Resilient_Waters_Q&A_Attachment_1.pdf

Attachment 1, Amendment 1 Questions and Answers to RFP 72067418R00004 USAID’s Resilient Waters

General

1. Would USAID please provide a breakdown of the anticipated annual funding for Resilient Waters by Congressional earmark for WASH, climate change, and biodiversity?

The anticipated breakdown of funding by Congressional earmark will allow Offerors to tailor proposed activities to be response to the requirement outlined on page 14 of the RFP which states that “All activities implemented under this contract must meet these directive requirements, in proportion to the resources available.”

Response 1: Resilient Waters is an integrated program funded by contributions from each of the three Congressional earmarks mentioned above. While the respective contributions of each will vary from year to year, for the purpose of responding to this RFP, Offerors should assume that the respective value of each earmark, in descending order, will be WASH, Biodiversity, followed by climate change. However, this relative ranking may change from year to year, and the Contractor will be expected to set in place an implementation approach with sufficient flexibility to accommodate year on year funding differences. The respective resources available via each of the three earmarks will be shared with the Contractor by USAID during the annual workplanning process.

2. The solicitation number in box 3 of the SF-33 differs slightly from that on the cover page.

Would USAID please clarify which solicitation number is correct?

Response 2: The solicitation number is: 72067418R00004 as listed in box 3 of the SF-33.

3. Does the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation under solicitation number 72067418R00004 contain requirements similar to a current contract? If possible, please provide the current contract number. Or, is this a new requirement for the government?

Response 3: This is a new requirement that builds upon current and past USAID programs. See Section C.2.b of the RFP.

Section B

4. In Section B.4 (page 6), would USAID please consider deleting the language “such that costs incurred are proportionate to work completed” from the last sentence? In accordance with FAR 16.306(a), USAID’s decision to release withheld fee payments should be tied to completion of the scope of work rather than to costs incurred. We also request that USAID replace “may” with “will” in the last phrase of the last sentence so that it reads, “the Contracting Officer will approve payment of the amount of the fee that was suspended,” as completion of the entire scope of work would warrant payment of the full fixed-fee amount.

Response 4: USAID will not delete or revise the requested language in Section B.4. FAR 16.306(a) states, “The fixed fee does not vary with actual cost, but may be adjusted as a result of changes in the work to be performed under the contract.” Therefore, the language “such that costs incurred are proportionate to work completed” is consistent with tying the payment of the fee to the completion of the scope of work on a proportional basis to the performance delivered to ensure that the contractor will “complete and deliver the specified end product…within the estimated cost, if possible, as a condition for payment of the entire fee” (FAR 16.306(d)(1)) and is consistent with FAR 52.216-8 (Fixed Fee).

5. Would USAID consider merging the Direct Costs and Indirect Costs line items into a single line item in the table in Section B.5 (page 7) of the RFP? This change would cohere with the nature of cost-reimbursable contracts, wherein an overall ceiling is established that the contractor may not exceed.

Response 5: No.

Section H

6. Would USAID please consider removing Section H.18, Nonexpendable Property, on page 58 of the RFP from the resulting contract? Cost-reimbursement contracts are managed with the understanding that the work proposed is based on an estimate of costs for the anticipated work and that not all costs can be planned and executed with accuracy sufficient to hold to exact line items in the contract budget.

Response 6: This language is included pursuant to ADS 302.3.6.6 and CIB 92-95, Non-expendable AID-Owned Property in Contractor’s Custody.

7. Would USAID please delete the third paragraph from Section H.18 on page 58 of the RFP? It is our understanding that the Internal Revenue Manual approval requirement under ADS 548 has been removed.

Response 7: The third paragraph from Section H.18 will be deleted since equipment acquired by a Federal contractor incidental to a Federal contract is excluded from the definition of “Information Technology” under ADS 548. Note that “IRM” in this context refers to USAID Information Resources Management.

Section L

8. Section L.6.c.9, page 109, requests an MEL Plan as Annex B to include a life of project results framework, indicator table for 11 required indicators and targets for each of the

Required Results listed under Objectives in Section C.4.b., and theory of change with explanation of how it will monitor for each outcome. The page limit for this annex is 6 pages. Would USAID consider doubling the page length for this annex to ensure adequate detail can be included for the TEC’s consideration?

Response 8: Yes. Page limit for this Annex is now 12 pages.

9. Regarding Section L.6.c, Annex C, page 110: “The Project Management and Staffing Plan must include a staffing organogram, a chart of the Offeror’s teaming arrangements, and a subcontract management plan…This Annex will also describe the primary responsibilities of each individual that will provide long-term technical assistance or otherwise assume significant responsibilities during the contract’s implementation...Offerors should submit letters of commitment from partners, relevant memorandum of understanding or teaming arrangement. The Offeror should also take care to highlight the language skills of the relevant members of their team. This Annex should not exceed five (5) pages.” Will USAID consider doubling the page length for this annex so that offerors may thoroughly respond to this annex’s requirements?

Response 9: Yes. Page limit for this Annex is now 10 pages.

10. Regarding Section L.6.c, Annex C, page 110: “Offerors should submit letters of commitment from partners, relevant memorandum of understanding or teaming arrangement.” Will USAID confirm that offerors should include Letters of Commitment for partners do not count against the page limit for this annex?

Response 10: Letters of Commitment do not count against the page limit for this Annex (C).

11. Regarding Section L.6.c, Annex D, page 110: “Each CV must not exceed two (2) pages.

If submitted, the CVs for the Key Personnel must contain contact information (e-mail and phone number) of no more than three (3) references…” For each proposed key personnel CV, may offerors include the three references on a separate page that does not count against the 2-page limit for each CV?

Response 11: References may be included on a separate page that does not count against the page limit (2) for CVs.

12. Section L.7.c.3, page 116, states that the fixed fee calculation should only include the direct costs of the Prime Offeror less the costs of the subcontractor(s), if any, as the base of calculation. Could USAID please confirm that the subcontractor costs referenced here relates only to subcontractor fixed fee (if any), and that Offerors may apply their proposed fixed fee to all subcontractor(s) costs except fixed fee?

Response 12: Yes, the subcontractor costs referenced here relates only to subcontractor fixed fee (if any), and Offerors may apply their proposed fixed fee to all subcontractor(s) costs except fixed fee.

13. Would USAID please remove the part of Section L.7.c (on page 116) of the RFP entitled “Grants Fee”? This appears inconsistent with FAR 15.404-4 and ADS 302.3.6.9, which state that pre-negotiation fee objectives must be determined according to a structured approach that includes contractor effort, risk, and other special factors. Grants require significant effort to administer and carry risks for the contractor. For this reason, and to be consistent with the FAR and ADS, would USAID consider removing this section?

Response 13: No. USAID agrees that a structured approach is applied to pre-negotiation fee objectives, and a 2% fee on Grants Under Contract (GUCs) is appropriate taking into account contractor effort and risk regarding GUCs. Offerors are may propose a lower GUC fee should they chose but may not propose a GUC fee higher than 2%.

14. Re Section L.6.c.9 Annex E: Contractor Performance Information (a) – Given the large amount of information required by Attachment 6 of the RFP (Contractor Past Performance Matrix), can offerors submit the matrix on 11x17 paper with smaller than 9-point font, or alternatively, may we submit all the same required information in a format that fits on 8x11 or A4 pages?

Response 14: Please submit Annex E using the Attachment 6 template that was provided.

Modifying the format of this template to fit on a particular size of paper is not required.

15. Re Section L.6.c.6: Key Personnel, page 108 - states that Offerors may – though are not required to – include Curricula Vitae (“CVs”) for all Key Personnel candidates in the Annex, along with letters of commitment and contact information for references for each Key Personnel position, noting that these candidates and their CVs will not be evaluated.

Can USAID confirm that inclusion of CVs in the technical proposal is entirely optional and their absence (or inclusion) will not affect proposal evaluation?

Response 15: Yes.

16. Re Section L.6.c.9 Annex C: Management & Staffing Plan, page 110 - The RFP limits this annex to 5 pages, yet requires offerors to include letters of commitment from partners. Can USAID confirm that letters of commitment from partners will not count towards the Annex C page limit?

Response 16: Yes.

17. Re Section L.6.c.9 Annex F: Draft Mobilization Plan, page 112-113 – The draft mobilization plan annex requirements state that “…the plan must include details on how the contractor will ensure a rapid start, including logistical arrangements and having the appropriate staff and technical assistance recruited, in position, and ready to start work…” Can USAID confirm that “appropriate” staff refers to key personnel and the startup team?

Response 17: “Appropriate” staff does not necessarily refer to key personnel and the startup team. USAID’s main objective is to ensure that required tasks are successfully undertaken, not necessarily that these tasks are undertaken by specific individuals. While we hope that the selected Contractor’s team will be assembled as expeditiously as possible, if certain Key Personnel will not be in place within 90 days, we request that the Contractor inform us when these positions are expected to be filled, and what plans are in place to ensure that all tasks to be undertaken by a particular Key Personnel position will be accomplished in the interim.

Section M

18. Re Section M.2.c: Key Personnel, page 123 - This evaluation criterion states, "USAID will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror appropriately summarizes each Key Personnel’s role in the contract and links the Key Personnel’s qualifications, experience, and skills to the achievement of the required development results, both individually and collectively." [Emphasis added] Can USAID please clarify how Key Personnel experience and skills will be evaluated if it is not required to propose individuals or include CVs?

Response 18: USAID will evaluate the Contractor’s narrative for Key Personnel position descriptions, as opposed to any individuals the Contractor may identify as Key Personnel. As described on p. 108 of the RFP: “Offerors may – though are not required to – include Curricula Vitae (“CVs”) for all Key Personnel candidates proposed in the Annex, along with letters of commitment and contact information for references for each Key Personnel position. Note, these candidates and their CVs will not be evaluated.” Note that section M.2.c of the RFP has been edited, and now reads as follows:

“The Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel position descriptions will be evaluated to determine if they optimally contribute to achievement of results. Position descriptions will be evaluated to determine whether or not they are adequate to ensure necessary skills for the proposed roles/responsibilities, as well as collectively to ensure that the proposed Key Personnel team has the appropriate blend of expertise and is organized appropriately to achieve the project objectives, including the appropriate use of host country professionals. USAID will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror appropriately summarizes each Key Personnel’s role in the contract and links the qualifications, experience, and skills laid out in Key Personnel position descriptions to the achievement of the required development results, both individually and collectively.”

[End of Attachment 1]