RFP No. 72068523R00005-Amendment 1-Attachment 1.pdf

RFP No. 72068523R00005 USAID Senegal WASH Services

Amendment # 1

I. Material Changes to the Original Solicitation

1. The In the Cover letter, “Proposals Closing Date and Time: September 11, 2023, at 4:00 PM, Dakar Time” is deleted and replaced with the following:

“Proposals Closing Date and Time: October 2nd, 2023, at 4:00 PM, Dakar Time”

2. Section F.7(4) is deleted and replaced with the language in the Q&As.

3. The fourth paragraph under H.23 (g) is deleted and replaced with the language in the Q&As.

4. Under SOO Objective 4, “Expected Results” paragraph is deleted and replaced with the language in the Q&As.

5. The table under Section C.6 is deleted and replaced with the language in the Q&As:

6. L.7.2 Format and Presentation of the Technical Proposal is deleted and replaced with the language in the Q&As.

7. Section L.8, Part 2 (7)(H) is deleted and replaced with the language in the Q&As

8. The first paragraph under Objective 4 is deleted and replaced with the language in the Q&As.

9. The first paragraph of Section H.22 is deleted and replaced with the language in the Q&As

10. Section J is deleted and replaced with the language in the Q&As.

11. The second to last paragraph under L.7.2.4 is deleted and replaced with the language in the Q&As.

12. The second paragraph of “Climate Risk Management” under H.22 is deleted and replaced with the language in the Q&As.

13. The first paragraph under L.9 is deleted and replaced with the language in the Q&As

14. Section B.4 (c) ‘Notes:’, last bullet is deleted and replaced with the language in the Q&As.

15. Section H.23(a)(1) is deleted and replaced with the language in the Q&As.

16. The first paragraph of Section L.7.2.5 is deleted and replaced with the language in the Q&As

17. Section L.8(e) is deleted and replaced with the language in the Q&As.

18. Section B.6 (c) ‘Note:’, is deleted and replaced with the language in the Q&As.

19. The first paragraph of in L.8 Part 2(7)(J) (i) is deleted and replaced with the language in the

Q&As.

20. L.8(D) is deleted and replaced with the language in the Q&As.

II. Administrative/General and Cost Questions

1. Given that there are a number of upcoming holidays in both Senegal (Feast of Assumption and Grand Magal of Touba) and the US (Labor Day), will USAID consider extending the proposal due date 2 weeks to give Offerors sufficient time to submit proposals?

Response: USAID will extend the submission date by three weeks.

2. Please confirm if the baseline report is expected to be submitted as part of the initial AMELP (as suggested in Section F.7(4) on page 23) or as a separate, standalone report as per Table 1 (Section F.7 on page 20). If it is part of the initial AMELP, please confirm the submission date.

Response: The baseline report is to be a separate, standalone report. The AMELP is due in 60 days and the baseline is due in 90 days after contract award. Please see response to Question # 31.

Section F.7(4) is deleted and replaced with the following:

“Each activity must determine whether they need a baseline survey to establish the pre-intervention conditions to inform the development of tailored interventions and provide a basis for monitoring activity results and impacts. . The assessment must provide gender disaggregated statistics and also investigate specific gaps that exist between males and females with respect to the problem that is being addressed and explain or indicate potential causes of those gaps and indicate what opportunities there are to promote women’s leadership and empowerment to project outcome.”

3. In section H.23 (page 46) the RFP states “These grants will be in line with the USAID New Partners Initiative, to local organizations and be matched at least 1 to 1 by grantees across the portfolio.” In accordance with ADS 303.3.10.1, Cost Share should be flexible, case-specific, used only after considering whether it is appropriate for the recipient organization and that USAID may not use a set formula in determining the level of cost share. Given the regulations and that cost share can be a constraint for certain organizations and therefore counter to the NPI model of removing barriers, would USAID consider removing the 1 to 1 match by the grantee?

Response: Revised language - USAID highly encourages a leverage of at least 1 to 1 by grantees and will take cost share into consideration for grant selection.

The fourth paragraph under H.23 (g) is deleted and replaced with the language with the following:

“The GUCs approach will enhance the capacity of local organizations during implementation.

The award will require the prime contractor to provide technical assistance to grantees to build their capacity. These grants will be in line with the USAID New Partners Initiative. USAID highly encourages a leverage of at least 1 to 1 by grantees and will take cost share into consideration for grant selection.”

4. On page 46, the RFP explains that “These grants will be in line with the USAID New Partners Initiative to local organizations and will be matched at least 1 to 1 by grantees across the portfolio”. Does this mean that the grantees have to show 50 percent cost share?

Response: See response to question #3

5. Section H.23 (RFP p. 45) of the RFP indicates grants will be matched at least 1 to 1 by grantees across the portfolio. Can USAID kindly confirm this match can be in the form of leveraging (which can be anything of value that is measured, such as financial contributions, third party contributions, donated services, or donated property) or grantee contributions to the activity?

Also, given the emphasis in the RFP on the New Partnerships Initiative and capacity building during implementation, would USAID adjust this language to make the 1-to-1 ratio highly encouraged rather than required to allow the contractor to partner with new organizations that do not yet have the resources and experience to identify other sources of funding at the outset of the grant?

Response: See response to question #3

6. Statement of Objectives Section C.6. lists both “300 villages certified Open Defecation Free (ODF)” and “Number of ODF villages/communes certified” under Objective 4 (page 12 of annex J.1.). Could USAID please provide additional information to clarify the difference between these two indicators?

Response: See modified sections below.

a) Under Objective 4, “Expected Results” paragraph is deleted and replaced with the language in the Q&As:

“Expected Results:

● Improved sanitation and water products and services that are tailored to cultural preferences, rates of open defecation, rates of basic water access, household income, and market maturity.

● Increased demand for sanitation and water products and services.

● 30,000 sanitation or water products/services purchased/sold.

● 250,000 people gain access to basic sanitation services.

● 50,000 people gain access to basic drinking water services.

● Villages certified Open Defecation Free (ODF).

● 75,000 households reached with social behavior change communication activities, including community-led total sanitation.”

b) The table under Section C.6 is deleted and replaced with the following:

Objective Illustrative Indicator and

Target Baseline Annual Targets*

1 $5 million mobilized to the water and sanitation sectors as a result of USG assistance

(HL.8.4-1)

50 private sector enterprises with increased access to finance due to USG assistance

(EG.2-12)

2 Number of mechanisms for external oversight of public resource use supported by USG assistance (DR.2.4-2)

3 30,000 sanitation or water products/services purchased/sold

250,000 people gaining access to a basic sanitation service due to USG assistance

(USAID HL.WASH (HL8.1.1

and 8.2-.2)

50,000 people gaining access to basic drinking water services as a result of USG assistance (USAID HL.8.1-1)

4 Villages certified Open Defecation Free (ODF)

75,000 households reached with SBC activities including community-led total sanitation

(CLTS)

Number of ODF villages/communes certified

(Contextual indicator) Overall rate of basic water access

Rural 75%, Urban 95% (JMP 2020) 2.1m rural and 370k urban lack access

Rural 97%, Urban 99% (MEA 2022)

(Contextual indicator) Overall rate of basic sanitation access

Rural 46%, Urban 68% (JMP 2020) 4.5m rural and 2.5m urban lack access

Rural 53%, Urban 72% (MEA 2022)

7. As Attachment J.1, Section C.5.2, Objective 1 (page 7) states that the “Senegalese Government is responsible for costs related to the construction of water infrastructure,” could USAID confirm the offeror should not set aside funds for construction in their proposed budget?

Response: Correct, the offeror should not set aside funds for construction.

8. As the SOO makes no reference to small-scale construction related activities under any of the expected results and also notes in Section C.5.2 Activity Objectives (SOO p. 7) that the Senegalese government is responsible for costs related to construction of water infrastructure, can USAID confirm that offerors are not expected use contract funds for small-scale construction related activities?

Response: Correct. Small-scale construction is not envisioned under this activity.

9. Could USAID clarify the clause that states that grantees are not allowed to use the grant funds for construction.

Response: USAID policy in ADS 303 limits construction under assistance to cooperative agreements only, therefore GUCs must not include construction.

10. Can USAID please confirm that the Offeror may not budget USAID funds for construction under this activity?

Response: See response to question #8

11. In the SOO, USAID provides a list of “Expected Results” for each Objective. Some of these “Expected Results” are project outcomes, some are results, and some are performance standards.

As long as all of the USAID “Expected Results” are accounted for in the PWS and QASP, can Offerors organize them in a way that is logical and appropriate to the PWS?

Response: USAID recognizes that outcomes, results, and performance standards were mixed in the Activity Objectives from the SOO. As long as all of the USAID ‘Expected Results’ are accounted for in the PWS and QASP, Offerors can organize them in a way that is logical and appropriate to the PWS.

12. The two indicator tables in Section C.6 (SOO p. 11) and Section F.7 (RFP p. 21) align the following two indicators to Objective 3. However, in section C.5.2 Activity Objectives (SOO

p. 9), they appear in the expected results for Objective 4. Given that these two standard indicators will only be reached if activities are successfully implemented under all four objectives, would USAID consider moving these indicators to the Activity level, rather than including them in one specific objective?

● 30,000 sanitation or water products/services purchased/sold

● 250,000 people gaining access to a basic sanitation service due to USG assistance

(USAID HL.WASH (HL8.1.1 and 8.2-.2)

● 50,000 people gaining access to basic drinking water services as a result of USG assistance (USAID HL.8.1-1)

Response: See response to question # 6

13. The three illustrative indicators listed for Objective 3 (number of sanitation or water products/services purchased/sold; number of people who gain access to basic sanitation services;

number of people who gain access to basic drinking water services) in Section C.6 (Attachment

J.1, pp. 11-12) are also listed as Expected Results for Objective 4 in Section C.5.2 (Attachment J.1, p. 10). Could USAID please clarify if we should associate these results with Objective 3 or Objective 4?

Response: See response to question # 6

14. Since the descriptions and expected results under Objective 4 (Attachment J.1, pp. 9-10) are similar to the scope of the Senegal WASH Demand activity under the Locally Led Development APS, could USAID please clarify the delineation of scopes between the two mechanisms?

Further, does USAID anticipate that the local partner who leads Objective 4 of the WASH Services Activity will be the same local partner who is awarded WASH Demand?

Response: It is the responsibility of the offeror to build an effective consortium to meet the objectives of the activity. This includes identifying local partner(s) that can facilitate interventions across Activity Objectives, Objective 4 in particular.

The WASH Demand activity is intended to complement and support achievement of Objective 4 of the WASH Services Activity. USAID planned this activity with the view that there would be opportunity for multiple local partners to contribute to the WASH Demand objective. As both activities get underway, USAID will work closely to coordinate the activities and promote synergies.

15. In Attachment J.1, Objective 4 (p. 9) states that “USAID envisions launching a $2.5 million WASH Demand in Senegal activity in 2023 that will also work to meet Objective 4.” Can USAID confirm that this is the same WASH Demand in Senegal activity that was tendered in May 2023 under Locally Led Development APS Addendum 17?

Response: Correct. WASH Demand tendered in May 2023 under the LLD APS Addendum 17 is the activity referenced under Objective 4 (p. 9).

16. Section L.7.2 (RFP p. 78) calls for a Key Personnel section separate from the Management and Non-Key Personnel Staffing Plan and Organizational Structure. Sections L.7.2.4 (RFP p. 80) and M.2.2 (RFP p. 94) refer to a single Management, Staffing, and Organizational Structure section. Can USAID confirm Management, the Staffing Plan, and the Organizational Structure are one section, not to exceed six pages, and that Key Personnel are a part of this section?

Response: To resolve this discrepancy, offerors may combine Key Personnel and "Management and Non-Key Personnel Staffing Plan and Organizational Structure" (items 6 and 7 on p. 78) into one 6-page section that is equivalent to "management, staffing, and organizational structure.’

L.7.2 Format and Presentation of the Technical Proposal is deleted and replaced with the following:

“The Offeror must structure their technical proposal in the order shown below.

1. Cover Page (not included in page limit)

2. Table of Contents (not included in page limit)

3. List of Acronyms (not included in page limit)

4. Executive Summary

5. Performance Work Statement (PWS) (see template)

6. Management, Staffing, and Organizational Structure.’

7. Past Performance Summary (Offeror and International/Local Sub-Offerors)

8. Annexes (not included in page limit):

i. Organizational Chart

An organizational chart that illustrates the management structure of both key-personnel and non-key personnel for prime and all subcontractors must be included. The organization chart must be two (2) pages maximum, be attached as Annex i, and will not be included in the overall page limitation.

ii. Staffing Plan

The offerors must propose a staffing plan that includes a narrative and a matrix of the skill sets, and number of staff needed to implement the Contract and how this team will support the achievement of the program objectives. The staffing matrix will be two (2) pages maximum, be attached as Annex ii, and will not be included in the 20-page limitation.

iii. Resumes of Key Personnel with three references (3 pages each) and signed letters of commitment (1 page each) from Key Personnel.

The Offeror must include in Annex iii as part of its proposal a resume for each proposed key person and a statement signed by each person proposed as Key Personnel confirming their present intention to serve in the stated position and their availability to serve for the term of the proposed contract between the Offeror and USAID/Senegal.

iv. Resumes of proposed long and short-term personnel (2 pages each)

v. Preliminary Branding and Marking Plan

vi. Past Performance Summary (Offeror and International/Local Sub-Offerors) (2 pages)

vii. Past Performance Sheets (for template see Attachment J.4) (Offeror and International/Local Sub-Offerors) (3 pages each)

viii. Draft Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (for template see Attachment

1. J.2)”

17. The format and presentation of the technical proposal in Section L.7.2 (page 78) and Sections

L.7.2.3-L.7.2.5 (pp. 79-81) vary, particularly in the order of annexes. Would USAID please confirm the order and a brief explanation of the Technical Proposal sections and annexes? In particular:

a) A Past Performance Summary is listed in the format and presentation of the technical proposal portion of Section L.7.2 (page 78), although it is not mentioned in Section L.7.2.5 Past Performance (p. 81). Could USAID please confirm that a past performance narrative and a past performance annex are both part of the proposal?

b) Page 78 lists separate annexes for key personnel resumes, additional CVs for long-and short-term staff, and key personnel signed letters of commitment, whereas Section L.7.2.4 combines key personnel CVs and letters. Please clarify.

c) Page 78 notes a “Non-Key Personnel Staffing Plan” and “Table of Management Positions with Qualifications,” which are not clearly defined on pp. 80-81. Please clarify.

Response:

a) Both documents are required and can be included as an annex so that they do not count against the page count:

● The past performance summary for prime and major subcontractors must not exceed 2 pages;

● The past performance sheet for each of the most recent and relevant awards will not exceed three pages.

b) Key personnel CVs and letters may be combined. See question # 16

c) See response to question # 16 above.

18. Section L.7.2 (RFP p. 78) lists a Table of Management Positions with Qualifications as Annex II, while Section L.7.2.4 (RFP p. 81) indicates that a 2-page Staffing Plan will be attached as Annex B. Can USAID confirm that the required annex is the full Staffing Matrix?

Response: See response to question # 16 for clarification.

19. Per Section L.7.2.5, USAID asks for “up to five (5) of the most recent (no more than 5 years old) and relevant awards for efforts similar to work in the subject proposal.” Could USAID please confirm that five PPRs are required for the Offeror and subcontractor(s) combined?

Response: PPRs for both Offeror and major subcontractor(s) will not exceed five.

20. In L.8, Part 2 (7)G (page 85) the RFP states, “USAID is expecting detailed budget breakdowns for each proposed grantee identified by entity name, indicating description of activities, estimated unit costs, and total estimated amount for each grant.” Given grantees will not be identified and selected until post contract award, could USAID confirm that naming entities is not required and that an illustrative description of grant activities, and number and average value of grants would be acceptable?

Response: Confirmed. Naming recipients at this stage is not required. An illustrative description of grant activities, and number and average value of grants will be considered acceptable.

Section L.8, Part 2 (7)(H) is deleted and replaced with the following:

“The total value of all GUCs must not be more than $5 million over the five-year period.

Narrative information supporting how those funds will be distributed among the proposed group of grantees is required. In order for USAID to assess the reasonableness of the proposed GUCs, the Offeror must provide the basis for the proposed estimates. USAID is expecting detailed budget breakdowns for each proposed grantee, indicating description of activities, estimated unit costs, and total estimated amount for each grant.”

21. Section C.5.2 (SOO p. 9 ) notes that “USAID expects the Offeror to engage a local sub-partner to lead Objective 4.” Would USAID please consider prohibiting local sub-partners from entering into exclusive partnering agreements?

Response: See modified sections below.

The first paragraph under Objective 4 is deleted and replaced with the following:

“ USAID expects the Offeror to engage a local sub-partner to lead Objective 4, given the need for an organization that understands effective messaging across the numerous sanitation and water markets of Senegal. However, exclusive partnering agreements are prohibited with local sub-partners. The Offeror should propose indicators that demonstrate progressive transition of responsibility for funds management and implementation to the sub-partner over the course of the activity. USAID envisions launching a $2.5 million WASH Demand in Senegal activity in 2023 that will also work to meet Objective 4. The awardee will work to achieve Objective 4 and support other complementary objectives of the new WASH Services activity. The Offeror is expected to coordinate closely with the new local partner and offer capacity building support.”

22. Section F.7.6 (RFP p. 24) states “EGO is building on existing iterative and participatory approaches, such as a network database and presentations of results, assessments, and targeted studies that align with a learning agenda.” Can USAID please share the referenced EGO’s network database and learning agenda?

Response: No, the learning agenda is still in development in 2023 and not shareable at this time.

23. Section H.22 (RFP p. 44) references USAID guidance on budgeting for environmental compliance in attachment G, but such attachment is not listed in Section J. Would USAID please share this attachment?

a) The first paragraph of Section H.22 is deleted and replaced with the following:

“An Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) will be completed specifically for this activity per ADS 204 and 22 CFR 216 and will be provided upon award. An IEE amendment will be required and specified in the award document. Interventions under this activity are likely to be Categorically Excluded and/or have Negative Determination with Conditions. For interventions Excluded from further environmental review, or with a Negative Determination with Conditions applied to one or more of the proposed activities, if these interventions are implemented subject to the specified conditions, they are expected to have no significant adverse effect on the environment. The Offeror shall be responsible for implementing all IEE conditions and mitigation measures pertaining to activities to be funded under this award, which must be accounted for in the cost proposal. Please see USAID guidance on budgeting for environmental compliance in attachment J.12.”

b) Section J is deleted and replaced with the following:

“SECTION J – ATTACHMENTS

J.1 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES (SOO)

J.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN TEMPLATE

J.3 USAID SENEGAL COUNTRY DEVELOPMENT AND COOPERATION

STRATEGY (CDCS) 2020-2025

(https://www.usaid.gov/senegal/country-development-cooperation-strategy)

J.4 USAID WASHPALS RESEARCH AND LEARNING FOR SANITATION IN

SENEGAL ASSESSMENT

(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jy1xomRrNZhaQs4IlHHdv3mMlziwpUeY/view)

J.5 USAID SENEGAL HIGH PRIORITY COUNTRY PLAN FOR WASH

(https://www.globalwaters.org/sites/default/files/wfw_senegal_country_plan.pdf)

J.6 USAID/ACCES MID-TERM EVALUATION (2019) (https://dec.usaid.gov) (https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00TZ26.pdf )

J.7 SENEGAL WASH SERVICES INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXAMINATION

(IEE)

(https://ecd.usaid.gov/document.php?doc_id=59316)

J.8 USAID SENEGAL WASH GENDER ANALYSIS

(https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zOLXraL51_zx5ZZA5zf84Q_XrJDRpdFKbiR5c

Alg0Ns/edit)

J.9 TEMPLATE FOR BRANDING AND MARKING PLAN

J.10 CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE BIOGRAPHICAL DATA SHEET

J.11 PAST PERFORMANCE SHEETS TEMPLATE (OFFEROR AND

INTERNATIONAL/LOCAL SUB-OFFERORS)

J.12 USAID GUIDANCE ON BUDGETING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE”

(https://2017-2020.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/EnvBudgetingToolkit.pdf)"

24. In Section L.7.2 (RFP p. 78), USAID outlines an Organizational Chart as the first annex.

However, Section L.7.2.4 (RFP p. 81) notes that an organization chart must “be attached as Annex C.” Can USAID please clarify which Annex it must be?

Response: See response to question # 15 above

The second to last paragraph under L.7.2.4 is deleted and replaced with the following:

https://www.usaid.gov/senegal/country-development-cooperation-strategy https://www.usaid.gov/senegal/country-development-cooperation-strategy https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jy1xomRrNZhaQs4IlHHdv3mMlziwpUeY/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jy1xomRrNZhaQs4IlHHdv3mMlziwpUeY/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jy1xomRrNZhaQs4IlHHdv3mMlziwpUeY/view https://www.globalwaters.org/sites/default/files/wfw_senegal_country_plan.pdf https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N1m-hi_otA1PEatz7R7XWVfQdMj9w9Ax/view?usp=sharing https://dec.usaid.gov/ https://dec.usaid.gov/ https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00TZ26.pdf https://ecd.usaid.gov/document.php?doc_id=59316 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zOLXraL51_zx5ZZA5zf84Q_XrJDRpdFKbiR5cAlg0Ns/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zOLXraL51_zx5ZZA5zf84Q_XrJDRpdFKbiR5c https://2017-2020.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/EnvBudgetingToolkit.pdf)%22

“An organizational chart that illustrates the management structure of both key-personnel and non-key personnel for prime and all subcontractors must be included. The organization chart must be two (2) pages maximum, be attached as Annex i, and will not be included in the overall page limitation.”

25. Section L.7.2 (RFP p. 78) lists a Past Performance Summary as separate from Annex VII Past Performance Sheets. However, there is no page allocation or mention of a summary in L.7.2.5. Could USAID please confirm whether there is a summary required in the main body of the proposal in addition to the past performance annex?

Response: See response to question # 16 above.

26. Could USAID please confirm that there is no page limit for the executive summary (which is outside the 20-page limit, per RFP Sections L.7.1(a) and L.7.2.2)?

Response: The Executive Summary (not to exceed 1 page) is not included in the 20-page limit.

27. Could USAID confirm text boxes, graphics, and tables can be in 10-point font?

Response: This is confirmed.

28. Question: In RFP Section L.7.1(a) Technical Proposal Page Limitation USAID outlines Cover letter, Table of Contents, Acronym List, Executive Summary and Annexes do not count against the 20-page limitation. However, in RFP Section L.7.2 Format and Presentation of the Technical Proposal USAID does not specify that the Executive Summary is not included in the page limit.

Can USAID clarify whether the executive summary is included in the 20-page limit?

Response: Refer to question # 26

29. Question: L.7.2 Format and Presentation of the Technical Proposal lists the Key Personnel as a separate section from Management, Staffing, and Organizational Structure whereas under L.7.2.4 Management, Staffing, and Organizational Structure, Key Personnel instructions are included within the Management Staffing, and Organizational Structure. Could USAID please confirm which format to follow for the presentation of Key Personnel information?

Response: See response to question # 16 above

30. Question: L.7.2.4 Management, Staffing, and Organizational Structure – Can USAID confirm if staffing plan narrative should be included in the 6-page limit for Management, Staffing, and Organizational Structure section or be included part of the 2-page Annex B.

Response: See response to question # 16 above

31. Page 23, (4) Baseline Report: “(Define here what is the anticipated scope of this baseline assessment, how will the findings be shared with USAID and other partners)”, What is the anticipated scope of the baseline assessment and how will the findings be shared with USAID and other partners?

Response: The baseline report should quantify current conditions with respect to AMELP indicators in proposed target areas. Progress toward results must be measurable against baseline data collected at the start of the activity.

The Contractor is required to submit a baseline report to USAID as part of the AMELP, due 90 days after award. Decisions about sharing the baseline will be made by USAID at a later date.

32. Page 45, H.22, Climate Risk Management: What does “Risks rated “moderate” and/or “high” risks to the goals and sustainability of interventions associated with the activity” mean?

The second paragraph of “Climate Risk Management” under H.22 is deleted and replaced with the following:

“USAID/Senegal completed a climate risk analysis to evaluate the potential climate risks to its development objectives at the CDCS and DO levels. An initial climate risk screening of the activity will be conducted as part of the Initial Environmental Examination and will be provided upon award. The purpose of the screening is to ensure consideration of climate risk at the activity level, given the detailed activities, geographies, objectives and outcomes. Per the climate risk screening, 5 risks were identified, of which 3 risks were rated ‘moderate’ and/or ‘high’ risks to the goals of sustainability of interventions associated with the activity. A more detailed initial analysis of potential climate risks to the activity objectives must be submitted within 45 days and the analysis shall inform the work plan and AMELP. In the proposal the Offeror must describe their approach to climate risk assessment and how the assessment will inform activity implementation and adaptive management.”

33. What is the complementarity between the current RFP and the Call for local organizations launched a few months ago by USAID and focusing on Goal 4?

Response: USAID envisions WASH Services and WASH Demand working together to achieve Goal 4 and the broader objectives of the activity.

34. Can USAID clarify the collaboration arrangements expected with the 20 sub-grantees mentioned in the RFP?

Response: USAID expects offerors to design a GUC approach to effectively support actors in the sector.

35. Is it possible to get more info on geographical targeting and/or targeting criteria for the project zone.

Response: USAID expects the offerors to propose a geographic targeting strategy that takes into account recent investments in rural WASH, USAID and GOS priorities, and potential for maximum impact.

36. RFP Section C.3.1 (page 11) references the SENWASH II Project Development Document (PDD) 2022-2027 and the EG4ALL Project Appraisal Document (PAD) for 2018-2023. Could USAID please provide these two documents?

Response: The PDD and PAD referred to are not public documents. Please refer to the attachments in Section J and note that the SOO was closely developed from the PDD.

37. RFP Part III, Section J.6 (page 55) references the USAID/ACCES MID-TERM EVALUATION (2019). However, the provided link is not public (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N1m-hi_otA1PEatz7R7XWVfQdMj9w9Ax/view). Could USAID please provide this Attachment?

Response: See Question # 23 for correct link

38. RFP Section L.9 instructions on the Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) and Marking Plan (MP) (page 90) state that the BIP and MP are not to exceed 2 pages. However, the BIP and MP template provided in Annex J.9 is 10 pages long. Could USAID please confirm that offerors should use the template found in Annex J.9 in their application? If so, could USAID please clarify the combined BIP and MP page limit?

Response: Offerors are requested to adhere to the 10-page template provided. Please disregard the two page limit noted on page 90, section L.9.

The first paragraph under L.9 is deleted and replaced with the following:

“In accordance with Section D of this solicitation, Offerors shall submit a Branding and Marking plan as part of the Annex documents. The apparent successful Offeror will be required to negotiate and submit a Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) which will be included in and made a part of the resultant contract. The BIP will be negotiated within the time that the Contracting Officer specifies. Failure to submit and negotiate a BIP will make the Offeror ineligible for award of a contract. Offeror(s) should submit a preliminary BIP and MP as a separate annex to the technical proposal using the USAID Branding Plan Guidelines provided at http://www.usaid.gov/branding and the template provided at J.9. The BIP and MP will not be a part of the technical evaluation.”

39. Statement of Objectives (SOO) Section C.5.2. includes the following expected results for Objective 4 (page 10 of annex J.1.): “30,000 sanitation or water products/services purchased/sold.

250,000 people gain access to basic sanitation services. 50,000 people gain access to basic drinking water services.” However, these are listed as indicators under Objective 3 in C.6. of the SOO. Could USAID please clarify whether these indicators are expected results for Objective 3 or Objective 4.

Response: See response to question # 6 above.

40. Can USAID please confirm if annexes should be referred to by Roman numerals (as in Section L.7.2) or letters (as in L.7.2.4)?

Response: Refer to question # 16.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N1m-hi_otA1PEatz7R7XWVfQdMj9w9Ax/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N1m-hi_otA1PEatz7R7XWVfQdMj9w9Ax/view http://www.usaid.gov/branding

41. As the performance standards will be included in the QASP, can USAID please remove the requirement that they be included in the 16-page PWS?

Response: Please refer to the definition noted in section L.7.2.3.

42. As the objectives in the SOO are numbered, not lettered: can USAID confirm that Offerors should use the objective numbers (1-4) from the SOO while following the logical framework? Meaning the framework would be:

4. Activity Objective 1

5. Anticipated Outcome 1.1

6. Expected Result 1.1.1 […]

7. Performance Standard 1.1.1.1 […]

Response: Yes, using numbers in lieu of letters is permitted in the logical framework.

43. Can USAID please confirm a 2-page limit for the Executive Summary that does not count against the overall 20-page limit?

Response: Refer to question # 26

44. Can USAID please confirm that the detailed information concerning Grantees budgets will be provided during implementation rather than during the proposal stage?

Response: Confirmed

45. Would USAID please confirm that offerors can and should propose additional custom and additional standard F indicators?

Response: USAID expects that offerors will propose additional custom and F indicators as appropriate.

46. Would USAID consider increasing the page limitation to accommodate the Key Personnel summary, Management and Non-Key Personnel Staffing Plan and Organizational Structure, and Past Performance Summary?

Response: USAID prefers maintaining the page limits as defined in the RFP. See response to question # 16 above.

47. In B.4(c) (pp. 8-9) and H.23(a)(1) (p. 45) the grant threshold for US NGOs must not exceed $100,000. The award amount threshold for US organizations as defined in ADS 302.3.4.13 is set at the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000). While it is envisioned most grants will be issued to local organizations, could USAID confirm that the ADS 302 threshold of $250,000 would apply to any grants issued to US NGOs?

Response: As per 302.3.4.13, the total value of an individual grant to a U.S. NGO must not exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT), which is currently $250,000. This limitation to the SAT does not apply to grant awards to non-U.S. NGOs.

a) Section B.4 (c) ‘Notes:’, last bullet is deleted and replaced with the following:

“Limitation of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) for grants to U.S. non-governmental organizations and $300,000.00 for partner government entities applies. This limitation to the SAT does not apply to grant awards to non-U.S. NGOs.”

b) Section H.23(a)(1) is deleted and replaced with the following:

“Non-Governmental Organizations: The total value of an individual grant to a U.S. NGO must not exceed $250,000. This limitation does not apply to grant awards to non-U.S. NGOs.”

48. Section L.7.2.1, Cover Letter (p.78), defines “major subcontractors” as those “whose proposed cost exceeds 20 percent of the Offeror’s total proposed cost,” while Section L.7.2.5, Past Performance (p. 81), asks for past performance for all subcontractors “whose proposed cost exceeds 10 percent of the Offeror’s total proposed cost.” Could USAID please clarify the definition of a “major subcontractor” and confirm that past performance information is only required for major subcontractors?

Response: Major subcontractors are those whose proposed cost exceeds 20 percent of the Offeror’s total proposed cost.

a) The first paragraph of Section L.7.2.5 is deleted and replaced with the following:

“The Offeror must provide past performance information for itself and each subcontractor if applicable (one whose proposed cost exceeds 20 percent of the Offeror’s total proposed cost) in accordance with the following”

b) Section L.8(e) is deleted and replaced with the following:

“The offeror must provide UEI numbers for the prime offeror and major subcontractors (whose proposed cost exceeds 20 percent of the offeror’s total proposed cost) in the Cost Proposal.”

49. Section B.4 (RFP p. 8) indicates that grants to non-U.S. NGOs are expected to be under $300,000 but then goes on to say there is no limit on the dollar value of grants to non-U.S. NGOs. Since ADS 302.2.4.13 and ADS 303, both policies that contractors are required to follow, contain no ceilings for grants to non-U.S. organizations, can USAID please revise Section B.4 to clarify that there are no dollar value ceilings for grants to non-U.S. NGOs?

Response: See response to Question #47. We confirm that there are no dollar value ceilings for grants to non-U.S. NGOs

50. In USAID’s update to ADS 302.3.4.13 on July 22, 2021, the value of a grant to a U.S.

organization was increased to the simplified acquisition threshold. Will USAID modify the language in both Section B.4 and Section H.2 to incorporate this update?

Response: Please refer to the response to question # 47

51. Section B.6 (RFP p. 10) states, “Indirect costs shall not be allowed for local organizations. All costs for local organizations shall be budgeted and billed as direct costs.” We request that USAID provide offerors with the flexibility of entering into Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) or Time and Materials (T&M) type subcontracts with local organizations when the following conditions are met:

● A local organization can provide evidence that it has an accounting system capable of administering a CPFF or T&M type subcontract;

● A local organization is committed to undergoing annual audits of their indirect cost rates in accordance with the cost principles of FAR Part 31;

● The prime contractor has the appropriate subcontract management systems in place to ensure a CPFF or T&M subcontract with a local organization is administered properly; and,

● A local organization has established indirect cost rates and the use of indirect cost rates is an integral part of their cost accounting standards.

With strong prime contractor oversight and the requirement for local organizations to undergo annual audits in accordance with the cost principles of FAR Part 31, these contracting mechanisms serve as a tool to build the capacity of local organizations so they can eventually have the financial and administrative capacity to receive direct funding from USAID.

Response: Offerors may propose Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) or Time and Materials (T&M) type subcontracts with local organizations.

Section B.6 (c) ‘Note:’, is deleted and replaced with the following:

“The Contractor is allowed to recover applicable indirect costs (i.e., overhead, general and administrative (G&A), etc.) on other direct costs (ODCs), if it is part of the Contractor’s usual accounting procedures, consistent with FAR Part 31, and Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA).”

52. Section H.6 (RFP p. 36) states that “For this Contract Labor Cost for Locally Engaged Staff (LES) shall not exceed the thresholds in the US Embassy Dakar local employee compensation plan (LCP) provided below in local currency. Contracting Officer’s approval is required for salaries exceeding the above LCP threshold.” We respectfully request that the above-mentioned salary restriction be removed from the RFP as it appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR

752.7007 Personnel Compensation, incorporated in the contract under Section H.2 (RFP p. 34), which 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 752.7007.

Response: Personnel compensation will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract” without exceeding the thresholds in the US Embassy Dakar local employee compensation plan (LCP).

53. Section L.7.1 (RFP p. 77), USAID notes that “contractors will determine the type of information to be submitted as annexes” and in Section L.7.2 (RFP p. 78), USAID leaves a blank space in the space allotted for Annex IX’s title. Can USAID confirm that additional annexes are permitted?

Response: Offerors should only submit the requested annexes. Annex IX is hereby deleted.

54. In Section L.7.2.1 (RFP p. 78) USAID defines major subcontractors as “subcontractors whose proposed cost exceeds 20 percent of the Offeror’s total proposed cost” however under Section L.7.2.5 (RFP p. 81) and Section L.8 (RFP p. 83) ,USAID defines major subcontractors as those “whose proposed cost exceeds 10 percent of the offeror’s total proposed cost.” Could USAID please confirm that major subcontractors should be defined as “subcontractors whose proposed cost exceeds 10 percent of the Offeror’s total proposed cost”?

Response: Refer to question #48

55. The introductory paragraph of L.8.F Part 2 (RFP p. 83) states, “For subcontractors proposed under a different contractual arrangement, the offeror must provide sufficient detail and breakdown of cost/price to allow for a meaningful evaluation in the opinion of the Contracting Officer”. Part 2 (7)(G) (RFP p. 85) goes on to state, “The offeror must provide information sufficient to determine the reasonableness of the cost of each proposed subcontract.” However, Part 2 (5) (RFP p. 83) also states, “The offeror must present the costs associated with each subcontractor’s home and country offices on separate tabs, broken out by budget category and by year, for the entire period of performance, as outlined above for the prime offeror.” Further, Part 2 (7)(G) states, “The information required of the prime offerors for the cost proposal must be provided for all subcontractors.” Given the inconsistency in requirements for subcontractor budgets, we kindly request USAID to allow offerors to determine what information is sufficient for USAID to determine the reasonableness of the cost of each proposed subcontract and not require detailed budgets for all subcontractors.

Response: Offerors are requested to present the costs associated with each major subcontractor’s home and country offices on separate tabs, broken out by budget category and by year, for the entire period of performance, as outlined for the prime offeror.

56. Section L.8 Part 2 (7)(J) (RFP p. 85) states that “each subcontractor must include a complete copy of its most current established Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) or other documentation from its cognizant Government Audit Agency.” The section goes on to provide requirements for only major subcontractors, if they do not have a cognizant Government Audit Agency. Can USAID kindly confirm that the requirement in Part 2 (7)(J) pertains to the offeror and major subcontractors only?

Response: See modified section below.

The first paragraph of in L.8 Part 2(7)(J) (i) is deleted and replaced with the following:

“(i) The offeror and each major subcontractor must include a complete copy of its most current established Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) or other documentation from its cognizant Government Audit Agency, if any, stating the most recent provisional indirect cost rates. The proposal must also include the name and address of the Government Audit Agency, and the name and telephone number of the auditor.”

57. Question: In RFP Section L.7.2.1 Cover Letter USAID defines “Major Subcontractors” as subcontractors whose proposed cost exceeds 20 percent of the total cost. However, in RFP Section L.7.2.5 Past Performance defines subcontractors as one whose proposed cost exceeds 10% of the total cost. Can USAID clarify the distinction between the 10% and 20% threshold for subcontractors?

Response: Refer to question # 48

58. Could USAID please clarify the percentage of total proposed cost that qualifies a subcontractor as a major subcontractor? 10% or 20%?

59. Does USAID require a NICRA or additional financial information in lieu of a NICRA for all subcontractors or just major subcontractors?

Response: This is required for major subcontractors

60. Could USAID please specify if it would like the Offeror’s Policies and Procedures submitted with the proposal or upon request from the Contracting Officer per page 87 of the RFP?

Response: The Offeror’s Policies and Procedures shall be submitted upon request from the Contracting Officer per page 87 of the RFP.

61. May subcontractors send NICRAs or other financial information directly (as opposed to the prime) to USAID if they would prefer?

Response: Yes, the subcontractor is permitted to send NICRA or other financial information directly to USAID.

62. RFP Section L.8. Part 2 (2) Fee Schedule instructions (page 83) reference a “Section B.9 Payment of Fixed Fee”. However, Section B.9 is not provided in the RFP. Could USAID clarify the reference and requirements and/or provide the missing section B.9?

Response: See B.8 instead of B.9. Payment of fixed fee will be in accordance with FAR 52.216- 8.

63. RFP Section L.8. Part 2 (7) A. Direct Labor (page 84) states “Biographical Data Sheets are required for all long- and short-term personnel (U.S. nationals, cooperating country nationals (CCNs) and third country nationals (TCNs)).” Could USAID please confirm that these data sheets will be required upon award and are not required for submission during the proposal stage?

Response: The data sheets are not required for submission during the proposal stage.

64. RFP Section L.7. (page 87) lists annexes to the Cost Proposal including “Part 4 Policies and Procedures (To be submitted upon request from the Contracting Officer)”. However, RFP Section L.8. Part 4 (page 88) states “The offeror should submit policies and procedures, especially regarding salary scales, fringe benefits, merit increases, promotions, leave, differentials, travel, procurement and per diem, etc., as they relate to this project.” Could USAID please confirm that Policies and Procedures are to be submitted upon request from the contracting officer and are not required as an annex to the cost proposal?

Response: USAID Confirms that Policies and Procedures are to be submitted upon request from the Contracting Officer.

65. Can USAID confirm that the definition of “major subcontractor” is 20% of the Offeror’s total proposed cost?

66. As there is no section L.6.1.4 in the RFP, can USAID confirm that this is referring to section L.7.2.5 – Past Performance?

Response: This is confirmed

67. The RFP indicates personnel compensation should “be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract” [H.2 (a); H.5 (a)] and “Salaries and wages may not exceed the Contractor’s established policy and practice, including the Contractor’s established pay scale for equivalent classifications of employees, which shall be certified to by the Contractor” [H.6 (a)(1)]. However, in H.6 (a)(3) the RFP indicates “For this Contract Labor Cost for Locally Engaged Staff (LES) shall not exceed the thresholds in the US Embassy Dakar local employee compensation plan (LCP)”. Can USAID please confirm that LES should follow that Contractor’s salary policies and established pay scale?

Response: Refer to question # 52

68. May offerors include cooperative agreements of similar magnitude and complexity as past performance references?

Response: Offerors may include cooperative agreements of similar magnitude and complexity as past performance references

69. Given CVs are optional for non-key LTTA and STTA, would USAID also consider making Biographical Data Sheets not required or optional at the proposal stage for non-key LTTA and

STTA?

Response: Refer to question # 63

70. The 1420-17 form attached to the solicitation has expired. Would USAID confirm offerors are to use the current version of the form that is valid through 11/30/2024?

Response: Offerors are requested to use the latest version of 1420-17 form.

71. “OANDA” currency converter between the USD and the proposed local currency for the month of “April 2023”:Is there any specific date in the month of April 2023? Or should we just indicate which date in April we chose to go with?

Response: See modified section below.

L.8(D) is deleted and replaced with the following: “ The offeror must present all costs in US dollars (“USD”) and use the following exchange rate to convert local costs to USD for consistency in offerors proposals: $1= CFA 600”

72. The period of performance for this contract is five years from the date of award.

Can USAID provide the anticipated award date for this activity?

Response: The anticipated award date is mid-December 2023

73. Could USAID please confirm that the Biographical Data Sheet information presented in L.8 Part

2, Proposed Costs/Prices, Section 7.A Direct Labor (p. 84) is required only for those long- and short-term personnel presented in the technical proposal, per Section L.7.2.4 Management, Staffing and Organizational Structure (p. 80)?

Response: This is confirmed. The data sheets are not required for submission during the proposal stage. However, they may be requested by the Contracting Officer.

“SECTION J – ATTACHMENTS