Responses to Questions_Final_1.pdf

Feed the Future Senegal Value Chain Services Activity

1 | P a g e

ATTACHMENT 1 - REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL No. 72068520R00003 - QUESTIONS

FROM POTENTIAL OFFERORS

Question 1: What is the expected start date of this Activity?

Answer: The activity will start on October 1, 2020

Question 2: Section B.4 states “A ceiling of 5.0 percent of the offerors budget is encouraged to be dedicated to potential grants,” yet in Section L.7, the RFP states, “The total GUCs amount MUST not be more than $10.0 Million under this contract.” Would USAID provide a grant plug for offerors to use and/or suggest a clear maximum amount for a GUC program?

Answer: Please see Section K.6 of the solicitation regarding the $10.0 M limitation.

Question 3: Sections B.4 and L.7 (Grants Under Contract) state the offeror is anticipated to award approximately 10 small grants, whereas on page 133, the RFP states that the offeror must identify for sub-awards at least five local organizations. Would USAID confirm the anticipated number of small grants? Are these multiple grants to five organizations or single grants for up to 10 organizations?

Answer: The Contractor must support USAIDs Local Solutions agenda to build the capacity of local organizations by identifying at least 5 local organizations for subawards. In addition, the Contractor must consider partnerships (through subawards including purchase orders and GUCs) to support local Senegalese Organizations by dedicating at least 25% of the budget to local organizations. This can be actualized either through GUCs or Subcontracts budget line categories. They may be grantees or subcontractors. There is no limit for the number of subcontracts while a maximum of 10 small grants are anticipated. Multiple grants can be given to the same organization. However, 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. Also, 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 (See ADS 302.3.4.13).

Question 4: Page 8, Part B.4 Contract Budget and Total Price states “A ceiling of 5.0 percent of the offeror’s budget is encouraged to be dedicated to potential grants.” Page 131, Part 8. Priority Partners and Customers states, “In order to support local implementation, the Contractor must dedicate at least 25% of the budget to local organizations.”

Would USAID please confirm that the 5% grant ceiling is not inclusive of the 25% of the budget allocated to local organizations, so that up to 5% of 75% percent of the total proposed budget will go to GUCs?

Answer: If the grantee or subcontractor is a local organization then the budgeted amount is inclusive of the minimum 25% allocated to local organizations. If the grantee or subcontractor is not a local organization then the amount is not inclusive of the 25% . In both cases, the budget prices are inclusive of the 5% grant ceiling.

2 | P a g e

Question 5: RFP Reference: B.4(c), Page Number: 8, Relevant RFP Language: “A ceiling of 5.0 percent of the offerors budget is encouraged to be dedicated to potential grants.”

RFP Reference: L.7(7)(G), Page Number: 186, Relevant RFP Language: “The total GUCs amount MUST not be more than $10.0 Million under this contract.”

Question: Section B.4(c) on page 8 of the RFP indicates, a ceiling of 5.0 percent of the offerors budget for grants, which would be $2 million of a $40 million budget. However, Section L.7(7)(G) on page 186 states that $10.0 Million is the ceiling for grants under this contract. Could USAID confirm that offerors should follow the guidance in Section B.4(c) and consider 5% of the offeror’s budget to be the ceiling on Grants Under Contract that for the Senegal, Value Chain Services Activity?

Answer: See answer to question 3 and 4.

Question 6: Section C.1, Title of Activity (page 12) refers to this as Feed the Future in Senegal, Value Chain Services Activity. Later in the RFP, the Activity is referred to as Feed the Future Senegal Scaling Up Value Chain Services. Could USAID/Senegal please confirm that the title of this Activity is Feed the Future Senegal Value Chain Services Activity?

Answer: The title of the activity is “Feed the Future Senegal Value Chain Services.”

Question 7: Section C, Description/Specifications/Statement of Work (pages 12-13) specifies that “USAID will insert the contractor’s Statement of Work (SOW) here at award. See Section J.1 – Statement of Work for the description that provides information for the development of Section C.”

Could USAID/Senegal clarify whether it intends for the Technical Implementation section of the Offeror’s Technical Proposal to become the Statement of Work, or whether Section C is a standalone document that the Offeror will develop upon award?

Answer: The successful offeror’s technical proposal will become the Statement of Work for the Feed the Future Senegal Value Chain Services Activity.

Question 8: Section F.5 Key Personnel (page 18) states that the Chief of Party must have a Master’s degree in management, public administration, social sciences, international development, or a related field. Would USAID consider additional years of private sector or international project experience in lieu of a Master’s degree?

Answer: No. The Chief of Party or the Deputy Chief of Party must have a minimum six (6) years of experience in private sector project management, preferably with donor-funded programs, in the West Africa region, in small and medium agribusiness development, supply chain logistics, value chain competitiveness, organizational and institutional development or contract farming

Question 9: Per Section F.5 on page 18, USAID requires master’s degrees for the chief of party and deputy chief of party. To increase the pool of qualified Senegalese candidates, would USAID consider allowing candidates with a bachelor’s degree plus an additional five years of experience?

3 | P a g e

Answer: A Master’s degree is preferred for the Deputy Chief of Party position. with at least 6 years of experience in private sector project management, preferably with donor-funded programs, in the West Africa region, in small and medium agribusiness development, supply chain logistics, value chain competitiveness, organizational and institutional development or contract farming.

Question 10: Page 18, Part F.5 Key Personnel includes the following qualification for the Chief of Party: “A minimum of a Master’s degree in management, public administration, social sciences, international development, or a related field,” while the Deputy Chief of Party is required to have “A minimum of a Master’s degree.” Would USAID please consider allowing proposed Key Personnel candidates to have a bachelor’s degree and two additional years of relevant technical or managerial experience in lieu of a Master’s degree?

Answer: See response to question 8 and 9.

Question 11: RFP Reference: F.5.1, Page Number: 18 Question: Section F.5.1 requires a Master’s degree and professional experience working in agricultural value chain or agribusiness development programs. for the Chief of Party (COP). Given the limited number of Francophone COP candidates with at least 8 years of experience leading, managing and implementing international projects of similar scope and budget levels, would USAID allow offerors to substitute years of experience for the advanced degree? For example, could offerors propose a COP with a Bachelor’s degree and at least 17 years of relevant professional working experience?

Answer: See response to question 10

Question 12: Footnote 1 on page 21, Part F.7 references a Supporting Document entitled “Farmer Owned Cloud Database.” Would USAID please provide guidance on where Offerors may find this document?

Answer: Offerors may find the document in the Agrilinks website. Footnote 1 includes the reference: Farmer-owned cloud database.

Question 13: Section F.7, Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (page 22-23) lists a number of required indicators that do not align with those presented in Attachment J.1. In particular, a number of population-level indicators that are normally collected as part of a ZOI-level baseline, midline, or endline are included (e.g., Prevalence of poverty, Depth of poverty, Average consumption shortfall of the poor). Could USAID/Senegal please confirm that offerors should only include the required performance indicators listed in Attachment J.1, which align to the specific goals of this Activity?

Answer: The contractor must conduct, using only the beneficiaries in the sampling, a performance baseline, midline and endline for custom indicators and all required ones listed in page 22-23 including the Prevalence of poverty, Depth of poverty, Average consumption shortfall of the poor.

The required performance indicators listed in Attachment J.1 and all custom ones must be part of the AMELP indicators that are quarterly updated.

https://www.agrilinks.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/Farmer-Owned%20Cloud%20Database%20Environments_%20April%202015.pdf

4 | P a g e

Question 14:

a: In Section F.7, on page 24, the RFP states that “the impacts of the ensemble of USAID interventions in the ZOI will be measured via a population-based survey conducted by a third party.” However, in other parts of the RFP, it is implied that the implementer will be responsible for this data collection. For example, some of the required high-level indicators on pages 121-122 would necessitate a population-based survey in the ZOI. Could USAID confirm that a third party will be responsible for conducting population-based surveys to generate such data, which will then be made available to the Value Chain Services activity?

Answer: A third party will be responsible for conducting any impact evaluation and results will be shared with the Contractor. The population-based survey conducted by USAID will be an impact evaluation for the whole Feed the Future Senegal portfolio. As outlined in answer to Question 13, the contractor will be responsible for conducting performance evaluation (baseline, midterm and endline) limited to beneficiaries of Feed the Future Senegal Value Chain Services activity and covering all custom indicators and all required ones including the ones listed on page 121-122.

b: Could USAID confirm that USAID will contract with the third party to conduct the population-based survey through a separate procurement?

Answer: Yes. USAID will contract, through a separate procurement, with a third party to conduct an impact evaluation via a population-based survey. See response to question 13 and question 14.a.

Question 15: RFP Reference: F.7, Page Number: 22, Relevant RFP Language: “For Value Chain Services wide results reporting, implementing partners must use a common M&E results reporting system. The main implementer must be required to report on the common result indicators (as identified under the U.S. Standardized Foreign Assistance Program Structure and Definitions) through the central Activity M&E Unit. This Unit will assist with the development and rollout of the Value Chain Services -wide reporting platform, to be used by all implementing partners.”

Question a: Could USAID please clarify whether the M&E Unit described in the paragraph above is internal to the Value Chain Services activity or is a separate M&E Unit internal to the Mission?

Answer: The M&E Unit described in the paragraph above is internal to Feed the Future Senegal Value Chain Services.

Question b: Could USAID define the term “implementing partners” in the paragraph above? Is the paragraph referring to the Value Chain Services Activity implementing partner as well as implementing partners for other EG4ALL activities?

Answer: The paragraph is referring to Feed the Future Senegal Value Chain Services implementing partners.

Question 16: RFP Reference: F.7, Page Number: 22-23, RFP Reference: J.1.7, Page Number:

121-130

5 | P a g e

Question a: Could USAID please confirm that bidders should default to the 2019 revised Feed the Future Indicator Handbook in instances where the RFP language differs from the handbook for any indicator-related language?

Answer: Yes. Bidders should default to the 2019 revised Feed the Future Indicator Handbook in instances where the RFP language differs from the handbook for any indicator-related language.

Question b: Indicator EG.3-1, Number of households benefiting directly from USG-assistance under Feed the Future, as referenced on pages 122 and 123, was archived and replaced with EG.3-2 Number of individuals participating in USG food security programs. Could USAID clarify whether the contractor should continue measuring EG.3-1 as a custom indicator or replace it with the new

EG.3-2?

Answer: The contractor should measure both indicators and then consider EG.3-1 as a custom indicator.

Question c: On page 124, the indicator listed under Sub IR2 (Total public and private dollars leveraged with USG support for access to productive water and energy) and the first indicator listed under Sub IR3 (Total public and private dollars leveraged with USG support for transportation, storage and processing infrastructure) are very similar to the standard FTF indicator EG.3.1-14 “Value of new USG commitments and private sector investment leveraged by the USG to support food security and nutrition [IM-level].” Would USAID accept the standard indicator EG.3.1-14 with disaggregation noting the purpose of the leverage for access to productive water and energy or transportation, storage, and processing infrastructure?

Answer: No; The Contractor should measure the indicator listed under each Sub IR. The Contractor will also measure the standard Feed the Future indicator EG.3.1-14 accordingly to the FTF Hand book disaggregation.

Question d.1: Indicator EG.3-9 “Number of full-time equivalent jobs created with USG assistance,” as referenced on pages 23 and 26, was archived and not replaced. Could USAID clarify whether the contractor should continue tracking this indicator as a custom indicator?

Answer: The contractor should continue tracking “Number of full-time equivalent jobs created with USG assistance,” as a custom indicator with a disaggregation by Sex and Age and by On-Farm and Off-Farm.

Question d.2: Additionally, could USAID clarify whether the indicator “Number of full time equivalent on farm jobs created with USG assistance” noted on page 125 is meant to be the same indicator as that mentioned on pages 23 and 26 (Number of full-time equivalent jobs created with USG assistance (former EG.3-9))?

Answer: See response to Question d.1

6 | P a g e

Question e: Indicator EG.3.2-5 “Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USG assistance,” as referenced on page 128, was archived and not replaced. Could USAID clarify whether the contractor should continue measuring EG.3.2-5 as a custom indicator?

Answer: Yes. The contractor should continue measuring EG.3.2-5 as a custom indicator

Question f: Indicator EG.11-6 “Number of people using climate information or implementing risk-reducing actions to improve resilience to climate change as supported by USG assistance,” as referenced on page 129, was replaced with EG.3.2-28 “Number of hectares under improved management practices or technologies that promote improved climate risk reduction and/or natural resources management with USG assistance [IM-level].” Could USAID clarify whether the contractor should continue measuring EG 11-6 as a custom indicator or replace it with EG.3.2-28?

Answer: The contractor should measure EG.3.2-28, and “Number of people using climate information or implementing risk-reducing actions to improve resilience to climate change as supported by USG assistance,” as a custom indicator.

Question 17: RFP Reference: F.7, Page Number: 22, Relevant RFP Language: “During the duration of the contract, the Contractor’s responsibilities include:

1. Monitor and evaluate Value Chain Services impact on beneficiaries, communities and local organizations (including baseline surveys, mid-term and final impact evaluations).”

Question: Could USAID please confirm that it expects the Value Chain Services activity to conduct an internal impact evaluation as defined in ADS 201, as opposed to being carried out by a third party evaluator?

Answer: See response to question 13 and 14.

Question 18: RFP Reference: F.7, Page Number: 22, Relevant RFP Language: “Some of the afore-mentioned required indicators (Section C6) are standard ones:”

The RFP does not contain a Section C6. Could USAID confirm that the sentence above refers to the indicators in Section J.1.7 on pages 121-130?

Answer: Yes. The sentence above refers to the indicators in Section J.1.7 on pages 121-130 of the original solicitation.

Question 19: RFP Reference: F.7, Page Number: 22-23, RFP Reference: J.1.7, Page Number:

121-130, Several indicators referenced in the RFP have been archived in the most recent release of the 2019 revised Feed the Future Indicator Handbook.

Indicator EG.3-a, Daily per capita expenditures, as referenced on pages 22 and 122, was archived and not replaced. Could USAID clarify whether the contractor should continue measuring this indicator as a custom indicator?

Answer: The contractor should continue measuring this indicator as a custom indicator and accordingly to answers to question 13 and 14.

7 | P a g e

Question 20: RFP Reference: F.7, Page Number: 22-23, Relevant RFP Language: “Some of the afore-mentioned required indicators (Section C6) are standard ones…Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USG assistance (EG.3.2-27) [IM-level];”

RFP Reference: J.1.7, Sub IR6, Page Number: 126, Relevant RFP Language: “Required indicators for Sub IR6 include:

1. Total agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USG assistance”

Could USAID please confirm that the correct name of this indicator is “Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USG assistance” in line with the language in the 2019 revised Feed the Future Indicator Handbook?

Answer: Yes. Bidders should default to the 2019 revised Feed the Future Indicator Handbook in instances where the RFP language differs from the handbook for any indicator-related language.

Question 21: Section F.8 (Table 1) Project Management Deliverables (pages 25-26) requires that the baseline report covering each AMELP indicator be submitted 45 days after contract award.

Given that many of the required performance indicators are population-level indicators that will require a household survey, would USAID/Senegal consider changing this requirement to 90 days after award?

Answer: Yes. The baseline report covering each AMELP indicator must be submitted 120 days after the contract award. Table 1 - Project has been modified accordingly.

Question 22: RFP Reference: F.8, Page Number: 26, Relevant RFP Language: “Baseline report covering each AMELP indicator Due 45 days after contract award”. Considering the number of indicators and the sample size necessary for a comprehensive baseline survey across the ZOI, would USAID extend the deadline for the baseline report to 120 days after contract award?

Answer: See response to question 21.

Question 23: RFP Reference: F.8, Page Number: 26, Relevant RFP Language: Table 2: technical deliverables

Question a: The target for “Net increase in full-time equivalent jobs across the assisted MSMEs” is the same for End of Year 3 and End of Year 5. We agree with USAID that a net increase of 15,000 full-time equivalent jobs is a good target for the 5-year period of performance. Would USAID provide a lower target for the End of Year 3 achievement date?

Answer: The target for “Net increase in full-time equivalent jobs across the assisted MSMEs” in the End of Year 3 is a net increase of 15,000 full-time equivalent jobs, the Year 5 target is an additional net increase of 15,000 full-time equivalent jobs, for a Life of Project target of 30,000 net increase in full-time equivalent jobs and the Offeror must propose intermediate targets for each year.

8 | P a g e

Question b: Could USAID confirm that the target for “Net increase in full-time equivalent jobs across the assisted MSMEs by end of Year 5” is the net increase in full-time equivalent jobs compared to the baseline?

Answer: Yes. “Net increase in full-time equivalent jobs across the assisted MSMEs by end of Year 5” is the net increase in full-time equivalent jobs compared to the baseline.

Question 24: RFP Reference: F.8, Page Number: 26, Relevant RFP Language: Table 2: technical deliverables, In Table 2: technical deliverables, the targets for the indicator "Number of MSMEs, including farmers, receiving USG assistance to access first loans or incremental loans" are as follows:

• by end of Year 3, 100,000 for first loans (with 50% women and 40% youth)

• by end of Year 5, 200,000 supported MSMEs

Question a: Could USAID confirm that the target by end of year 5 includes both first and incremental loans?"

Answer: Yes. The target by the end of Year 5 includes both first and incremental loans.

Question b: Could USAID confirm that the target of reaching 200,000 supported MSMEs at the end of year 5 is the cumulative total for the 5-year life of the project?

Answer: Yes. The target of reaching 200,000 supported MSMEs at the end of year 5 is the cumulative total for the 5-year life of the project.

Question 25: RFP Reference: F.8.b, Page Number: 27-28, Relevant RFP Language: “The first year work plan is due no later than 60 days following contract award…Annual work plans for subsequent years shall be submitted no later than 30 days before the end of the US Government fiscal year. As an annex to the work plan, the contractor shall submit a performance monitoring plan (PMP) that includes objectives, expected results and indicators. A detailed and complete PMP will be developed and submitted for COR’s approval with the first annual work plan.”

RFP Reference: F.8.d, Page Number: 28, Relevant RFP Language: “The Contractor is required to submit a refined and finalized monitoring and evaluation methodology as a life-of-activity Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (AMEL) within 45 days of award.”

Question: The first AMELP is due within 45 days of contract award but the first year work plan is not due until 60 days after award. Furthermore, the detailed instructions for the first year work plan say that it should include a performance monitoring plan as an annex. So that development of the first year work plan and the AMELP are aligned, would USAID modify the due date for the AMELP to be 60 days after contract award on pages 25 and 28?

Answer: No. The contractor must submit the AMELP without baseline for some indicators within 45 days of contract award, the first-year work plan within 60 days, the baseline report covering all

9 | P a g e indicators of the AMELP within 120 days and the life-of-activity local capacity development and exit strategy plan within 150 days of award.

Question 26: RFP Reference: F.8.C, Page Number: 28, Relevant RFP Language: “LOCAL CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT AND EXIT STRATEGY PLAN - The Contractor must submit a life-of-activity local capacity development and exit strategy plan within 45 days of award.”

Considering the heavy load of activities to be carried out at project start-up and the necessary coordination with all subcontractors for the development of a comprehensive local capacity development and exit strategy plan, would USAID extend the deadline for the Local Capacity Development and Exit Strategy Plan to 120 days after contract award?

Answer: See response to question 25

Question 27: RFP Reference: F.8.h, Page Number: 30, Relevant RFP Language: “The annual performance report will cover all of the items included in the bi-annual performance report, with a focus on the Activity results over the entire contract year.” This is the only mention of a bi-annual performance report in the RFP. Would USAID delete this sentence from the RFP?

Answer: The annual performance report will cover all of the items included in the quarterly performance reports, with a focus on the Activity results over the entire contract year.

Question 28: RFP Reference: F.8.h, Page Number: 30, Relevant RFP Language: “The contractor shall submit annual reports for project years 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Annual reports shall be due 30 days after the end of the US Government fiscal year.” Because the contractor will submit a Final Report at the end of Year 5, would USAID remove the requirement for an Annual Report for Year 5?

Answer: No.

Question 29: Section H.9(a)(1) on page 46 states that salaries and wages may not “without approval of the Cognizant Contracting Officer, exceed the employee’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.” We request that USAID remove the above-mentioned salary restriction from the RFP as it appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007 Personnel Compensation, incorporated in the contract under Section H.44. This section stipulates that personnel compensation be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, with reimbursement subject only to the USAID contractor salary threshold. The salary restriction above may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices, as required by AIDAR 752.700.

Answer: Per AIDAR clauses 752.7007, Contracting Officer (CO) approval is required. The CO will use well established cost analysis techniques such as reviews of experience, education, and market value to determine a fair and reasonable salary for an individual. Contractors may determine the market value of the position and advise the CO what it is based on. It is the CO’s responsibility to establish a fair and reasonable price for contractor personnel salaries, including questions regarding the rationale on how the proposed salary determination was made. Therefore, Contractors may use

10 | P a g e pertinent information, policy and data to support a determination of market value for a labor category salary (as support to their submission).

Question 30: Page 75, H.48 Grants Under Contract (GUCs), subsection (h) states, “If the Grants Manual is not provided before award to the Contracting Officer (CO), the Contractor shall obtain approval from the CO according to the timelines expressed in F.4.3.”

The RFP does not include a Section F.4.3 and Section F.4 discusses performance standards but does not include any timelines. Would USAID please confirm that Offerors that do not provide a Grants Manual before award may submit one within 30 days of award, as required in the timelines expressed on page 27 in subsection a. Start-Up and Preliminary Workplan? Item (4) in this sub-section references developing a mechanism and procedures for grant making within 30 days of award.

Answer: The Contractor must develop a mechanism and procedures for grant making to the Contracting Officer within 30 days of award

Question 31: Page 75, H.48 Grants Under Contract (GUCs), subsection (f) states, “For partner government entities, the ceiling is $300,000.”

a. Would USAID please confirm that grants are not anticipated for Senegalese government agencies under this contract?

b. If grants are anticipated for Senegalese government agencies under this contract, would USAID please provide further guidance on the types of grants that are anticipated for government agencies?

Answer: Offeror may consider grants to government agencies. See responses to questions 3 and 4 for guidance.

Question 32: Attachment J.1, 3. Feed the Future Senegal Value Chain Services (page 108) references the Entrepreneurship and Vocational Development Services component of the EG4ALL strategy and that it is “primarily addressed by the ongoing Feed the Future Youth in Agriculture activity.” Could USAID/Senegal clarify whether and how the forthcoming Senegal Entrepreneurship Promotion and Business Investment Activity will contribute to this component?

Answer: Yes. The forthcoming Senegal Entrepreneurship Promotion and Business Investment Activity will also contribute to the Entrepreneurship and Vocational Development Services component of the EG4ALL strategy.

Question 33: Attachment J.1, Sub IR6 (page 126) includes as required performance indicators Number of MSMEs, including farmers, receiving USG assistance to access loans and Number of MSMEs, including farmers, receiving USG assistance to access first loans or incremental loans.

These performance indicators appear duplicative. Would USAID/Senegal consider removing the requirement for an indicator tracking first loans or incremental loans, since these are included in the indicator counting loans overall?

11 | P a g e

Answer: No. “Total agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USG assistance” is replaced by EG.3.2.27 “value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USG assistance and the contractor will also measure as a custom indicator “Number of MSMEs, including farmers, receiving USG assistance to access first loans or incremental loans.” Targets are set for this custom indicator.

Question 34: Attachment J.1, CC Sub IR2 (page 129) includes as a required indicator the Ability to Recover from Shocks and Stresses Index. Per the Feed the Future Indicator Handbook, this is a ZOI-level indicator that should be collected by “national statistics offices under the LSMS-ISA+ national data systems strengthening activity or M&E contractors.” Given this, would USAID/Senegal consider removing this as a required performance indicator, since it should be collected at the ZOI-level and not by this specific Activity?

Answer: No. All required ZOI level indicators should be collected by the Contractor among beneficiaries of the Value Services Activity during the baseline, midterm, and endline timeframe.

Question 35: Attachment J.1, CC Sub IR3 (page 129) includes as a required performance indicator the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index. Could USAID/Senegal confirm that it expects this Activity to use the PRO-WEAI, which was developed for Activities of this kind, and not the WEAI, which is meant to capture ZOI-level changes beyond the scope of one specific Activity?

Answer: Yes; the Contractor should consider the PRO-WEAI or the A-WEAI

Question 36: Attachment J.1(7) Expected Results, CC Sub IR4 (page 130) requires the performance indicator Proportion of nutritious dense foods in total production of targeted commodities. Could USAID/Senegal clarify whether it intends for Offerors to measure this by total quantity of production (e.g., metric tons) or by area under production (e.g., hectares)?

Answer: Total production refers to metric tons and the Contractor must develop a Performance Indicator Reference Sheet for each custom indicator of the AMELP.

Question 37: Attachment J.1 on page 119 of the RFP states, “The Contractor must focus investments up to three value chains per sub-zone (Delta, South Saloum, Casamance) and up to a total of 7 value chains.” Can USAID clarify if it will be possible to change the targeted value chains throughout the course of the project to respond to changing market conditions?

Answer: Feed the Future Senegal Value Chain Services is a scaling up activity. Opportunities to maximize job creation, income increase with maximum household coverage within the ZOI must guide the choice of commodities. The successful offeror’s technical proposal will become the Statement of Work for Feed the Future Senegal Value Chain Services Activity. So, any change on the commodity choice will be a change of the SOW that will require the Contracting officer’s approval.

Question 38: Attachment J.1, Intermediate Result (IR) 3 on page 126 is stated as, “Increased access to markets and trade.” The RFP states on page 134 that, “Clients for the Value Chain

12 | P a g e

Services system services will potentially include nearly all actors of targeted value chains, but with a strong focus on farmers, producer and community organizations, input and service providers, exporters, processors, and traders.” While exporters are key actors, no specific export outcomes are stated within the RFP. Would USAID clarify their vision regarding export outcomes in relation to the value chains services (VCS) project?

Answer: Depending on the value chains targeted by an Offeror, exporters may or may not be key actors. USAID focuses on the impacts on smallholder nutrition, food security and income with attention to youth and women economic empowerment. The indicator EG.3.2-26 “Value of annual sales of producers and firms receiving USG assistance” is required and the Offerors are asked to propose any relevant custom indicator.

Question 39: Per Attachment J.1 on page 127, “Specific outcomes are expected from the CC Sub IR1 and CC sub IR2. Both of these Sub IRs and the three IRs are the five components of this Activity.” Would USAID clarify what outcomes are expected from CC Sub IRs 3, 4, 5, and 6?

Further, could USAID confirm that approaches for the four CC Sub IRs should be integrated across the three IRs? 8. Attachment J.1 on page 129 states, “Required indicators for CC Sub IR4 include...” This appears in the section for CC Sub IR2. Would USAID clarify that the indicators on page 129 are for CC Sub IR2?

Answer: Cross Cutting Sub IRs 3, 4, 5 and 6 are contributing to outcomes of the 3 IRs without specific outcomes. Cross Cutting Sub IRs 1 and 2 are also contributing to the outcomes of the 3 IRS but both also have additional specific outcomes. So, the activity 5 components are built around the 3 IRs and these two Cross cutting IRs that have specifically dedicated outcomes. In addition, the indicators on page 129 are for CC Sub IR2.

Question 40: RFP Reference: J.1.3, Page Number: 108, Relevant RFP Language: "EG4ALL includes five components: Value Chain Services; Nutritious Food System Services;

Entrepreneurship and Vocational Development Services; Policy Systems Services; and Sustainable Ecosystem and Fisheries Management."

We are aware that USAID/Senegal is procuring or planning several upcoming projects that the Value Chain Services Activity will need to coordinate and collaborate with. However, public information is not available for several of these activities, including the following:

• A market systems support activity for nutrition (to be implemented by Connexus)

• The extension and possible subsequent phase of the CINSERE activity

• The IFC implemented support program to the Casamance mango sector

• Grant to myAgro agriculture services to smallholder farmers

Question: Could USAID make the scopes of these activities available or provide a briefing note on these activities and the geographical zones and domains of intervention?

Answer: The market systems support activity for nutrition is focused on market-based approach to support Kawolor interventions on horticulture. The support program to the Casamance mango sector is implemented by World Bank Senegal that can give more information about their

13 | P a g e interventions.

Question 41: RFP Reference: J.1.7 Overall Goal, Page Number: 122, Relevant RFP Language:

“Offerors must propose an approach and a set of value chains to reach the maximum possible beneficiaries and achieve, in the ZOI, at least 20% income increase and 15% poverty reduction as measured through Population Based Survey (PBS).”

Question a: According to FTF guidance, a Population Based Survey (PBS) will provide information related to the dynamics of income and poverty across the ZOI, which will not be directly attributable to the contractor’s implementation activities. Would USAID amend the solicitation to note that the Feed the Future in Senegal, Value Chain Services Activity will make important contributions to increases in income and reduction in poverty in the ZOI as critical aspects of the FTF Senegal Country Plan 2018-2022 Results Framework, but that these results as measured by a PBS are above the manageable interest of the Value Chain Services contractor?

Answer: USAID is not requesting the Contractor to be accountable for the dynamic of income and poverty in the ZOI. USAID is also not requesting the contractor to do an impact evaluation or a PBS. However the Offeror must demonstrate that the proposed approach and set of value chains are relevant for scaling up coverage (maximum possible beneficiaries), increasing revenues (by at least 20%) and poverty reduction (by at least 15% understanding for example that moving the poverty rate from 30% to 25.5% represents a 15% reduction).

Question b: Alternatively, would USAID consider measuring increases in income and reductions in poverty using alternative methods to a PBS?

Answer: Offerors are encouraged to propose custom indicators however measuring beneficiaries’ income (not the whole population of the ZOI) and poverty rate among beneficiaries (not among the whole population of the ZOI) during baseline, midterm and endline using PBS methodology are required.

Question 42: Section J.6 on page 152 of the RFP proposes the Past Performance Matrix. Can USAID confirm if the Offeror should complete this form or if it is completed by USAID during the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal?

Answer: The form must be prepared by the offeror and submitted at the time of submission of the technical and cost proposals. Please see Section J.6 - Past Performance Matrix for completing this requirement.

Question 43: RFP Reference: J.1.7, Sub IR6, Page Number: 126, Relevant RFP Language:

“Required indicators for Sub IR6 include:…

2. Number of MSMEs, including farmers, receiving USG assistance to access loans.

3. Number of MSMEs, including farmers, receiving USG assistance to access first loans or incremental loans”

14 | P a g e

Question: The two indicators cited above are very similar. Would USAID delete indicator #3 in that list, requiring the contractor to just track Number of MSMEs, including farmers, receiving USG assistance to access loans, with disaggregation by stage (first, incremental)?

Answer: See answer to question 23.

Question 44: RFP Reference: J.1.7, Sub IR8, Page Number: 127, Relevant RFP Language:

Number of MSMEs, including farmers, receiving USG assistance to meet market demands

Question a: Could USAID define “meet market demands”?

Answer: “meet market demands” means “selling for a given value chain what is demanded by targeted consumers”

Question b: Could USAID define how it seeks to measure whether MSMEs, including farmers, “meet market demands”?

Answer: This is a custom indicator and the Contractor must submit a Performance Indicator Reference Sheet (PIRS) in the AMELP. Remarks: number of MSMEs receiving assistance to meet market demands is different to number of MSMEs meeting market demands.

Question 45: RFP Reference: J.1.7, Page Number: 122-130, Relevant RFP Language: “Required indicators”

Question: So that offerors are able to accurately budget for M&E costs associated with indicators, could USAID please provide performance indicator reference sheets (PIRS) for all required custom indicators, i.e., those indicators that are not in the Feed the Future Indicator Handbook?

Answer: No. PIRS will be developed for all custom indicators (required or proposed by the Contractor) by the Contractor in the AMELP

Question 46: RFP Reference: J.1.13.1, Page Number: 140, Relevant RFP Language: “Under this contract, the Contractor must…establish and maintain a Performance Based Management System (PBMS).” The Performance Based Management System on page 140 is the only mention of a performance based management system in the solicitation. Because the RFP does not classify the FTF Senegal Value Chain Services Activity as a performance-based acquisition, would USAID remove the Performance Based Management System (PBMS) requirement from section J.1.13.1?

Answer: Performance management in an ongoing, systematic approach to improving results through evidence-based decision making, continuous organizational learning, and a focus on accountability for performance. The Contractor must integrate Performance management into all aspects of the Activity’s management and processes, in order to focus on achieving improved results. It is about managing the M&E unit, designs, creating and implementing not only the AMELP but also GIS capability, and analysis and reporting of results for improved program implementation. Although measurement is a critical component of performance management, measuring and reporting alone have rarely led to organizational learning and improved outcomes. Performance management, on

15 | P a g e the other hand, encompasses an array of practices designed to improve performance. Performance management systematically uses measurement and data analysis as well as other tools to facilitate learning and improvement and strengthen a focus on results. Feed the Future Senegal Value Chain Services is not a performance-based acquisition, but the Contractor Dakar-based team must establish and maintain a Performance Based Management System (PBMS) for the implementation and the management of the Activity.

Question 47: L.6, Instructions for Preparation of Technical Proposal (page 178) requires a section on Partnership & Coordination with Feed the Future Senegal Kawolor (either as a standalone section or within the Technical Implementation). Corresponding instructions for this section are not included under L.6.1, Format and Page Limitations (pages 179-183). Could USAID/Senegal provide further details on what is expected within this section?

Answer: The Offeror must provide a separate section for Partnership & Coordination with Feed the Future Senegal Kawolor.

Question 48: L.6, Instructions for Preparation of Technical Proposal (page 178) requires a Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Methodology section (Performance Plan and Evaluation Methodology in L.6.1.3 and M.2.3) that includes a Performance Indicator Tracking Table. Would USAID/Senegal allow offerors to include the proposed Performance Indicator Tracking Table as an annex to the technical proposal?

Answer: No. The Performance Indicators Tracking Table (PITT) must be included as Annex 8.

Question 49: Section L.6 on page 178 lists a “cover page” and a “cover letter.” Would USAID confirm that the cover letter and cover page are the same and exempt from page limits?

Answer: The solicitation has been amended for clarity, both Cover Letter and Cover Page refer to the same page.

Question 50: RFP Reference: L.6.1, Page Number: 179, Relevant RFP Language: “The written Technical Proposal must be written in English and is limited to 35 pages”

RFP Reference: L.6.1.2.a, Page Number: 180, Relevant RFP Language: “Offerors are required to submit for each of the proposed key personnel the following documents, which shall be attached as Annex 4, and shall not be included in the 20-page limitation”

Question: Could USAID confirm that the page limit for the Technical Proposal is 35 pages?

Answer: Yes. The technical proposal must be limited to 35 pages.

Question 51: Section L.6.1 on page 179 states “While the suggested page length per Technical Proposal section is given below, offerors may allocate the page count differently, provided the overall Technical Proposal page limit is not exceeded.” However, suggested section page lengths are not provided. Would USAID provide this guidance?

16 | P a g e

Answer: The technical proposal must be limited to 35 pages.

Question 52: Page 181, Part L.6.1.3 Performance Plan and Evaluation Methodology states, “The offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself and each major subcontractor (one whose proposed cost exceeds 15.0% of the offeror’s total proposed cost)….”

a. Would USAID please confirm that Offerors and major subcontractors are each required to submit five of their most recent and relevant contracts in the Past Performance Matrix (Attachment J.6) to fulfill this requirement?

Answer: The past performance information for subcontractors is required only if a subcontractor’s proposed costs exceeds 15% of the total proposed offeror’s cost.

b. Would USAID please confirm that Offerors may include both contracts and cooperative agreements as part of their performance information.

Answer: USAID can review other sources such as Cooperative Agreements, if and when the Contracting Officer finds the existing database to be insufficient for evaluating an offeror's performance. In this instance, USAID’s database only captures contracts. Cooperative Agreements submission will be reviewed for compliance in accordance with M.2.4 however; USAID cannot confirm the validity of the information without a database. Thus, submission of Cooperative Agreements is discouraged.

Question 53: Section L.6.1.4 on page 182 states that the narrative for use of small business concerns should be presented in Annex 4. Could USAID confirm that the narrative should be presented in Annex 6 where the rest of past performance information will be presented?

Answer: No. Narrative summary of your organization's use of small business concerns over the past three years must be provided in Annex 7.

Question 54: RFP Reference: L.6, Page Number: 178, Relevant RFP Language:

“● Partnership & Coordination with Feed the Future Senegal Kawolor (This may be included as its own section or as sub-sections under both the Technical Implementation)

● Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Methodology (including coordination /collaboration with Feed the Future Senegal Kawolor)”

RFP Reference: J.1.3, Page Number: 108, Relevant RFP Language: “EG4ALL includes five components: Value Chain Services; Nutritious Food System Services; Entrepreneurship and Vocational Development Services; Policy Systems Services; and Sustainable Ecosystem and Fisheries Management.”

RFP Reference: J.1.8, Page Number: 131, Relevant RFP Language: “Strategic partners for this Activity include (but are not limited to) Feed the Future Senegal Cultivating Nutrition, Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, USAID/Senegal SEN-WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene)

17 | P a g e project and its main activity USAID/Assainissement, Changement de Comportement et Eau pour le Sénégal (ACCES); USAID/Governance for Local Development Activity (GOLD) and USAID/Collaborative Management for a Sustainable Fisheries Future (COMFISH).”

FTF Senegal Kawolor is highlighted twice for collaboration in the outline of the Technical Proposal on page 178. However, within the Statement of Work, FTF Senegal Kawolor (i.e., Cultivating Nutrition) is simply included as equivalent to other activities with which Value Chain Services should collaborate.

Question a: Would USAID delete the bullet on page 178 for Partnership & Coordination with Feed the Future Senegal Kawolor?

Answer: No. Feed the Future Senegal Kawolor and Feed the Future Senegal Value Chain Services are the main activities of Feed the Future Senegal and USAID seeks a smart overlapping of these activities throughout the ZOI in order to obtain a layering of nutrition led interventions and income generation led ones in as many communities as possible.

Question b: If USAID feels it is important for Partnership and Coordination with Feed the Future Senegal Kawolor to be called out in its own section or sub-sections, could USAID kindly clarify under which sub-sections of the Technical Approach this information must be included?

Answer: The Offeror must provide a separate section for Partnership & Coordination with Feed the Future Senegal Kawolor or considerations should be made throughout the technical implementation.

Question c: If collaboration with FTF Senegal Kawolor over and above other FTF Senegal activities is required, could USAID provide a copy of the FTF Senegal Kawolor FY 2019 annual report and FY 2020 work plan so that all offerors have equal information regarding FTF Senegal Kawolor’s activities for this year?

Answer: Yes.

Question b: If the requirement for the Performance Based Management System (PBMS) remains, could USAID confirm that a PBMS is a system for tracking project data and using that data for project decision making?

Answer: Yes. USAID confirms that a PBMS is a system for tracking project data and using that data for project decision making. See answer to question 46.

Question 55: RFP Reference: L.6.1.4.a.1.b, Page Number: 181-182, Relevant RFP Language: “For each of the awards provided in response to the paragraph above the offeror must include a list of contact names, job titles, phone numbers, email addresses, and a description of the performance to include: Scope of work or complexity/diversity of tasks;

• Scope of work or complexity/diversity of tasks

• Primary location(s) of work

• Term of performance

18 | P a g e

• Skills/expertise required

• Dollar value; and

• Award type, i.e., contracts or grants, and fixed price, cost reimbursement, etc.”

RFP Reference: Attachment J.6, Page Number: 151, Relevant RFP Language: “CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT - SHORT FORM…Project Description (up to 200 words)”

Page 182 requires offerors to include information primary location(s) of work and skills/expertise required. However, space for these two items is not provided in the Contractor Performance Report

- Short Form on page 151.

Question a: Would USAID remove the requirement for primary location(s) of work and skills/expertise required on page 182?

Answer: No. This information can be provided as part of the Project Description in Section 7c. of the Form on page 151 of the original solicitation.

Question 56: RFP Reference: L.6.1.4.a.1, Page Number: 181-182, Relevant RFP Language: “The offeror must provide the Past Performance Information in the format provided in Attachment No.:

J.6 – Past Performance Matrix…The information in Attachment J.6 - Past Performance Matrix will be used to capture the required information.”

RFP Reference: Attachment J.6, Page Number: 151-152, Relevant RFP Language:

“CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT - SHORT FORM…PAST…