Nguriza_Nshore_Q&A_-_Round_2.pdf

Nguriza Nshore Round 2 Q&A

Below are Round 2 responses to Questions received for Nguriza Nshore. Please see the Amended RFP with changes highlighted for additional information.

General

Question 1: Will the USAID/Rwanda mission be keeping normal business hours the week of December

26th-29th?

AND

Can USAID confirm if the USAID/Rwanda office will be open and if someone will be available to confirm receipt of hand delivered proposals from December 26-29?

Answer: USAID/Rwanda will be closed December 26. We will be open for business as usual and will confirm receipt of hand delivered proposals between December 27 and 29. Please note that

USAID/Rwanda will close at 1:00 PM (Rwanda time) on Friday December 29.

Question 2: In the list of required annexes in Section L.6(d) on page L-8, Annex I is described as the

“Past Performance Information Sheets... Maximum three pages each.” However, the instructions in

Section L.10 on pages L-13 and L-14 also request information on quality awards and certifications. Can

USAID please clarify if Offerors should include information on quality awards and certifications? If so, where should Offerors include this information? Is there an associated page limit?

Answer: This information may be included in Annex I, in narrative form. As stated on page L-14, this information is not part of the page limitation.

Question 3: May offerors set annual targets that are cumulative Life of Project (LOP) targets in the fee payment schedule?

Answer: Yes, cumulative life of project targets are acceptable in the fee payment schedule.

Question 4: Given that leverage is not part of estimated program costs in B.4, and that leverage is linked exclusively to the achievement of targets, can USAID confirm that the contractor remains compliant with the contract terms regardless of whether it achieves any leverage amounts, with the understanding that in that scenario, the fixed fee amount would not be paid?

Answer: Please see Amendment to the RFP.

Question 5: Round 1 Q&A, Answer to Cost Question 3: States that Leveraging is included in Section B.4 to ensure that it is contractually binding and to emphasize the importance of this requirement.

Citations: USAID/Rwanda in the Question and Answer document and in Clause B.4, has asserted its intention to establish a contractual requirement for leveraging by including it in the B.4 Budget. Further, USAID/Rwanda has asserted its intention that the “total leverage target for Nguriza Nshore is $45 million.” While, the assistance guidelines, ADS 303.3.10.2, define leveraging as “resources that third-parties bring to the program without necessarily providing them to the recipient. These parties may include the host government, private foundations, businesses or individuals. A review of the relevant

Federal Acquisition Regulations which govern acquisition, establishes an absence of cost share and of leveraging as acquisition budget line items or as elements in an awarded contract.”

USAID GDA guidelines state: “Leverage describes the quantifiable contributions provided by resource partners to a GDA. Unlike cost sharing or matching, which is an important element of the USAID/grantee relationship, leverage is not intended to be binding or auditable. It is not subject to traditional audit standards as it is not intended to held to the same level of accountability as cost-share or matching.

However, given the strategic and programmatic value that leverage should contribute to the alliance, applicants are expected to identify what enhanced results are expected from any leverage proposed and provide and implement a mechanism for tracking / reporting that contribution.”

Further, as defined by USAID/Regional Office of Acquisition and Assistance and the Central and South

Asia Acquisition and Assistance Innovation Lab in support of Local Capacity Building in 2017.

Leveraging is the resources that a non-traditional USAID partner brings to a public-private partnership, ie the portion not being borne by USAID. These non-traditional resource partners are typically NOT receiving USAID funds. Leveraging can be a variety of forms - anything of value that is measured, financial contributions, third party-contributions, donated services or property, or intellectual property.

It can NOT be audited.

Question: The Offeror respectfully requests USAID/Rwanda to remove the leveraging in Clause B.4

Budget which USAID/Rwanda has confirmed through the Round 1 Q&A creates a minimum contractual requirement for leveraging. This contractual requirement is not regulatorily established in acquisition regulations and guidelines. We welcome the opportunity to provide a “best effort” to achieve leveraging to benefit the program and beneficiaries documented through programmatic reporting to the AOR outside of the contractual budget requirements, and which is not auditable.

Answer: Please see Amendment to the RFP.

Question 6: On page L-8 of the RFP, it states “Annex B, Deliverables (see Section 4 of the SOO and

Section L.7), and on page L-10 it further states, “In addition, in Annex B, the Offeror must propose a table of Deliverables (ensuring that no cost information is included in the table as part of the technical proposal) which must align with the targets proposed in Section B.8 and which will be incorporated into the contract at the time of award. This table must be prepared according to the instructions given in

Section 4 of the SOO.” Can USAID confirm that applicants are to submit as Annex B, the

Indicators/Targets table from Section 4 of the SOO, completed with year to year outputs? If this is not what USAID wishes to see in Annex B- Deliverables, could USAID please specify what deliverables it wishes applicants to list here?

Answer: Offerors are encouraged to review the ATT-1 Section 4, including the table provided in the

SOO. The Offeror’s understanding of this request is correct. However, offerors may include an additional three indicators in their table as outlined in ATT-1 and and F-5-6 of the RFP.

Question 7: Will USAID please confirm that there will be a proportional fee payment based on the achievement of results. For example, if a proposed target is “$10 million of private investment leveraged for investment in agri-SMEs”, and $7 million achieved, will 70% be paid to the contractor?

Answer: This is not how the contract is structured. Payment is based on full achievement of the proposed target. As indicated, the Offeror may break down the target and fee by year to mitigate risk. Additionally, as stated in section B.4 of the RFP, the fee table may be modified by USAID/Rwanda.

Question 8: Can USAID please clarify if Biodata 1420 forms are required for all personnel who are named in the budget (such as home office support staff), or does USAID specifically only want 1420 forms for personnel who are considered “Key”.

Answer: Biodata forms are required to be included in the proposal for all employees designated as Key

Personnel. For all other individuals employed in the performance of the contract, the proposed salaries must be in accordance with the proposed compensation plan, and the biodata must be maintained in the

Contractor’s files and provided to USAID at USAID’s request, consistent with AIDAR 752.7001. See

Amendment to the RFP.

Question 9: Could USAID clarify what exactly the contractor must do in order to be TIC-compliant?

Answer: The Contactor must abide by the terms stated in section H.34. Please see Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-08-05 for additional information.

Technical

Question 1: Please confirm that small and medium enterprises (SMEs) engaging in the commercialization and/or export of agricultural production can count toward the number of non-farm

SMEs served with finance and investment by the Nguriza Nshore project.

Answer: Offerors are encouraged to review the definition of “non-farm activities” provided in ATT-1: A business that focuses on “those activities that are not primary agriculture, forestry or fisheries but does include trade and the processing of agricultural products even when undertaken on the farm” (Abbott et.

al, 2012). The firms referenced in this question would fall under the definition provided in the RFP.

Question 2: ATT-1 Background Information refers to the 2016 FinScope “Small Business in Rwanda” report, and states that a copy of the study is attached as an addendum to the RFP. This attachment does not appear to be included. Furthermore, while a FinScope Financial Inclusion in Rwanda 2016 report is publicly available, this report is not specifically focused on small businesses. Can you confirm whether a specific small business report, such as the FinScope MSME Survey tool has been conducted in Rwanda, and if so, please provide it as an addendum to the proposal?

Answer: The FinScope SME Finance Thematic Report is now a supporting document to this solicitation.

Question 3: Technical proposal Answer 25 states that “offerors should propose a logframe in their MEL

Plan”. However, the amended RFP still includes conflicting information, referencing both a log-frame

(L.8: the offeror must include “an activity-level log-frame” in the MEL Plan) and a Results Framework

(ATT-1 3: “offerors should develop an activity Results Framework”). Given that these are two different tools, please verify which is required.

Answer: Offerors should use a framework “that clearly articulates the links between inputs, activities, outputs, results, the goal, and deliverables/outputs” and that “must identify objectively verifiable indicators, methods of verification, and critical assumptions that are included in the activity’s theory of change” as stated on page L-11 of the RFP.

USAID is not partial to a specific framework format as long as offerors meet the aforementioned requirements in a clear and understandable manner. USAID/Rwanda recognizes that the Results

Framework is the most commonly used by the Agency for the development of activities like Nguriza

Nshore but wanted to afford maximal flexibility given the nature of this solicitation. Offerors may find the Results Framework format helpful for their MEL plans in tying the results of Nguriza Nshore to the higher level results measured by indicators provided on page F-6 of the RFP.

Question 4: Can USAID please clarify its indicator selection guidance for draft MEL plans now to be submitted as Annex J to the Nguriza Nshore proposal?

a. RFP section M-4 states, “Offerors will be evaluated on the ambitiousness of the targets set for their proposed indicators”; Section 4 of Attachment 1 (SOO) states “Offerors may propose up to three more indicators with yearly targets, in addition to those provided…”; Section F. 6(a).1 states “In addition to the indicators listed above (those outlined in Section 4 of the SOO), the

Contractor is encouraged to use standard indicators from the Foreign Assistance Framework… as well as propose custom indicators that align with its PWS.”

i. Our understanding is that indicator selection and target setting is required only for the indicators included in the annual target table USAID included in the SOO. Can USAID confirm that references to “proposed indicators” underlined above are each speaking to the “up to three more indicator” criteria specified in the SOO, leaving a maximum possible indicator total of 12 (two for the Nguriza Nshore Strategic Objective; five for the three Objectives; two Context - for which no targets will be set; and up to three additional indicators, preferably at the IR or SO level)?

b. Section L-8 states, “The MEL Plan must identify objectively verifiable indicators, methods of verification and critical assumptions that are included in the activity’s theory of change”

i. Our understanding is that this guidance is directly tied to the LogFrame required as part of Annex J: MEL Plan, and that at the Goal and Result level these indicators have been provided by USAID, leaving the Contractor to propose indicators at the Activity and

Output levels of the LogFrame. Is this understanding correct?

Answer: a) Please see the answer to technical question # 2 in the first round of questions.

The three groups of indicators (six indicators) provided on F-6 measure contributions to Development

Objective 1: “Economic opportunities increased and sustained” outcomes. They are included in Section-F to provide context for how Nguriza Nshore is intended to contribute to higher level Mission objectives.

Offerors can include these indicators but they are not required. There are six indicators included in the list on F-6. Page F-6 states “Other performance indicators (including Mission-level Performance

Management Plan (PMP) and GFSS-indicators) to which the Nguriza Nshore Activity Contractor must directly contribute…” The RFP does not stipulate these indicators are required in the offeror’s MEL plan.

USAID/Rwanda will not provide additional guidance on whether or not the “other indicators” should be included in the indicator and target table. The RFP states, “Offerors may propose up to three more indicators with yearly targets, in addition to those provided in the table below…” to afford offerors maximum flexibility in developing their proposals.

b) USAID does not have additional guidance related to this question.

Question 5: Should Offerors dedicate part of the 20-page technical proposal to summarizing the MEL approach or should all MEL content now be moved to Annex J? If MEL should be addressed in the technical proposal, please provide guidance on what should be included.

Answer: Offerors may choose to provide additional information regarding their MEL Plan in the 20-page technical proposal.

Question 6: Section F. 6(a) of the RFP explains that the full MEL Plan submitted by the Contractor to

USAID after award should be organized into three separate sections: Monitoring, Evaluation, Learning.

Does USAID intend for offerors to also organize the draft MEL Plan Annex J in this way?

Answer: Offerors may choose to organize their MEL Plan in this structure; it would facilitate finalization of the MEL Plan if the Offeror is selected for the contract.

Question 7: Round 1 Q&A, Answer to Technical Question 24: “the detailed MEL Plan is now Annex J of the RFP: please see RFP Amendment.” In the Amendment 1, Page L-8, Clause L.6(d) Organization, still lists Item 7. Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan AND lists in Annex J, Detailed MEL Plan.

Question: Please confirm that Item 7. is no longer a section in the technical approach, and should be removed from the list comprising the Technical Proposal on page L-8 and that all MEL information should be solely housed in Annex J, Detailed MEL Plan.

Answer: See response to Technical Question 5 above. Offerors may include discussion of the MEL Plan in their 20-page technical proposal, as applicable.

Question 8: Regarding Round 1 Q&A, Answer to Technical Question 7: Allows the detailed discussion

(“expound”) of the rapid start-up to be included in the Annex C, Draft Year One Work Plan. It retains a requirement for a ‘high-level’ discussion of the plan for mobilization in the technical approach.

Question: The Offeror respectfully requests that USAID/Rwanda confirm that this answer allows all activities required for a rapid start-up be incorporated into the first year workplan under Annex C.

Answer: Pages L-10-11 state, “Also in the technical approach, the Offeror must describe the Offeror’s strategy for a rapid and effective launch of project activities and a realistic approach to implement the

PWS. This plan for mobilization must address technical, management, and logistical requirements that include: planning and schedule for an in-country mobilization of a Chief of Party and rapid mobilization of other key personnel, long-term expatriate and/or local staff. The focus of initial activities must be on reducing and start-up backlog and/or delay. It must also describe how the Offeror will quickly secure host country government support and build relationships with other USAID-funded activities.” This requirement remains. USAID also encourages Offerors to expound on what is included in the technical approach in Annex C, as mobilization is an important component of a first year draft work plan.

Question 9: Could USAID please clarify what role will the DCA play in the implementation of this project?

Answer: The use of a DCA is entirely up to Offerors. A DCA guarantee is one tool among many that

Offerors may utilize to accomplish the objectives outlined in Nguriza Nshore.

Question 10: May offerors change objective 1.3 to 1.2 for ease of a numbering structure?

Answer: Yes.

Question 11: If we access existing funds in the region will this be counted as additional investment?

Answer: USAID does not have additional guidance on this matter.

Question 12: What will USAID consider as evidence of “leverage”?

Answer: Additional financing leveraged by Nguriza Nshore- both loan financing and investment financing- must be directly attributable to interventions undertaken by the activity. Page L-11 of the RFP states that Offerors “include a system for tracking and reporting on additional debt/investment financing mobilized through Nguriza Nshore delivered through partnering institutions” as part of the MEL Plan.

Such a system should be adequate for reporting the additional financing leveraged through this activity.

USAID retains the right to verify the accuracy of this information.

Cost

Question 1: In the new budget spreadsheet included in Modification 1, there is a tab called "Category

Budget." This budget has only three direct cost categories, Personnel, Travel and ODCs, plus Indirects and Fee. Should we condense the existing seven categories from the detail budget into these three categories or should we only include the three categories from the main Prime and Sub budgets? If we should condense the seven into three, is this the grouping: Personnel = Personnel + Fringe; Travel =

Travel; ODC = Supplies + Equipment + ODCs?

Answer: Yes, please condense the seven categories into three, as stated in the question.

Question 2: Please confirm that Section B.8 applied only after the first 85% of the fixed fee has been paid to the contractor, given the last paragraph of this section.

Answer: See Amendment to the RFP. This paragraph has been replaced and the FAR reference has been updated.

Question 3: Cost proposal Answer 15 states that “Offerors must submit detailed budgets for major subcontractors (unless the contracts are being awarded on a fixed price basis).” Should it be inferred from that answer that detailed budgets are not to be submitted for non-major subcontractors?

Answer: Correct, detailed budgets should not be submitted for non-major subcontractors.

Question 4: Budget Template, Fee Payment Schedule tab. Should the figures presented in this table be for the prime only, or a composite of the prime and all subs?

Answer: These figures are for the prime.

Question 5: Given USAID’s responses to cost questions #5 and #6, which clarify that subcontracts should be included in the “Contractual” line item under the Summary With Subcontracts worksheet, is it correct then that the Instructions at the top of this worksheet (Instructions: Please sum costs by category including the breakdown proposed by all partners/subcontractors. For example, for Personnel, please include all Prime personnel as well as all subcontractor personnel costs) are no longer relevant and should be deleted? And that the same instructions on the Category Budget worksheet are still relevant?

Answer: The instructions in Attachment 7 have been removed. See Amended Attachment 7.

Question 6: It has come to our attention that USAID contractors are offering a wide variety of approved benefits following the Attachment 8 LCP scale across multiple USAID/Rwanda-funded projects. Some implementers are offering no benefits while others are offering one or two benefits from the LCP scale.

1. In order to ensure that implementers are offering benefits which will be allowed by USAID will

USAID please confirm if the following benefits will be approved:

■ Transport of 827,157 RWF

■ Housing of 2,009,918

■ Meal/Bev of 103,107

■ Misc of 774,462

2. Will USAID please confirm if any of the above benefits are a requirement for USAID implementers?

3. Will USAID please describe what is included in the Misc category?

Answer: As stated in AIDAR 752.7007, “Direct compensation of the Contractor's personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor's established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract.” Additionally, compensation of cooperating country nationals must not exceed what is authorized in the LCP and Contractors must abide by local labor laws for covered employees.