Questions_and_Answers_-LEPDA_-_02212019.pdf

Questions and Answers (Q&A)

RFP # 72066919R00005

Liberia Economic Policy Dialogue Activity

USAID is pleased to provide the following answers to the questions submitted by the various prospective offerors electronically. Please note that duplicated questions were removed. The questions and answers have been aligned with the solicitation format for ease of reference. In addition, the solicitation has been updated with highlighted changes to demonstrate areas that were revised as a result of the Q&A.

GENERAL QUESTIONS:

1. What is USAID’s definition of a non-U.S. NGO?

USAID’s Response: A non - U.S Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) is an organization that is not duly registered under U.S laws nor organized and majority owned by U.S. citizens.

2. What is USAID’s definition of a local NGO? For example, if an international organization has a registered office in Liberia; would the organization qualify as a local actor?

USAID’s Response: A local NGO is required to have the following qualifications:

Legally Organized

Registered under the Laws of Liberia

Principal Place of Business - Liberia

Majority Owned by Citizens of Liberia

Management Team - Majority Liberians

Independent of government influence

3. Would an organization be able to both provide technical support as a sub-contractor and apply for a GUC under LEPDA?

USAID’s Response: No, an organization is not allowed to provide technical support as a sub-contractor and apply for a GUC under LEPDA.

4. What is the anticipated award date for LEPDA?

USAID’s Response: USAID anticipates that LEPDA would be awarded o/a August 1, 2019.

5. Would USAID please provide an updated Local Compensation Plan (LCP)?

USAID’s Response: Yes. The summary page of the LCP is attached to this amendment.

6. Would USAID consider removing the requirement to submit Contractor Employee

Biographical Data Sheets for named short-term personnel and require them only for proposed long-term personnel? Due to the diversity of technical specialties required to successfully implement LEPDA, a wide variety and large number of short-term consultants will be required. We would like to be able to highlight the breadth and depth of our in-house technical expertise, but fear that the sheer volume of required Biographical Data Sheets will result in an unnecessary large cost volume and an administrative burden that may detract from the quality of short-term expertise we would like to showcase.

USAID’s Response: According to AIDAR 752.7001, Cost Reimbursement Contracts require prior approval of base salary rates by USAID Contracting Officers for all employees and consultants of a contractor or subcontractors. Additionally, AIDAR 752.7007, “Personnel

Compensation”, requires direct compensation of the Contractor's personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor's established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract.

However, reimbursement of the employee's base annual salary plus overseas recruitment incentive, if any, which exceed the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold (USAID CST), must be approved in writing by the Contracting Officer. Therefore, this requirement is maintained and

Bio-Data sheets are required for anyone named in the proposal.

7. Can USAID please provide an exchange rate for budget purposes?

USAID’s Response: USAID requests all offerors to use an exchange rate of 1 US Dollar =

160LDs.

8. Could USAID please confirm what dates the offeror should budget for as start and end dates of the project?

USAID’s Response: Anticipated Start date is August 1, 2019. The anticipated period of performance is four (4) years from the start date.

9. Will any property such as furniture, equipment, or vehicles be made available from another project? If so, could USAID provide a list of such property and provide the date the property will be made available?

USAID’s Response: Currently, USAID does not currently have any Government Furnished

Property (GFP) available.

10. Would USAID be able to share Policy Dialogue Preparatory Study (PDPS) referenced in the

RFP?

USAID’s Response: Yes, the PDPS is attached to this amendment.

QUESTIONS RELATING TO SECTION B

11. Section B.5 Indirect Costs currently prohibits the use of indirect costs for organizations without a NICRA. In the interest of improving offerors’ ability to engage new and underutilized partners in line with USAID’s Journey to Self-Reliance strategy, we respectfully request that USAID revise this section to allow for indirect costs to be budgeted for organizations who already have established indirect rate policies. We will include sufficient information to determine the reasonableness of the proposed indirect cost rates for these organizations in line with the instruction in L.6.2.12.

USAID’s Response: Indirect costs shall not be allowed for organizations that do not have a

NICRA. All costs for organizations without a NICRA shall be budgeted and billed as direct costs.

This requirement has not been changed.

12. A. Page 8, section B.5 defines a major subcontractor as having “20% or more of the technical effort.” Page 87, section L.5.4 defines a major subcontractor as “at or exceeding

20% of the offeror’s total proposal cost.” Page 91, section L.6.2.9 states “The offeror must provide a separate budget for all cost reimbursement type subcontracts exceeding 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost….” Can USAID please confirm that major subcontractors are defined as those having 20% or more of the technical level of effort?

USAID’s Response: The language under Section B.5 has been changed to the following:

“Pending establishment of revised provisional or final indirect cost rates, allowable indirect costs shall be reimbursed on the basis of the following negotiated provisional or predetermined rates and the appropriate bases for the prime contractor and its major subcontractors (defined as at or exceeding 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost):”

B. And that offerors should provide a separate budget for all major subcontractors?

USAID’s Response: Yes, offerors should provide a separate budget for all major subcontractors.

C. Additionally, can USAID please confirm whether the total proposed cost is exclusive or inclusive of the $5.8 million plug figure identified under the Grants under Contract component?

USAID’s Response: The Estimated Total Proposed Cost is inclusive of the $5.8 million plug figure identified under the GUC component.

QUESTIONS RELATING TO SECTION C

13. Because USAID will approve grant recipients, and the selected contractor is responsible for ensuring grant agreements are up to date on all applicable USAID rules and regulations, we request that USAID remove the following section from page 21 of the RFP: “The

Manual will also include an award template(s) that will be cleared by the Contracting

Officer and be revised as and when new guidance and revisions to rules and regulations are proclaimed by USAID.”

USAID’s Response: ADS 302.3.4.8 which allows the GUC process specifically requires that

USAID must be involved and must ensure that the requirements that apply to USAID-executed grants will also apply to grants that a USAID contractor executes through Grants under Contract.

This requirement is maintained and required.

14. A. What is the overall objective of the LEPDA GUC NGO grants?

USAID’s Response: There is no specific objective that applies only to GUCs. Offerors may propose GUC activities under any/all of the three objectives under Section C. 2.

B. Can NGO grants also be allocated for initiatives under objective 1 and objective 2 in section

C.2 in the RFP?

USAID’s Response: Yes, NGO grants may also be allocated for initiatives under objective 1 and objective 2 in section C.2 in the RFP.

C. Or can grants only be allocated to NGOs for activities under objective 3 in section C.2 in the

RFP?

USAID’s Response: No. Please see USAID’s responses to A and B of this question.

15. RFP states that there is no $100,000 grant amount limitation for non-U.S. NGO grants.

Would USAID be able to provide an indication of what could be a reasonable grant amount allocation to a non-U.S. NGO under LEPDA?

USAID’s Response: All GUCs under this program will be in compliance with all conditions set forth in

ADS 302.3.4.13 as indicated below and in Section C of the LEPDA Solicitation:

1. Award Amount Thresholds

Non-Government Organizations: The total value of an individual grant to a U.S. NGO must not exceed $100,000. This limitation does not apply to grant awards to non-U.S. NGOs.

Partner Government Entities: The total value of all GUCs that provide funds (as opposed to in-kind assistance) to a particular partner government entity (for example, ministry, municipality, district, etc.) must not exceed $300,000 for the duration of the prime contract. Grants to partner government entities will be restricted to fixed amount reimbursable mechanisms.

i.e. A reasonable grant amount to a non-U.S NGO could be below $100,000 or above $100,000 if the amount proposed is proportionate to the level of effort required as per the scope of the grant.

16. As part of C.2.1, page 13, there is reference to a “Policy Unit Team”; in Objective 2 under section F.8, page 13 there is reference to a “Policy Support Team”. Under Specific Tasks, second bullet on page 20, reference is made to “the policy advisory unit.” Would USAID please clarify if these term all referring to the same entity? If so, does USAID have a preferred, unified term?

USAID’s Response: The LEPDA solicitation has been revised to reflect “Policy Unit Team” consistently instead of the other referenced terms.

17. On Page 18, Illustrative Indicator A requires “At least 20 policies drafted or improved and taken through the following processes/steps of development [PDPF] as a result of USG assistance.” However, Illustrative Indicator D requires “Movement of a series of new or existing policy reforms through at least 3 steps of the policy development process framework.” And, Illustrative Indicator H is “Number of policy commitments met, at least fifteen (15).” Would USAID please provide clarity on how Indicators D and H relate to

Indicator A?

USAID’s Response: Indicator A will count all policies considered completed i.e. policies that have met all requirements under the PDPF. Indicators D and H will track the progress of policies over time with the goal of meeting the definition of indicator A.

18. Section C.5 Performance Monitoring, and Evaluation and Learning Plan, page 22, states:

“The Performance Monitoring, and Evaluation and Learning Plan (PME&L) will not only track progress toward its objectives and results but also promote mid-course corrections based on evidence generated during the gathering of lessons learned. The PME&L will include a logical framework that outlines a methodologically appropriate means of monitoring and evaluating the program’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability. Recommend how the recommendations that are generated in the evaluation would be used as part of the PME&L.” Would USAID please provide more details about the “evaluation” mentioned? Is this evaluation a mid-term evaluation? Is the project responsible for this evaluation or is this related to a “third-party evaluation” mentioned on page 23?

USAID’s Response: USAID will conduct a mid-term evaluation through a third-party. The recommendations from the mid-term evaluation will inform guidance on any necessary course corrections including but not limited to challenges, gains and opportunities. USAID will be responsible for any evaluation.

19. Pages 16-18, section C.4. Can USAID please confirm that contractors are not expected to contribute to or achieve all of the sub-IRs listed on pages 16-18? Some of these sub-IRs are likely covered by other USAID programs (e.g. LGSA, RG3 and LAVI), such as establishment of VAT.

USAID’s Response: While it is expected that LEPDA will contribute to several of sub-IRs listed in the RFP, USAID has made a determination that a successful implementation of this activity will result in achievement of almost all of the necessary IRs and sub-IRs that will improve the

GOL’s policy making ability and facilitate the design and implementation of reforms to promote private sector -led, broad-based economic growth and development.

20. Page 18, section C.4 under “illustrative indicators”, the first indicator (A) is written as a result and includes a target of 20 policy reforms. On page 19, section C.4; indicator H has a target of 15 reforms. Page 43, section F.8 states that a set of 20 reforms is a required deliverable, which will determine the contractor’s fee schedule. Can USAID please clarify its target number of policy reforms and please clarify whether the target number is a requirement, or simply illustrative?

USAID’s Response: USAID’s anticipated minimum number of reforms over the period of four years for the LEPDA is 20. This number is cumulative and spread over the four years period of performance as follows: Year 1= 3, Year 2= 5, Year 3=7, Year 4= 5

21. Pages 18-19, section C.4. In this section there is a list of Illustrative Indicators and a separate list of Suggested Custom Indicators. Can USAID please confirm which (if any) of the indicators in these two lists are required to be in the PME&L Plan?

USAID’s Response: In addition to standard USAID indicators, the contractor will propose custom indicators that would help to track performance. The Contractor must consider the list of illustrative indicators provided in the RFP in the PME&L plan.

22. Page 20, section C.4. The last bullet point on page 20 says the contractor must “Establish a fund for policy-related purposes, such as for sponsoring stakeholder workshops, strengthening policy analysis capacity of private sector associations or other relevant non-governmental bodies, and disseminating policy reform proposals.” Can USAID please confirm that it does not expect this fund to receive funding from the LEPDA project budget, aside from potential funding from Grants Under Contract?

USAID’s Response: Confirmed. The fund will not be funded through LEPDA but rather from other donors such as the host government, foundations, NGOs, or the private sector with aligned objectives.

23. Page 24, section C.8. This section says “Section C.1.2 above provides a list of GOL strategies and plans that are directly relevant to this Activity.” Section C.1.2 does not include a list of GOL strategies and plans that are directly relevant to this Activity. Can USAID please provide this list?

USAID’s Response: The list is the Government of Liberia (GOL) Pro-Poor Agenda for

Prosperity and Development (PAPD)’s four pillars listed as 1) Power to the people; 2) economy and jobs; 3) sustaining the peace; and 4) governance and transparency.

24. Page 30, section C.11. This section states “Provision for grants (to local entities) under the contract. The activities will feature a grant-under contracts component, to foster long-term institutional capacity-strengthening progress. Given that this.” The last sentence “Given that this” appears to be incomplete. Can USAID please clarify the meaning of this sentence?

USAID’s Response: Section C.11 has been deleted in the revised RFP.

25. In Section C.2.2 (page 14), USAID makes reference to the African Economic Research

Consortium, Kenya; Imani Centre for Policy and Education, Ghana; Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research, Ghana; and Institute for Economic Affairs Ghana and in

Section C.9 (page 25), USAID makes reference to the Tony Blair Institute. Could USAID please confirm that these named institutions should thus not enter into exclusive partnerships with any one offeror?

USAID’s Response: USAID anticipates that, if proposed short term and long term technical advisors and other professional staff are academic products of sub-saharan Africa Institutes to include but not limited to the above named sub-Saharan Africa institutes, the staff will have significant regional experience that could possibly be one of the contributing factors to a successful activity implementation. USAID encourages offerors not to enter into any exclusive partnerships.

26. Section C.11: Implementation and Management Plan (page 30) references the offeror’s

“implementation and management approach,” while Section L.5 (pages 85-87) and Section

M.4.2 (page 98) make no reference to a management approach and/or plan. Please clarify if a management plan and approach is required as part of the evaluated technical proposal.

USAID’s Response: Section C.11 is deleted in its entirety.

QUESTIONS RELATING TO SECTION F

27. Page 36, section F.4. For the DCOP section under Experience the RFP says “The COP must have:” Can USAID please confirm that this should say DCOP instead of COP? In addition, the Experience section states: “The DCOP must have at least a Master’s degree in

International Business Administration, International Development, Governance Accounting, Financial Management, or a similar field of study directly related to the activities to be undertaken in this program. An additional 10 years of experience plus a bachelor’s degree can be substituted for a masters’ degree.” What does the word “additional” mean in this sentence? Can USAID please confirm that the required DCOP experience is: Masters degree

+ 8 years of experience or Bachelors degree + 10 years of experience?

USAID’s Response: A Masters Degree + 8 years of experience and 5 years progressive supervisory work or a Bachelor’s Degree + 18 years of experience would be acceptable.

28. Please confirm offerors should present no more than three references per key personnel.

USAID’s Response: Confirmed. See Section F.5.2

29. Page 36, section F.4. This section states the Legal and Regulatory Reform Expert must have at a minimum a Juris Doctor (J.D.). Many universities outside the United States, including

Liberian universities, offer law degree qualifications that are not Juris Doctors. For example, many universities offer LLB law degrees. Could USAID please consider changing the

Education requirement for the Legal and Regulatory Reform Expert to be at a minimum a law degree, without specifying the type of law degree?

USAID’s Response: No. USAID requires the candidate to have a JD.

30. Page 39, Section F.7.3. This section states “The PME&L Plan must include, but is not limited to, indicators with targets (including baseline and control data) to draw valid inferences about the impact of USAID activities, data collection methods, and a performance indicator reference sheet for each indicator.” Page 23, Section C.5 says “The Contractor will not be responsible for conducting a baseline survey to establish the baseline for any of the indicators which it reports on, as USAID will contract a third-party M&E contractor to conduct the

Activity-level baseline survey and establish the baseline for all indicators.” Can USAID please confirm that USAID will provide the baseline data for these indicators prior to or upon project start date?

USAID’s Response: Yes, USAID will provide the baseline data where appropriate.

31. On Section F.8 USAID indicates that all 20 reforms need to pass through all 11 steps of the

PDPF outlined on pages 18-19. We understand that reforms could include new regulations, agency policy directives, policy clarifications, or improved policy implementation which may not require Legislative or Presidential approval. Can USAID please consider revising

Objective 1 deliverables 1 to 5 in section F.8. to say ‘through all the applicable steps in the

Policy Development Process Framework (PDPF) specifically developed for this activity’?

USAID’s Response: Section F.8 has been revised. Please see highlights in the revised LEPDA solicitation.

32. Page 43, section F.8. What criteria will USAID use to assess completion of deliverables and determine the payment of the fee? For example, if for circumstances outside of the contractor’s control, the contractor completes less than the total number of reforms in a given deliverable, if policies move through fewer steps, or if deliverables are met at a later date?

USAID’s Response: Please see Section L.6.2.13 - “ Fixed Fee” - The criteria which will be used by USAID for payment of fixed fee is evidence of the successful completion of the deliverables.

USAID will review alternate proposals for deliverables from the Contractor during performance if circumstances outside the contractor’s control result in unmet or late deliverables.

33. The RFP requirements for the COP experience in Section F.4 (i) 1. (page 35) are written to indicate that only experience as a COP or equivalent on a donor project in a developing country will be considered as counting towards the requirement. Will USAID consider allowing a combination of COP/DCOP experience and significant, senior private sector experience count toward the COP requirements?

USAID’s Response: Yes, USAID will consider a combination of COP/DCOP experience. If the

“significant, senior private sector experience” was acquired in a developing or post-conflict country, USAID would consider replacing 1 of the required years of experience with this aforementioned experience.

34. The RFP requirements for the COP experience in Section F.4 (i) 1. (page 35) require at least

8 years of experience as a COP or in a comparable managerial position on major international donor projects implementing policy or governance programs in developing countries with complex national level policy issues, preferably post-conflict countries. Given that offerors are encouraged to propose qualified Liberian key personnel, would USAID consider relaxing the requirements for qualified Liberians or diaspora Liberians to 5 years of experience as a COP/DCOP or in a comparable managerial position with some and not all of the years being on major international donor projects implementing policy or governance programs in developing countries with complex national level policy issues, preferably post-conflict countries?

USAID’s Response: Please also see the response to Question 33 above. A total of 8 years of experience is required at the COP/DCOP level.

35. The three project Objectives listed as part of C.2.1, pages 13-14, and the Objectives as listed in the deliverables table under Section F.8, pages 43-44, are slightly different. Can USAID clarify the titles of the objectives?

USAID’s Response: Objective 3, Section F.8 has been modified. Please see the revised solicitation attached.

QUESTIONS RELATING TO SECTION H

36. Section H.2. (d)(2) states that TCN/CCN consultants’ “compensation must not exceed the maximum rate of the highest senior FSN position authorized under the Mission LCP” which is not in line with the clarification received from USAID Ombudsman Crista Wise during a roundtable on October 2, 2018, that “AIDAR 722.170 applies to employees – it does not apply to consultants (subcontractors).” Would USAID kindly consider revising the RFP to match USAID/OAA position on applicability of AIDAR 722.170 to consultants’ compensation?

USAID’s Response: The RFP has not been revised as AIDAR 722.170 clarifies that payment of

FSNs and TCNs who are hired by Contractors should be afforded the same benefits and payment as those hired by USAID in the cooperating country. It does not specify the type of hiring mechanism (consultants, staff or subcontractors.) Accordingly, USAID/Liberia will review proposed salaries, rates and compensation in line with what USAID/Liberia offers for similar hiring mechanisms.

37. Paragraph 2 of Section B.7 Payment of the Fixed Fee, states that “the Contracting Officer reserves the right to withhold up to 15% of the total fixed fee or $100,000 whichever is less, to protect the government’s interest.” Would USAID confirm that this retention of the fixed fee will also be applicable for the individual fees proposed under Section F.8 Deliverable

Schedule?

USAID’s Response: Yes, USAID confirms that retention of fixed fee applies to the fees to be proposed in the deliverable schedule.

38. In Section H.2 (a) (page 49), USAID imposes limitations on salary or wages for a new individual (s). Could USAID please clarify if the effective date of the salary increases is the proposal submission date or the anticipated start date of the project?

USAID’s Response: Section H.2 (a) of the LEPDA solicitation applies to salaries or wages proposed for new individual (s) during the performance of LEPDA and states: “If during contract performance, the contractor proposes salary or wages for a new individual(s) that exceeds the individual’s current salary or wage or the highest rate of annual salary or wage received during any full year of the immediately preceding three (3) years by more than 5%, the

Contracting Officer’s approval is required.”

Therefore, effective date of salary increases will depend on an employee’s salary history as indicated on the bio-data sheet and the last salary increase.

39. Under the deliverables table under Section F.8, Objective 2, page 44, a sub objective includes: “In agreement with the Central Bank of Liberia (CBL), develop three (3) policies to improve the role of the CBL in the Liberian economy…..” Are these policies meant to be a subset of the 20 policy reforms mentioned under Objective 1 in the same table?

USAID’s Response: Yes, the three policies referred to herein is meant to be a subset of the 20 policy reforms mentioned under Objective 1.

QUESTIONS RELATING TO SECTION J

40. There are a number of broken links in Section J. LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND

OTHER ATTACHMENTS. Can USAID please confirm that the links are up to date and the pages are able to be accessed? If not, could USAID please provide updated links?

USAID’s Response: USAID confirms that all links are accessible.

QUESTIONS RELATING TO SECTION L

41. Section L.5 (a) on page 85 notes “Key Personnel and Staffing Plan (6 pages – 2 per personnel)”. However, in Section L.5.2 Key Personnel and Staffing Plan, page 87, the RFP suggests that “the Key Personnel and Staffing Plan section should contain two parts” which will consist of: “1. Overview of key personnel” and “2. Staffing and recruitment plan”. If the first part “Overview of key personnel” requires six pages- or 2 pages per personnel- then there does not appear to be any pages allotted for the second section on “Staffing and recruitment plan”. Would USAID kindly provide clarification on anticipated page allocation?

USAID’s Response: Page limit for “Key Personnel and Staffing” remains 6 Pages. Total Page

Limit for the Technical Proposal remains 38 pages. See page limit allocation for key personnel in amendment 01 of this Solicitation.

42. Would USAID please confirm whether the Draft Branding and Marking Plan is to be included in the technical proposal, as stated in Section L.5 on page 85, or in the cost proposal, as stated in Section L.7 on page 94.

USAID’s Response: The Draft Branding and Marking Plan must be submitted as an annex to the technical proposal. See changes in Amendment 01.

43. In Section L.5.2 Key Personnel and Staffing Plan, page 87, offerors are asked to present a list of references for Key Personnel. Would USAID please specify how many professional references should be presented?

USAID’s Response: The Solicitation has been amended to reflect the number of references required which is three (3).

44. Section L.6.4 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 long, can

USAID confirm that offerors with prior federal contracting experience do not need to submit organizational policies?

USAID’s Response: This is required for all offerors. Note: Offerors are allowed a maximum size for all attachments of 20 MB. See L.4.2 (h) for the attachments size limit.

45. Would USAID kindly revise Section L.6.3. to allow subcontractors to submit a completed

Section K in lieu of SAM registration? FAR Part 4 requires offerors to register in SAM.

USAID’s Ombudsman clarified in November 2018 that this requirement does not apply to subcontractors. SAM registration is especially challenging for local subcontractors that never do business directly with the federal government.

USAID’s Response: Registration in SAM is required, unless any of the below exceptions in FAR

4.1102 (a) applies:

a) Offerors and quoters are required to be registered in SAM at the time an offer or quotation is submitted in order to comply with the annual representations and certifications requirements except for –

· (1) Purchases under the micro-purchase threshold that use a Government wide commercial purchase card as both the purchasing and payment mechanism, as opposed to using the purchase card for payment only;

(2) Classified contracts (see 2.101) when registration in the SAM, or use of SAM data, could compromise the safeguarding of classified information or national security;

(3) Contracts awarded by— o (i) Deployed contracting officers in the course of military operations, including, but not limited to, contingency operations as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(13) or humanitarian or peacekeeping operations as defined in 10 U.S.C. 2302(8);

o (ii) Contracting officers located outside the United States and its outlying areas, as defined in 2.101, for work to be performed in support of diplomatic or developmental operations, including those performed in support of foreign assistance programs overseas, in an area that has been designated by the

Department of State as a danger pay post (see http://aoprals.state.gov/Web920/danger_pay_all.asp); or o (iii) Contracting officers in the conduct of emergency operations, such as responses to natural or environmental disasters or national or civil emergencies, http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/02.htm#P14_694 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/02.htm#P14_694 http://aoprals.state.gov/Web920/danger_pay_all.asp http://aoprals.state.gov/Web920/danger_pay_all.asp e.g., Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.

5121);

(4) Contracts with individuals for performance outside the United States and its outlying areas;

(5) Contracts awarded without providing for full and open competition due to unusual or compelling urgency (see 6.302-2);

(6) Contract actions at or below $30,000 awarded to foreign vendors for work performed outside the United States, if it is impractical to obtain SAM registration; and

(7) Micro-purchases that do not use the electronic funds transfer (EFT) method for payment and are not required to be reported (see Subpart 4.6).

46. Page 85, Section L.5 (a) states a 5 page Past Performance section should be included in the

38 pages of the Technical Proposal. Page 87, L.5.4 (a) 1. states “List in an annex to the technical proposal up to five (5) of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal for the offeror and each major subcontractor.” Can

USAID please confirm that it requires both a 5 page Past Performance section in the

Technical Proposal and a 5 page annex of past performance references?

USAID’s Response: Yes, USAID confirms that both a 5 page Past Performance section in the

Technical Proposal is required whereas, an additional 5 page annex of past performance references is requested.

47. Page 85 section L.5 (c). The page limit for Annex D Branding and Marking Plan is set at two pages. However, the template given as an attachment with the RFP is 8 pages long. Will

USAID allow contractors to submit a Branding and Marking Plan that is longer than 2 pages in order to have sufficient space to address the requirements specified in the template?

USAID’s Response: Section L.5 (c) has been revised to reflect that there is no page limit for the

Branding and Marking Plan.

48. Page 87, section L.5.4 (a) 1 states “List in an annex to the technical proposal up to five (5) of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal for the offeror and each major subcontractor.” Can USAID please clarify if the contractor should submit up to five past performance references for the prime contractor and up to 5 for each major subcontractor? Or must the combined past performance references for the contractor and all major subcontractors be up to a total of five?

USAID’s Response: Yes, The contractor should submit up to five past performance references for the prime contractor and up to 5 for each major subcontractor.

49. Page 92, section L.6.3 states that “the Offeror and each proposed subcontractor must complete Section K, "Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors.”

However, page 81, Section K states “not applicable … Offerors are required to submit all

“Representations, Certifications and other Statements of Bidders” in SAM.” Can USAID please confirm that a statement confirming the Offeror’s registration in SAM satisfies the requirements of Section L.6.3?

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/06.htm#P119_17284 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/04.htm#P103_16171

USAID’s Response: Yes, USAID confirms that the Offeror’s confirmation of their registration in

SAM satisfies the requirements of Section L.6.3.

50. Section B.2 Contract Type (page 8) – states that the award will be a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee completion type contract. However, the contractor fee, as described in Section B.7 (page 9), seems to indicate that that all of the fee payment will be tied to the deliverables as laid out in

Section F.8. Section L.6.2.13 Fixed Fee (page 92) – states that “The Contractor must propose a fee schedule that conforms to Section B.6 and tied to the deliverables table in

Section F. Most of the deliverables listed in this section have ambitious targets, some of which are not under the control of the offeror and depend on the Government of Liberia delivering on its commitments to broad-based private sector-led growth and tackling endemic corruption in the private sector.

a. Would USAID consider allowing a portion of the fee to be invoiced monthly?

USAID’s Response: No, USAID will not allow a portion of the fee to be invoiced on a monthly basis but rather upon successful completion and acceptance of USAID of the specified deliverable as required in Section F.8.

b. Or if not, could a portion of the fee be tied to submission of required reports as laid out in

Section F.7.1 (page 38) and not solely on deliverables (which may be outside the control of the offeror) listed in Section B.7?

USAID’s Response: Section L.5.1 of the LEPDA solicitation allows offerors to propose additional deliverables under each of the objectives. Please refer to Section L.5.1 for additional instructions on identifying or proposing additional deliverables. Please note, however, that

Offerors are not allowed to propose fees against reports laid out in Section F.7.1 of the LEPDA solicitation.

51. Section L.5: Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal (page 85). Please confirm offerors may include a one page cover letter as part of their technical proposals that does not count towards the page limit.

USAID’s Response: Confirmed. Please see Section L.5 (d) of the revised solicitation.

52. Section L.6: Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost Proposal (page 88) states that the components of the cost proposal include 1) the SF 33, and 2) proposed costs/prices, including a summary and detailed budget and a detailed budget narrative. Sections L.6.3-L.6.8 (pages

92-94), however, indicate that the cost proposal also includes Parts 3-8. Please confirm offerors must include Parts 1-8 in their cost proposals.

USAID’s Response: L.6.2.1 - L.6.2.8 provide the minimum information required in the budget and budget narrative.

53. Section L.5.4 (a) 1. (Page 87) requires the offeror to include up to five (5) of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal for the offeror and each major subcontractor. Would USAID accept one (1) or two (2) cooperative agreements in place of contracts?

USAID’s Response: Yes, if the work which was required under the Cooperative Agreement is similar to the requirements of the anticipated LEPDA, then USAID would accept it.

QUESTIONS RELATING TO SECTION M

54. Page 99, section M 4.4(d) contains 8 different evaluation criteria for projects. Four of these criteria, (4) business relations, (5) customer satisfaction), (7) compliance of safety standards,

(8) compliance with labor standards, do not have an exact matching criteria in USAID’s

Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs). Would USAID consider replacing the 8 evaluation criteria in section M4.4(d) with the criteria from the CPAR, namely i)

Quality, ii) Schedule, iii) Cost Control, iv) Management, v) Small Business Subcontracting,

vi) Regulatory Compliance?

USAID’s Response: The evaluation criteria listed under M.4.4 is required to evaluate past performance information submitted by offerors which may include information from the Past

Performance Information Retrieval Systems (PPIRS) but may also include information from other sources. However, USAID has removed factors 7 and 8 from the evaluation.

55. Would USAID consider allowing offerors to include a detailed indicator chart as an annex outlining the quality of proposed measures of success (i.e., indicators and targets) per Section

M.4.3.2.

USAID’s Response: No. this information is required as part of the technical proposal.