to submit copies of the full analyses as deliverables; the requirement is that the Contractor conduct analyses and summarize them in relevant reporting in order to provide context and justification for programmatic approaches and redirection of interventions over time.” However, in section F.8.II.3 Adaptative Management Report (p. 53 of RFP), USAID states the requirement for these same analyses to be included is written as part of the annual deliverable. Does this mean that the contract should budget to conduct an annual update to each of the inception analyses?

Answer: Per Section F, Table of Deliverables, the Adaptive Management Report is not due annually, but rather one year and three years after the effective date of the contract. The Adaptive Management Report will serve as an update to the Inception Report and will integrate lessons learned into strategies and action plans for identified key areas. Both of the Adaptive Management Reports will mirror the initial inception report in terms of format and structure and the content of the summaries for each analysis should be revised to reflect what has been learned through implementation and how this learning will be applied to future implementation and work plans.

Question #29 Attachment J.14 Responses to Questions From Presolicitation No.

72066025R00001: Regarding the response to questions 2, 4, and 5, on the (non-)availability of Tudituale program documents at the competition phase, can USAID confirm that no other approved DEC or non-DEC documents (like the FY2024 Q2, Q3, and annual reports or work plans, appropriately redacted) could be made available, to permit all offerors an equal foundation to propose technical approaches and activities that are synergistic with—and not duplicative of—this RFS program?

Answer: All formally accepted documents related to the Tudituale activity will be uploaded on the Development Experience Clearinghouse as they become available.

SECTION G

No questions received.

SECTION H

Question #30 Page 88, Section H: Could USAID please confirm whether paragraph H.27 was included in error? The paragraph refers to the contractor furnishing services in support of the design of the Feed the Future Democratic Republic of the Congo Resilient Food Systems activity, and therefore being unable to furnish services as a prime or subcontractor for the activity’s implementation. However, the RFP is for services to implement the activity, so the clause does not seem applicable.

Amendment No. 01 Attachment A: Questions and Answers

Answer: Section H.27 has been deleted in its entirety.

Question #31 Page 81, Section H.19.g: Could USAID please clarify the types of awards that may be used for Grants Under Contract? Section H.19.g. states that they may be cost reimbursable, fixed amount awards, or in-kind, but in section L.8, in the description of CLIN 002, it lists only cost reimbursable and fixed amount awards.

Answer: USAID confirms that GUC CLIN 002 is limited to cost-reimbursement or fixed amount grants. In-kind support should be programmed under CLIN 001 using non-GUC approaches.

SECTION I

Question #32 Page 91, Section I.1: Could USAID clarify whether FAR 52.215-11, Price Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data-Modifications and FAR 52.215-13, Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data-Modifications, are included in error? It is our understanding from FAR 15.408(c) that if 52.215-10 is included, 52. 215-11 should not be included, and from FAR 15.408(e) that 52.215-13 should only be included when 52.215-11 is included.

Answer: The clauses are not mutually exclusive, they cover the prime and subcontractors.

Question #33 Page 95, Section I.1: Could USAID clarify why FAR 52.242-2 Production Progress Reports – is included? It is our understanding that this clause applies to factory production type contracts and should therefore be removed from this solicitation.

Answer: FAR 52.242-2 has been removed.

SECTION J

Question #34 … we noticed that Section J on page 102 of the RFP lists 15 attachments, but links are provided for only 4 of them. Could USAID post an updated RFP with the full set of links included?

Answer: While there are no hyperlinks in the RFP document for some of the attachments, all listed attachments are available on SAM.gov.

Question #35 ... the Section J attachments were not included in the RFP or on SAM.gov. Could USAID kindly update the solicitation with the Section J attachments at your earliest convenience?

Answer: See response to Question #34.

Amendment No. 01 Attachment A: Questions and Answers

SECTION K

Question #36 The cover letter states, “Section K - Representations, Certifications and Acknowledgments must be filled out and completed in full by the Offerors and their proposed subcontractors.” However, Section L.8.3.d (p. 148) specifies only major subs should include their completed Section K in the cost proposal. Could USAID confirm only the offerors and major subcontractors should complete Section K?

Answer: USAID confirms that completed section K is required for the prime and major subcontractors only.

Question #37 In Section K.3.a.1 (p. 105), the certification suggests the NAICS classification code for this acquisition is 541611 (Administrative Management and General Management Consulting). However, the cover letter mentions NAICS Code is 541690 (Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services). Could USAID please confirm which NAICS code is correct?

Answer: The NAICS code has been updated to 541990 (All Other Professional, Scientific and Technical Services.)

SECTION L

General

Question #38 L.6(b) Proposals in Response to this RFP (p. 131 of RFP): As with charts, graphs, and textboxes, may tables be presented in 10-point font?

Answer: USAID confirms that, as with charts, graphs, textboxes, and tables may be presented in 10-point font.

Question #39 L.6(b) Proposals in Response to this RFP (p. 131 of RFP): Please confirm that proposals are not required to be “tabbed” as they are being submitted electronically.

Answer: The documents must be formatted to allow readers to go directly to chapters or sections by clicking links in the table of contents (TOC). Additional section dividers are not required.

Question #40 Page 131 The sections and annexes in each of the Technical and Cost proposals must be tabbed and listed in the table of contents.

Answer: See response to Question #39.

Technical Proposal

Amendment No. 01 Attachment A: Questions and Answers

Question #41 RFP Reference: L.6.b, Page Number: 131, Relevant RFP Language: “The Offeror must submit the Technical Proposal using 12-point font size.”

Answer: USAID confirms that the proposal must be presented in 12-point font with the exception of charts, graphs, textboxes, and tables which may be presented in 10-point font.

Question #42 RFP Reference: L.7.2, Page Number: 133, Relevant RFP Language: “The page length for the entire Technical Proposal must not exceed 15 pages exclusive of Annexes and other pages not subject to a page limitation as specified below.

Question: In order to have space to adequately address the requested information required in the main body of the Technical Proposal for Management Approach and Staffing, Technical Approach, and Experience and Organizational Capability, would USAID allow offerors to use 11-point font size, as was allowed in the recent USAID/DRC Santé Gouvernance Activity RFP?

Answer: See response to Question #41.

Question #43 RFP Reference: L.7.2.IV, Page Number: 134, Relevant RFP Language:

“Executive Summary (not included in the 15 page technical proposal page limitation, but not to exceed 2 pages) The Executive Summary must not exceed one page and it is included in the 15 pages limit of the technical proposal.”

Question a: Could USAID confirm that offerors may use up to 2 pages for the Executive Summary?

Question b: To maximize the presentation of management and technical approaches, could USAID confirm that the Executive Summary does not count against the 15-page limit?

Answer: Disregard “The Executive Summary must not exceed one page and it is included in the 15 pages limit of the technical proposal” stated in the 1st paragraph of section L.7.2.IV (page 134). USAID confirms that the section head of L.7.2.IV on page 134 of the solicitation that states the following should be used: “Executive Summary (not included in the 15 page technical proposal page limitation, but not to exceed 2 pages).”

Question #44 RFP Reference: L.7.2.VI, Page Number: 135-136, Relevant RFP Language: “The technical approach must describe in detail the different activities and how these activities will accomplish each of the 3 components specified in Section C of the solicitation in clear and specific terms with quantitative measures specified whenever possible.”

Question: Could USAID clarify what is required by “quantitative measures”? Could USAID confirm that offerors are only required to specify indicators that we will use to measure progress towards each Component/Result, and that targets for those proposed indicators will be finalized during AMELP development after award?

Amendment No. 01 Attachment A: Questions and Answers

Answer: USAID confirms that that mention of “quantitative measures” in L.7.2.VI Pages 135 and 136 of the solicitation refers to the metrics or indicators expressed in numerical terms that allow for the objective assessment, comparison, or tracking of specific variables or targets as needed to evaluate performance, progress, or outcomes toward advancing the 3 Components specified in Section C of the solicitation and that and that targets for proposed indicators will be finalized during AMELP development after award. USAID also confirms that there is neither a requirement nor restriction for indicating potential targets for proposed indicators based upon the proposed technical approach.

Question #45 RFP Reference: L.7.2, Page Number: 133, Relevant RFP Language: “The page length for the entire Technical Proposal must not exceed 15 pages exclusive of Annexes and other pages not subject to a page limitation as specified below.

RFP Reference: L.7.2.VI, Page Number: 136, Relevant RFP Language: “No Annexes will be submitted with the Technical Approach.”

The main body of the Technical Proposal includes three sections that count against the page limit: Management Approach and Staffing, Technical Approach, and Experience and Organizational Capability. For the Technical Approach alone, the Statement of Work contains 3 components with a total of 7 results, 6 cross-cutting focus areas, and 10 programmatic approaches, for which the offeror is required to describe our approach to accomplish in detail.

Question a: To allow offerors sufficient space to present “creative, original, critical thinking and analysis, related to each objective/component of focus and tie the technical approach to the deliverables and results to be achieved,” would USAID kindly increase the page limit for the Technical Proposal to 30 pages?

Answer: No, the page limit will remain unchanged.

Question b: To allow offerors to present “collaborative, comprehensive and realistic solution to addressing the objectives stated in Section C,” would USAID allow offerors to create an annex to the Technical Approach limited to 3 pages for supporting graphics (no tables)?

Answer: No, USAID will not allow offerors to create an additional annex to the Technical Approach.

Question #46 RFP Reference: L.7.2.VIII.3, Page Number: 138, Relevant RFP Language: “No CVs of proposed Key Personnel are to be provided.”

RFP Reference: L.8.3.c.3, Page Number: 145, Relevant RFP Language: “Biographical Data Sheets are required for any individual specifically identified in the cost or technical proposal.”

Question a: The RFP specifies that offerors should not provide CVs for Key Personnel candidates. Could USAID confirm that offerors are not allowed to name Key Personnel candidates anywhere in the Technical Proposal?

Amendment No. 01 Attachment A: Questions and Answers

Answer: USAID instructs Offerors not to name any proposed personnel – Key Personnel or non-Key Personnel.

Question b: Could USAID confirm that offerors are not allowed to name non-key personnel in the Technical Proposal?

Answer: See the response to Question #45a.

Question c: Could USAID confirm that offerors are not allowed to name candidates in the Cost Proposal? If candidates are not allowed to be named in the Cost Proposal, could USAID kindly amend Section L.8.3.c.3 to remove the requirement to include Biographical Data Sheets?

Answer: The requirement to include Biographical Data Sheets has been removed.

Question d: If USAID maintains the requirement to include Biographical Data Sheets, will USAID consider reserving the biodata requirement for key personnel only, in line with AIDAR 752.7001?

Answer: No biodatas should be submitted with the proposal as key personnel are not to be named. At the time of key personnel approval during implementation, USAID confirms that submission of bio data forms is required to be submitted to USAID only for key personnel.

Biodata forms for all other personnel engaged during award implementation must be maintained in the contractors’ files.

Question #47 RFP Reference: L.7.2.VIII.4, Page Number: 138, Relevant RFP Language: “The Offeror should include the completed form provided in Attachment J.10 of the RFP for up to five

(5) of its most relevant contracts, orders or other mechanism for efforts similar to the work specified in Section C. In addition, the Offeror must provide information on the form provided in Section J for the five contracts or orders involving international development work with a value of similar size and scope that have been completed most recently, assuming that such contract or order was not already listed.”

Question: Section J only contains one attachment related to past performance: Attachment J.10, which is USAID’s Past Performance Matrix template. For the instruction, “In addition, the Offeror must provide information on the form provided in Section J,” could USAID clarify if there is an additional form offerors are required to use?

Answer: No additional form is required. The instruction has been clarified to read “These five contracts or orders should involve international development work with a value of similar size and scope that have been completed most recently.“

Amendment No. 01 Attachment A: Questions and Answers

Question #48 On page 139 of the RFP it states that the Executive Summary is “not to exceed one page”. One page 134 the RFP notes the Executive summary is “not to exceed 2 pages”.

Will USAID please clarify the number of pages allotted for the Executive Summary?

Answer: See response to Question #43.

Question #49 On page 134 of the RFP, the instructions note the Executive Summary is “not included in the 15 page technical proposal page limitation”. In the next paragraph, the RFP notes “it is included in the 15 pages limit of the technical proposal”. Will USAID please confirm that the Executive Summary is not counted towards the 15-page limitation?

Answer: See response to Question #43.

Question #50 L.7(2)(a) Content of the Technical Proposal (p. 133 of RFP): May offerors include a cover page that precedes the cover letter?

Answer: No additional cover page should be submitted.

Question #51 L.7(2)(a) Content of the Technical Proposal (p. 134 of RFP): Can USAID please confirm that Offerors should include a 1-page Executive Summary that does not count toward the 15-page limit for the technical proposal?

Answer: See response to Question #43.

Question #52 L.7.2(b) Annexes (p. 139 of RFP): The note at the bottom of this section references annexes 1–3 not being included in the official counting pages for the technical proposal but excludes Annex 4 – Past Performance Information Sheets. Could USAID confirm that Annex 4 – Past Performance Information Sheets is also excluded from the counting pages for the proposal?

Answer: USAID confirms that, in alignment with annexes 1–3 not being included in the official counting pages for the technical proposal, Annex 4 – Past Performance Information Sheets is also not being included in the official counting pages for the technical proposal.

Cost/Business Proposal

Question #53 RFP Reference: Attachment J.15: Budget Summary template Question: Given that the RFP instructs offerors to include all subcontractor costs by cost category within the same budget sections as the prime contractor’s costs, should offerors leave Subcontract costs out of the “Contractual” section (Row 26 of the J.15 Budget Summary) to avoid double-counting of those contractual costs?

Amendment No. 01 Attachment A: Questions and Answers

Answer: Attachment J.15 has been updated. Offerors should include a budget summary as specified in Section L.8 of the RFP.

Question #54 RFP Reference: L.6.b, Page Number: 131, Relevant RFP Language: “All submissions of the Technical and Cost Proposals must be compatible with Microsoft Office Word and PDF.”

Question a: Could USAID please confirm that Cost Volume documents that require a signature (e.g., subaward approval, Biodatas, and NICRA) are only required in the PDF version of the Cost Proposal?

Question b: To streamline submission of the Cost Volume, would USAID kindly amend Section L.6.b to allow offerors to submit the entire Cost Volume in PDF only, plus a copy of the budget narrative in MS Word and the budget in MS Excel?

Answer: Submission of the cost volume in both Word and PDF formats is not required. Please refer to Section L.8.1 for specific instructions for the Cost Volume.

Question #55 RFP Reference: L.6.b.3, Page Number: 132. Relevant RFP Language:

"Technical and Cost proposals should each be submitted as a single email attachment, e.g., please consolidate the various parts of a Technical Proposal into a single document before submission."

RFP Reference: L.8.1.(b), Page Number: 140, Relevant RFP Language: "The Cost Volume must consist of the following separate files: Budget Spreadsheet and Budget Narrative as summarized below:

i. Budget Spreadsheet. The Offeror must provide a fully completed and accurate budget following the instructions provided below.

ii. Budget Narrative. The Offeror must prepare a budget narrative in a single Adobe Acrobat ("PDF") file, with no page limit.

iii. Annexes to the cost proposal: The Offeror must submit Cost Volume Annexes as separate attachments."

Question: Section L.6.b.3 (page 132) instructs offerors to submit all elements of the Cost Proposal as a single file, whereas Section L.8.1.(b) (page 140) requires each element of the Cost Proposal to be submitted as separate attachments:

● Budget Spreadsheet

● Budget Narrative

● Supporting Documents

● Part 3 - Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors

● Part 4 - Joint Venture info

● Part 5 - Evidence of Responsibility

● Part 6 - Information to Support Consent to Major Subcontractors/Subcontracting Plan

● Part 7 - Information Concerning Work-Day, Work-Week, and Paid Absences

● Part 8 - Listing of all Subcontracts and Resource Partners

Amendment No. 01 Attachment A: Questions and Answers

Could USAID please confirm that the Cost Proposal should only be submitted as two files: (1) Budget Spreadsheet in MS Excel, and (2) a PDF file with all other elements of the Cost Proposal?

Answer: Parts 1 and Parts 3 through 8 of the Cost Volume must be submitted in a single PDF file. Part 2 is to be submitted in three separate files: (1) Budget Spreadsheet, (2) Budget Narrative, and (3) Supporting Documents. The solicitation has been amended accordingly.

Question #56 RFP Reference: L.8.3.c.1, Page Number: 142, Relevant RFP Language: “In summary, the following budget worksheet should be provided in an unlocked file:

i. Overall Summary Budget (all services for all five years) based on the general categories identified in subsection 2 below;

ii. Annual Summary Budgets (all services for each of the five years of performances) based on the general categories identified in subsection 2 below;

iii. Overall Detailed Budget (five-year detailed budgets for all budget categories identified in subsection 2 below – the offeror should provide sufficient detail to allow a complete and thorough analysis of cost realism); and

iv. Annual Detailed Budgets (annual budgets for all budget categories identified in subsection 2 below – the offeror should provide sufficient detail to allow a complete and thorough analysis of cost realism).

v. Proposed Fee table in accordance with the format provided in Section B.7 of this solicitation.

The budgets listed below may be combined at the discretion of the Offeror so long as the information is presented in readable format.”

Question: In the last sentence, could USAID please confirm that "the budgets listed below” was intended to read "the budgets listed above", referring to the five budget formats listed above in items i through v?

Answer: This refers to the budget categories that follow. The sentence is clarified to read “the budget categories listed below”.

Question #57 RFP Reference: L.8.3.c.2, Page Number: 142. Relevant RFP Language:

“Offerors should allocate the costs of all subcontracts, other than those that are firm, fixed price, to the appropriate cost category in the attachment. Subcontractor costs in each line item should be clearly marked. For example, international personnel costs for a cost-plus-fixed fee subcontractor should be allocated to the Personnel category, International Staff subcategory as appropriate. The offeror should also plan to provide a consolidated subcontractor budget for ease of review as a separate tab on the budget, reflecting all subcontractor costs in one budget;

however, that budget should be a separate tab not linked to the main detailed budget, and is for ease of overall budget analysis only.”

Amendment No. 01 Attachment A: Questions and Answers

Question: Presenting detailed budget content in this combined format will be impractical for budget tracking and management during implementation. Would USAID consider allowing offerors to present the summary budget with combined costs as shown in the summary template, while maintaining normal separate detailed budgets by prime contractor and each subcontractor (rather than preparing a combined detailed budget by cost category)?

Answer: Please see updated instructions in Section L for the format of the cost proposal.

Question #58 RFP Reference: Section L.8.3.c.5, Page Number: 147. Relevant RFP Language:

“(ii) If the Offeror or subcontractor does not have a cognizant Government Audit Agency, the proposal must include:

A. Audited balance sheets and profit and loss statements for the last two complete years, and the current year-to-date statements (or such lesser period of time if the Offeror is a newly-formed organization). The profit and loss statements should include detail of the total cost of goods and services sold, including a listing of the various indirect administrative costs, and be supplemented by information on the prime contractor’s customary indirect cost allocation method, together with supporting computations of the basis for the indirect cost rate(s) proposed; and B. The most recent two fiscal year pool and base cost compositions along with derived rates, the bases of allocation of these rates and an independent certified audit by a certified accounting firm of these rates.”

Question: As was done in the recent Santé Gouvernance RFP, would USAID consider removing this requirement for non-major local partners that might not have audits or audited statements, but do need to charge overhead and/or G&A percentages in support of project effort?

Answer: Requested information should be provided for all named cost reimbursable subcontractors.

Question #59 RFP Reference: Cover page, second paragraph, Relevant RFP Language:

“Section K - Representations, Certifications and Acknowledgments must be filled out and completed in full by the Offerors and their proposed subcontractors.”

RFP Reference: L.8.3.d, Page Number: 148, Relevant RFP Language: “The Offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must complete Section K, "Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offeror", and sign and date on the last page in the space provided.”

Question: Could USAID confirm that only proposed major subcontractors are required to complete Section K Representations and Certifications?

Answer: Yes, only major subcontractors are required to complete Section K.

Question #60 RFP Reference: L.8.1.(b), Page Number: 140. Relevant RFP Language: “The Cost Volume must consist of the following separate files: Budget Spreadsheet and Budget Narrative as summarized below:

Amendment No. 01 Attachment A: Questions and Answers

i. Budget Spreadsheet. The Offeror must provide a fully completed and accurate budget following the instructions provided below.

ii. Budget Narrative. The Offeror must prepare a budget narrative in a single Adobe Acrobat (“PDF”) file, with no page limit.

iii. Annexes to the cost proposal: The Offeror must submit Cost Volume Annexes as separate attachments.”

RFP Reference: L.8.3.i, Page Number: 149, Relevant RFP Language: “Part 8 – Listing of all Subcontracts and Resource Partners The Offeror must submit a separate list of all known subcontractors, as well as resource partners. This list will be simple and contain each organization’s name, address and contact information. This list is a separate requirement in addition to the Past Performance contact information and the discussion of subcontracts above. This list should be submitted as part of the Budget Narrative.”

Question: Should i. Part 8 – Listing of all Subcontracts and Resource Partners be submitted as a separate attachment (per L.8.1.(b)), or as part of the Budget Narrative (per L.8.3.i Part 8)?

Answer: See response to Question #55.

Question #61 RFP Reference: F.2: Period of Performance, Page Number: 44. Relevant RFP Language: “[Note to Offerors: The dates in the period of performance above will be adjusted depending on the actual effective date of the award. Paragraph (b) below will be added to the award if it is based on the Modified Foreign Assistance waiver.]” RFP Reference: Attachment J.15 Budget Summary template Question: Attachment J.15: Budget Summary template indicates that Year 4 should be broken into Part 1 (base period) and Part 2 (option period). While we understand, from the note in Section F.2 Period of Performance, that dates in the period of performance will be adjusted depending on the actual effective date of the award, for the purposes of budget preparation, can USAID please advise on how Year 4 should be divided in the budget? For instance, at the proposal stage, it would be easiest if USAID would require an even split of 6 months for Year 4 Part 1 and 6 months for Year 4 Part 2.

Answer: See response to Question #20.

Question #62 Question: Is VAT in DRC a billable cost or should offerors assume that USAID will provide a protocol for exemption or refunds?

Answer: Upon award, USAID will provide guidance to the Contractor on duty-free and tax-free importation of equipment and supplies to the DRC. USAID will also provide supporting documentation to allow the Contractor to seek tax exemption for local procurements of goods and services.

Amendment No. 01 Attachment A: Questions and Answers

Question #63 The summary budget in Attachment J.15 has Year 4 split into 2 columns to account for the portion of year 4 that belongs in the base period along with the portion of year 4 that will fall into the option 1 period. Will USAID confirm that for the detailed budget offerors are not required to split year 4 costs this way between base and option 1 periods and can rather combine all the costs in year 4 into 1 column?

Answer: The detailed budget must show the same periods as the summary.

Question #64 Can USAID please make available an updated local compensation plan (LCP) for the DRC?

Answer: Please see response to Question #19.

Question #65 L.6(b) Proposals in Response to this RFP (p. 132 of RFP): Offerors are instructed to consolidate the parts of their proposals as much as possible whereas L.8.1 (p. 140 of RFP) requests each cost annex to be submitted as a separate attachment. Could USAID clarify which annexes to the cost volume should be submitted separately?

Answer: Please see response to Question #55.

Question #66 L.8.2 Budget Spreadsheet (p. 140 of RFP): Offerors are instructed to include the following tabs in the budget spreadsheet: “Summary budget” tab, “Detailed Budget” tab, “Illustrative Detailed Subcontractor” tab for each subcontractor budget, and “Detailed Travel” tab. However, on L.8.3 c. Part 2 – Proposed Cost/Price (p. 141 of RFP) offerors are asked to also provide a consolidated subcontractor budget on a separate tab on the budget, reflecting all subcontractor costs in one budget. Could USAID please confirm if this is necessary? If so, could USAID update the instructions on L.8.2 Budget Spreadsheet?

Answer: Please include a separate tab with a detailed (consolidated) budget for each subcontractor. Consolidating all subcontractors into a single table (tab) is not required.

Question #67 L.8.3.c.2.A.b Fringe Benefits (p. 143 of RFP): Under the fringe benefit instructions, offerors are guided to budget for expatriate allowances, such as HHE, education allowance et al., however, there is a separate Allowances section. Could USAID confirm that Offerors can budget for Expatriate Allowances under the Allowances section? Moreover, for budgeting local fringe, could USAID confirm that Offerors should follow their respective Cost Accounting Standards?

Answer: USAID confirms to budget expatriate allowances under Allowances section and to follow the respective CAS.

Amendment No. 01 Attachment A: Questions and Answers

Question #68 L.8.2.B.a CLIN 002 – GUCs (p. 144 of RFP): USAID states that grants under contract may be “provided as cost-reimbursement or fixed amount grants.” Is this an exhaustive list, or may in-kind or blended grants also be considered in the interest of localization and reaching a more inclusive range of food-system actors?

Answer: USAID confirms that GUCs are limited to cost-reimbursement or fixed amount grants.

Question #69 L.8.3.E. 3 Budget Line-Item Definitions (p. 146 of RFP): Could USAID confirm that the $4M GUC plug is exclusive of indirect costs and fee?

Answer: USAID confirms that the required minimum amount of $4 million in GUCs is exclusive of indirect costs and fees. However, please note that this is a required minimum amount for GUCs. Offerors can and should propose an amount of GUCs in line with their own technical approach, providing it is not less than $4 million. In accordance with the guidance provided in this RFP amendment Section L. Offerors should include a separate line under CLIN 002 for any indirect costs associated with GUCs. Any proposed fee on GUCs should be included in the fee schedule required by Section B.7, and should be linked to measurable programmatic achievements.

Question #70 L.8.g Part 6 – Information to Support Consent to Major Subcontractors/Subcontracting Plan (p. 149 of RFP): USAID states: “The Offeror must address each of the elements in FAR 44.202-2 in order for proposed subcontractors to be considered by the CO for consent of Sub-Contractors to be granted with the initial award." FAR 44.202-2 relates to consent to subcontract. Would USAID please clarify this reference?

Answer: Offerors must address each of the elements in FAR 44.202-2 if the offeror seeks to receive consent to subcontract for any identified subcontractors at the time of award.

Question #71 In one area on page 135 it states the Executive Summary is not to exceed 2 pages, and in the paragraph below it states the Executive Summary is one page. Please clarify the page limitation of the Executive Summary.