Nguriza_Nshore_Round_1_Q&A.pdf

Nguriza Nshore Round 1 Q&A

Below are responses to Questions received in advance of the deadline for Round 1 of the Nguriza Nshore Question period. Please see the Amended RFP with changes highlighted for additional information.

General Question 1:The cover page states that closing time is 6:00 p.m. on December 22. On Page L-5, Section.

L-5(b), closing time is listed as 4:00p.m. Rwanda Time. Can USAID indicate which time is preferred?

AND

Please confirm closing time for the offer. Cover letter refers to 18:00 while page L5 refers to 16:00

AND

Section L.5 (b) (p. L-5), the closing date and time states “An offeror must submit signed and dated proposals not later than 4:00 p.m. Rwanda Time on the date indicated in the cover letter of this solicitation”. The cover letter states 6:00 PM, whereas L.5 states 4:00 PM. Could USAID please confirm the closing time is 6:00 PM?

AND

The cover page states that the deadline for submission is 6 PM, Kigali time, and page L-5 states that, “An offeror must submit signed and dated proposals not later than 4:00 p.m. Rwanda Time on the date indicated in the cover letter of this solicitation.” Could USAID please confirm that the deadline is 6 pm, Kigali time?

AND

Cover Letter, Closing Time, states 6:00 PM, Kigali time. Page L-5, Clause L.5(b), states that the dated proposals shall be submitted not later than 4:00 PM, Kigali time. The Offeror respectfully asks for a clarification of the submission time.

Answer: The correct response time is 12:00 p.m. (noon) Rwanda time on December 22, 2017. This has been corrected in the RFP amendment; this change will also be made on the SF-33 during Round 2 Q&A.

Question 2: Page L-4 – It is stated that hard copies of the technical and cost proposals are to be submitted to USAID within five days of the closing date. Given that normal business in the US and Rwanda might be disrupted for the holidays, would USAID consider waiving the hard copy submission requirement, or pushing back the deadline for the hard copy submission to January 1, 2018 or later?

AND

Section L.5 (p. L-4), requires offerors to submit hard copies of the proposal, stating they should be delivered to the designated address “within five days of the closing date of the RFP,” which is December 27th. Given that Monday, December 25th is a federal holiday and many offerors will have staff unavailable for travel due to the holiday season, would USAID permit hard copies to be delivered up to Friday, January 5th, 2018?

AND

Could USAID please confirm that there will be someone present to provide confirmation of receipt of the delivery of hard copies of proposals? We note that the time period in which they are due is between the Christmas and New Year’s holidays.

AND

Page L-4 requires hard copies within five days of the closing date and indicates that the “lateness of proposals will be determined by the electronic submission.” Given the holiday season, would USAID please consider allowing Offerors to deliver hardcopies by January 3 if their electronic submission is received in advance of the due date of December 22, 2017?

AND

Page L-4, Part IV, Section L.5 “Delivery Instructions”, sub-section (a). The RFP Instructions indicate that hard copies be provided “…within five days of the closing date of the RFP.” Question: The Offeror respectfully notes that this period in the calendar has a number of days on which the Mission will be closed. In order to ensure that the Office of Assistance and Acquisition will be open and available to receive and sign for the hard copies, please allow a delivery of the hard copies during the period 2 – 5 January 2018.

Answer: See amendment to the RFP. Hard copies should be submitted by close of business (Rwanda time) on January 4, 2018.

Question 3: Please confirm validity period for the offer. Cover letter refers to 150 days while page L3 refers to 180 days.

AND

The cover letter states that the minimum validity period is 150 days, but section L.4 (h) (p. L-3) states that the minimum validity period is 180 days. Can USAID please confirm that the proposal should be valid for 150 days?

The solicitation’s cover letter states that offers must remain valid for a minimum of 150 days. However, Section L.4 (page L-3) states that offers must remain valid for at least 180 days from the submission date.

Please clarify the number of days that offers must remain valid.

AND

Could USAID clarify the minimum proposal validity requirements? The RFP cover states 150 days whereas RFP Section L.4(h) states 180 days.

Answer: The correct period of validity is 180 days. This has been corrected in the RFP amendment.

Question 4: RFP Section L.5(a) (page L-4) notes that offerors must submit the body of the technical proposal in Microsoft Word; however, the instructions in Section L.6(b) on page L-6 omit this requirement. Would USAID please confirm the required format(s) for submission of the technical proposal?

Answer: The body of the technical proposal must be submitted in pdf and Microsoft Word formats. This has been clarified in the RFP amendment.

Question 5: Page H-15, Section. H.25 Authorized work week – Can USAID clarify if a six-day work week would just be available to consultants as stated in the RFP, or could US based employees traveling on short-term assignments, also be eligible for a six-day work week?

AND

On page H-15, Section H.26 Authorized Work Week states, “No overtime or premium pay is authorized under this contract. A six-day workweek is authorized for short-term consultants (i.e., less than one year).

Any other work week longer than five days is not allowed absent written approval from the Contracting Officer. Would USAID please confirm that this does not apply to support staff who often must work weekends, such as drivers?

Answer: See amendment to the RFP. A six day workweek is authorized for US based employees and consultants providing short-term technical assistance. This restriction on a 6 day workweek only applies to professional level staff and does not apply to support staff such as drivers. This paragraph has been revised to say, “No overtime or premium pay is authorized under this contract. A six-day workweek is authorized for consultants and employees providing short-term (i.e., less than one year) technical assistance and non-professional (i.e., equivalent to FSN 8 and below on the LCP) level staff. Any other workweek longer than five days is not allowed absent written approval from the Contracting Officer.”

Question 6: Please clarify what is to be included in the Past Performance section referred to as part of the technical approach in comparison to the Past Performance information required in Annex I.

Page L-14 of the RFP states, “(A) Provide a narrative summary of your organization's use of small business concerns over the past three years. Describe how you actually use small businesses—as subcontractors, as joint venture partners, through other teaming arrangements, etc. Explain the nature of the work small businesses performed-- substantive technical professional services, administrative support, logistics support, etc. Describe the extent of your compliance with your SB subcontracting plan(s) or other similar SB incentive programs set out in your contract(s) and explain any mitigating circumstances if goals were not achieved (Annex J)”. Could USAID please confirm that offerors may include the narrative of small business concerns in Annex K?

AND

Could USAID clarify whether offerors must present Past Performance Information in the technical body or whether the entirety of what is required is to be presented in Annexes I, J, K, and L? If in the technical body, what should be presented there?

AND

Section L.7 lists the subcontracting plan as annex J to the technical proposal, but page L-13 states that the “subcontracting plan must be included as part of the cost proposal.” Can USAID please clarify?

AND

Page L-8 lists Technical Annex J as a Subcontracting Plan, while page L-13 states The Subcontracting Plan must be included as part of the Cost Proposal. Can USAID confirm that the Subcontracting Plan in Annex J is to be the narrative description of use of small business subcontractors described on page L-14 under “Performance in Using Small Business Concerns”, while the Subcontracting Plan to be submitted with the Cost Proposal is using the template provided in section ATT-6?

AND

The instructions in Section L.10(d)(3)(c) on page L-14 appear to request detailed information regarding small business utilization in addition to the small business references required in Annex L. Would USAID please clarify what information is required regarding small business utilization, and in what annex or annexes it should be provided?

AND

Section L.11 (d) (p. L.19), requires offerors to submit a subcontracting plan as part of their technical volume, and references attachment J.6. Given that J.6 includes dollar amounts for the prime and subcontractors, can USAID please confirm that the Subcontracting Plan should only be included in the business volume and not be included in the technical volume?

Answer: Past performance and small business utilization information consists of the following:

● Technical Proposal:

○ A narrative summary of the Offeror’s past performance and past performance using small businesses in the technical proposal body;

○ A narrative description in the technical proposal body of the Offeror’s small business subcontracting plan, as stated on page L-13 of the RFP in Section L.9;

○ Past performance information sheets in Annex I;

○ A list of recent eSRS reports/SF 294s in Annex K; and

○ Small business references in Annex L.

● Cost Proposal:

○ A Subcontracting Plan.

Please see the Amendment to the RFP. Annex J, “Subcontracting Plan” has been removed as an annex to the technical proposal; the Subcontracting Plan should only be submitted as part of the cost proposal (see section L.11(d)). Annex K should include the list of recent eSRS reports, not a narrative. Annex I, “Past Performance Reference Summary Table” has been replaced by “Past Performance Information Sheets.”

Question 7: On page L-8, Section L.6 (d) Organization, Annex K, List of Recent eSRS reports/SF 294s requires a list of the recent SF 294s (subcontracting reports) that are not included in the eSRS system as set forth in Section L.10. If an Offeror only has subcontracting reports listed in the eSRS system, does that suffice?

Answer: Yes, the list of eSRS reports is sufficient.

Question 8: Please can you allow additional pages for Annex I. Currently the limit is 3 pages.

AND

On Page L-8, please clarify if the instructions for Annex I (Past Performance Reference (PPR) Summary Table) mean that each PPR can take up to 3 pages, or if all 5 PPRs must fit into 3 pages.

AND

Section L.6 (d) (page L-12), notes that Annex I should contain a Past Performance Reference Summary Table (Attachment J.4), maximum three pages. L.10 Past Performance (p. L-13) notes that offerors may include up to five (5) of the most recent and relevant contracts. Attachment J.4 is a one-page table. Could USAID please confirm that Annex I can include up to five Past Performance Information tables, maximum three pages each, for a total of 15 pages?

AND

In the list of required annexes in Section L.6(d) on page L-8, Annex I is described as the “Past Performance Reference Summary Table... Maximum three pages.” However, the instructions in

Section L.10 on pages L-13 and L-14 describe much more extensive information than can be provided in three pages. Would USAID please clarify what information it requires in Annex I, and the page limit, if any?

AND

Page L-8 of the RFP states that, “Annex I: Past Performance Reference Summary Table (see Attachment J.4 to this RFP)” is a “maximum three pages”. Could USAID please confirm that the page limit for each of the 5 Past Performance Information Sheets is a maximum of three pages? Therefore, Annex I may be up to 15 pages total?

AND

RFP Section L.6(d) states that Annex I Past Performance Reference Summary Table (Attachment J.4) should be a maximum of three pages. Could USAID clarify the three page limit given that Attachment 4 in Section J is not a summary table, but a Past Performance Information Sheet and that the offeror must present five of the most recent and relevant contracts per L.10?

AND

Could USAID please clarify what it is requesting for past performance, namely if attachment J.4 (past performance information sheet) is to be used for all projects, regardless of whether they can also be found in CPARS? Additionally, can USAID please confirm that no past performance sheet is to exceed 3 pages in length (page L-8)?

AND

Page L-8, Part IV, Section L.6(d) “Organization”, “Annex I-Past Performance Reference Summary Table;

also Page L-13, Part IV, Section L.10(a).1 “Past Performance”; and Attachment 4, Past Performance Information Sheet. On page L-8, the RFP indicates that Annex I is limited to three pages. On page L-13, the RFP indicates that the Offeror may submit “up to 5” past performance references. Attachment 4 is approximately one full page in length. Question: The Offeror respectfully requests that the page limit for Annex I be increased to five (5) pages to be enable the Offeror to be compliant with the guidance to follow the format of Attachment 4 for up to five (5) past performance references.

AND

With regard to the past performance matrix listed in Section L.10 (page L-13), would USAID please clarify whether the offeror should submit a total of up to five past performance sheets for its entire team, or if it may submit up to five for the prime contractor and up to five for each major subcontractor?

Answer: Please see Amendment to the RFP and response to question 6 above. The page limit for Annex I has been clarified to state that Offerors may submit three pages per past performance information sheet; a maximum of five past performance information sheets should be submitted for the prime offeror and a maximum of five past performance sheets should be submitted for each major subcontractor.

Additionally, the title of the annex has been changed from “Past Performance Summary Table” to “Past Performance Information Sheets.” The past performance information sheets are to be used for all activities referenced under past performance, not only those in CPARs.

Question 9: Page L-10 of the RFP states that Offerors may include past performance information sheets for major subcontractors. May Offerors include past performance information sheets for non-major subcontractors in order to highlight the breadth of the consortium’s experience?

AND

Page L-13, Part IV, L.10(a), Past Performance. The RFP indicates that past performance information is required from the Offeror and major subcontractors. Question: The Offeror respectfully requests that non-major subcontractor past performance records also be accepted as part of the Past Performance Annex I response.

Answer: Offerors may submit up to five past performance information sheets for the prime Offeror and up to five past performance information sheets for each major subcontractor. Offerors may not submit past performance information sheets for non-major subcontractors.

Question 10: Section L.10, instructs Offerors to provide information on up to five most recent and relevant contracts or task orders. Are cooperative agreements and other types of awards also acceptable indicators of performance?

AND

On page L-13 of the RFP, under “past performance,” the instructions state to “List in an annex to the technical proposal (Annex I) up to five (5) of the most recent and relevant contracts or task orders for the Offeror and major subcontractors for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal.” As many offerors have recent and relevant past performance implementing cooperative agreements or other types of projects, we kindly request that USAID expand this requirement to include the offerors’ “most recent and relevant contracts, cooperative agreements, or task orders”.

AND

On page L-13, Section L.10 Past Performance, subsection a.1 requires a list of up to five (5) of the most recent and relevant contracts or task orders for the Offeror and major subcontractors for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal in Annex I. Would USAID please consider including performance information for Cooperative Agreements or Grants in the requirement for the five past performance references?

Page L-13, Part IV, Section L.10 “Past Performance,” sub-section (a)1. On page L-13, Past Performance, the RFP requests that offerors submit up to five past performance records for the offerors most recent contracts and task orders. Question: Considering that some offerors primarily implement cooperative agreements, the offeror requests that USAID/Rwanda allow past performance references for cooperative agreements and contracts.

Answer: See Amendment to the RFP. USAID will consider Grants and Cooperative Agreements in past performance and USAID will seek references from the procuring Agency, as needed. Offerors are encouraged to notify procuring Agency contacts in advance, to ensure that contact information is correct and to ensure that USAID receives responses to requests for past performance information. Objective past performance information found in CPARS or from past performance referees will receive the greatest consideration in evaluation of past performance.

Question 11: You have requested a separate document to include only the Technical Approach Body.

Please can you confirm exactly which sections make up the Technical Approach Body.

Answer: This is the 20 page Technical Proposal; it does not include the cover page, annexes, etc.

Question 12: You mention that our offer may include Grants under contract to the amount of US$3.5m (page L10) Please can you advise if this should be included in the total contract value of US$12 – 15m.

AND

Could USAID please clarify the not-to-exceed amount of $3,500,000 mentioned in Sections L.7, L.11 and the Budget Template? Specifically, does that not-to-exceed amount apply solely to Grants Under Contract, as suggested by Section L.7 on page L-10, which reads, “The Offeror may propose a Grants under Contract component to its Technical Approach not to exceed $3,500,000 in value”? Or does it apply to the combined costs for Program Activities AND Grants Under Contract, as suggested by Section L.11(b)6.a on page L-17, which reads, “Program activities (including, but not limited to trainings, grants under contracts (this amount will be limited to no more than $3,500,000), etc.)”? We note that the detailed budget template provided in Attachment 7 shows subgrants as a separate category from Program Activities.

Answer: Yes, the grants under contract amount should be included in the overall contract value. The $3,500,000 limit applies only to grants under contract, not to the combined costs of Program Activities.

Question 13: Could USAID please provide an anticipated start date?

For budgeting purposes, could USAID please provide an estimated start date for the Activity?

Answer: For proposal preparation purposes and for personnel planning, please consider a start date of May 1, 2018.

Question 14: In the Cover Letter and section H.3 on page H-2 the Geographic Code is listed as 935, but in section H.2 on page H-1 the Geographic Code is listed as 937. Can USAID please confirm which Geographic Code will be used for this project?

AND

Would USAID please clarify the authorized geocode for this contract? The geocode referenced in Section H.2 differs from the one provided in the cover letter and Section H.3.

Answer: Section H.2 provides generic language used in USAID contracts. The Geographic Code for this activity is 935.

Question 15: Can USAID please confirm that the offeror should submit the SF33 in both the Technical and Cost Proposals?

Answer: Please see amendment to the RFP. The SF 33 should only be submitted with the Cost Proposal.

Question 16: Per Section L.6 (d) (p. L-7), the RFP states that proposals may include a “Cover Letter/Executive Summary” not to exceed two pages. Page L-6, section L.6 (b), lists the cover letter and executive summary separately: “Note: The page limit does not include Cover/Title page, SF 33, Cover Letter, Table of Contents, List of Acronyms, Section Dividers, Executive Summary, or Annexes.” Could USAID please confirm that offerors may include a one-page cover letter, in addition to the two-page executive summary, that does not count towards the page limit?

AND

On page L-7 it states: “Cover Letter/Executive Summary (not to exceed two [2] pages).” Could USAID clarify whether the cover letter and executive summary are separate items (as referenced on page L-6), or a single item? Based on other proposals we would expect to include a 1-page cover letter at the beginning of the technical volume and a 2-page executive summary after the front matter (cover, table of contents, acronyms).

Answer: Please see Amendment to the RFP. The reference to Cover Letter has been removed. The Executive Summary should be a maximum of two pages.

Question 17: Section B-7 (Page B-2) states that the “cancellation ceiling for each cancellation date is $0.” Should offerors propose cancellation ceilings for each year as part of the cost proposal?

Answer: No.

Question 18: On page L-5 of the RFP, it is unclear whether oral presentations may include up to three presenters, or only up to three people in attendance (including one for support and to take notes, as noted may be accepted). Could USAID please clarify whether offerors invited to give oral presentations may bring up to three presenters plus a person to provide support and take notes, or whether offerors are limited to three people total?

Answer: The presentation may include three presenters plus support staff (note takers, IT support, etc.).

Question 19: The solicitation indicates that USAID may decide to conduct oral presentations as a part of the procurement process (page L-5). Assuming that is still the case, could you please provide approximate dates?

Answer: The timing of the oral presentations has not been fixed. For planning purposes, approximate dates are mid-February to mid-March.

Question 20: Page L-6 of the RFP states that, “the Technical Proposal will consist of the Technical Proposal Body and Annexes. These two parts together will constitute the Offeror’s technical proposal (and be physically bound together, if possible, for any hard copies and electronically in a single .pdf document)”. Could USAID please confirm that the technical proposal body and annexes may be submitted in multiple pdf documents if the document exceeds the allotted 8 MB, as stated on page L-4?

Answer: Yes, the technical proposal body and annexes may be submitted in multiple pdf documents based upon email size restrictions.

Question 21: Page L-7 of the RFP states that, the “Cover/Title page (not to exceed one [1] page) and must list proposed major subcontractors (defined as subcontractors who receive over 20% of the total proposed cost) on the cover page”. May offerors include all subcontractors on the cover page in order to represent the entire consortium?

Answer: Yes, that is acceptable. If including non-major subcontractors, the offeror should identify those subcontractors that are “major” within the definition of this RFP.

Question 22: On page L-7, major subcontractors are defined as “subcontractors who receive over 20% of the total proposed cost”. Would USAID consider expanding the major subcontractor category to include subcontractors that perform substantial technical work?

AND

Page L-7, Part IV, L.6(d)1, Organization, Major Subcontractors. The RFP indicates that a “major subcontractor” is defined as a subcontractor who receive 20% of the total proposed cost. Question: The Offeror respectfully requests that the government define a major subcontractor as a subcontractor who receives 15% of the total proposed cost, a more common percentage used in RFPs.

Answer: For conformity across proposals, major subcontractors are limited to those that receive 20% of the total cost. The definition of “major subcontractor” remains unchanged at 20% of the total cost.

Question 23: May the Contractor include the mobilization plan referenced in RFP Section L.7 as a separate Annex, not included in the page limit?

Answer: No, this information must be included in the technical proposal body or approved annexes.

Question 24: Page L-8, Part IV, Section L.7, Technical Approach Section, third paragraph, states that “The Performance Work Statement (PWS) proposed by the successful Offeror, submitted as Annex A, will become Section C of the resulting contract. Question: The Offeror respectfully requests USAID/Rwanda consider requiring the Annex A, PWS, to be submitted at a later time by those Offerors in competitive range.

Answer: This information must be included with the initial proposal in Annex A and will be an important part of the evaluation process.

Question 25: Page M-1, Section M.2. “Evaluation Factors.” While the RFP does detail evaluation criteria regarding each technical section, the RFP does not include a quantitative scoring system. Question: The Offeror respectfully requests that USAID include a scoring matrix to the evaluation criteria in Section M.2.

Answer: The evaluation criteria are listed in descending order of importance and USAID/Rwanda will use a qualitative scoring system to evaluate each criterion.

Question 26: Page L-20 to L-21 of the RFP states that Part 7 includes “Information to Support Consent to Major Subcontractors”. Could USAID please confirm that USAID intends for Offerors to submit Consent to Subcontract documentation for all subcontractors, not just major subcontractors?

Answer: This applies to major subcontractors.

Technical Question 1: In the Statement of Objectives the table of Indicators/Targets does not include any indicators or targets for Objective 2. Is the Offeror expected to propose indicators and targets for this objective?

Answer: Both indicators and targets for Objective 2 are included in the table titled “Indicators/Targets” in the SOO.

Question 2: ATT-1 of the RFP states that “Offerors may propose up to three more indicators with yearly targets, in addition to those provided in the table below.” Section F-6 also provides three “other performance indicators to which the Nguriza Nshore Activity Contractor must directly contribute”, including value of new private sector investment in the agriculture sector or food value chain leveraged by FTF implementation, number of firms receiving USG-funded technical assistance for improving business performance, and value of annual sales of firms receiving USG assistance.

a. Could USAID please clarify whether these three additional indicators are to be added as required performance indicators in the table in ATT-1?

b. Could USAID also clarify whether we will need to propose up to three more indicators with yearly targets outside of what was provided in Section F-6?

Answer: 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.

a) 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.

b) Please see answer above.

Question 3: Would USAID consider rewording Indicator 1.3 to read “Percentage of program-supported qualified agribusiness firms whose recent loan application was rejected”?

Answer: Offerors can propose to disaggregate this indicator from “program-supported” to “non-program supported” agribusiness firms for the purposes of attribution and reporting. Given Nguriza Nshore’s policy-level objective, USAID believes the activity will have broad-based impact that may be measured using secondary data.

Question 4: In the Statement of Objectives, Section 3 (Goals, Objectives, and Results), is Objective 2 meant to focus only on private equity investment, or is it meant to be broad enough to include other types of support or assistance to firms?

Answer: Objective 2 states: “Private and commercial investment in small to medium Rwandan agribusiness increased.” USAID recognizes that there are many types of private and commercial investment instruments and arrangements that may contribute to objective two. Private and commercial investment can be interpreted in the broadest sense, if that investment originates from private and/or commercial sources and is not a loan provided by a Rwandan institutional lender.

Question 5: Page L-12 – Please confirm that the 3 references are not part of the 2 page limit for CVs.

AND

Can USAID please clarify if references are to be included in the two-page limit for CVs?

The instructions for Annex E (Section L.9, page L-12) state, “the page limit for each CV is two (2) pages.” In order to provide complete, relevant information for each key personnel candidate:

a. Would USAID increase the page limit to three pages per CV?

b. May offerors place references on a separate page?

AND

Page 12 of the RFP states that “each individual proposed must also provide three (3) recent references with name, position title, valid email address and telephone number, and the relationship to the proposed candidate”. Could USAID please clarify that these references are not included in the two-page CV limit?

AND

On page L-12, Key Personnel, it states, “The page limit for each CV is two (2) pages. Each individual proposed must also provide three (3) recent references with name, position title, valid email address and telephone number, and the relationship to the proposed candidate”; May references for each key personnel candidate be included on a separate page, beyond the 2-page limit per CV?

AND

Page L-12, Section L.9(a) Personnel and Management Approach, Key Personnel, third paragraph, states “The page limit for each CV is two (2) pages. Each individual proposed must also provide three recent references with the name, position, title, valid e-mail address and telephone number, and the relationship to the proposed candidate” Question: The Offeror requests USAID/Rwanda consider increasing the page limit in Annex E of the CVs to 3 pages per CV with the inclusion of references.

Answer: The three references are not part of the two page limit for CVs and may be provided on a separate page. The CV page limit is not changed.

Question 6: Page L-11, Section L.9 Personnel and Management Approach, subsection (a) Key Personnel requires position descriptions, CVs, and other documents and information for key personnel to be included in annexes. Please confirm that there is no requirement for Key Personnel information within the Technical Proposal Body.

Answer: This is dependent upon the Offeror. Offerors are not required to include key personnel information in the technical proposal body, but may at their discretion.

Question 7: Page L-10, Section L.7 TECHNICAL APPROACH, The final paragraph on the page states:

"Also in the body of 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 the Chief of Party and rapid mobilization of other key personnel, long-term expatriate and/or local staff." Question: Could USAID/Rwanda please allow the discussion of the rapid mobilization be included in the Personnel and Management Approach (Clause L.9) instead of the technical approach?

Answer: Yes, USAID will allow offerors to expound “the rapid and effective launch of project activities…” referenced above in Annex C - Draft Year One Work Plan. However, the technical approach should address the requirements above, even if at a high level, as it is a requirement stipulated in the RFP.

Question 8: Statement of Objectives 2.(a) Would USAID consider this project supporting investment in production activities of larger farms that generate employment opportunities?

Answer: Yes, USAID could consider supporting investment in production activities of larger farms only when combined with non-farm investment and will not consider farm level employment opportunities.

Question 9: Statement of Objectives 3. Can private investment raised to support commercial lending count towards the $30 million private investment target?

Answer: The Mission will consider where financing originates, the financing instrument, and the platform/institution through which the investment is disbursed when assessing whether an investment meets either the lending (Objective 1) or private investment (Objective 2) additional financing targets outlined in the SOO. Generally, a commercial loan is a debt-based funding arrangement between a business and a financial institution so it would contribute to Objective 1 targets.

Question 10: Page ATT-1, Section 3. Goals, Objectives and Results, Objective 3; The listed indicator states "Agricultural and business enabling environment policies analyzed, consulted on, drafted or revised, approved, and implemented with USG assistance." Question: For targeting purposes, will Nguriza Nshore only count policies that reach implementation phase, or any policy analyzed, consulted on, drafted or revised, approved, or implemented?

Answer: This is a multi-part indicator (analyzed, consulted on, drafted, revised, approved) and should be disaggregated based on status of the policy at the time of reporting.

Question 11: Can USAID provide a list of current DCA agreements in effect in Rwanda?

Answer: A list of regional DCAs has been included as Attachment 9 to this RFP. There are no current agriculture DCAs in Rwanda.

Question 12: Statement of Objectives 5.(c) states that USAID will use the GOR’s definition of SMEs, and will allow turnover up to the RRA ceiling as long as other SME criterion are met. Would USAID consider using any criterion of the more broadly accepted IFC definition of SMEs: gross assets of less than US$ 15 million; annual turnover of less than US$ 15 million; or fewer than 300 employees, taken from https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/de7d92804a29ffe9ae04af8969adcc27/InterpretationNote_SME_20 12.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

Answer: USAID recognizes that the definition of an SME is widely contested and varies from country to country and from institution to institution. However, the definition provided in the SOO meets the broadest criteria for an SME with the Government of Rwanda and should guide offeror’s interventions.

Proposing amendments to that definition is a matter of policy.

The SOO provides clear parameters for what constitutes as a Small to Medium Enterprise for the purposes of Nguriza Nshore. These parameters include three dimensions: capital investments, annual turnover, and employee size. USAID adopted the Rwanda Revenue Authority’s definition of SMEs in terms of turnover to increase the ceiling of potential firms Offerors can target.

Question 13: On page F-5, would USAID consider switching the wording for Objective 1.3 from “Percentage of qualified agribusiness firms whose loan applications was rejected?” to “Number and percentage of qualified agribusiness firms whose loan applications was approved?” The reason for this suggested change is two-fold: (a) We prefer to measure positive outcomes versus negative ones; while one can insinuate that a decrease in this percentage is positive, it is preferable to look for indicators that are measured in positive terms. (b)It is more important to see an increase in the number of loan applications being approved overall, even if the percentage does not go up drastically. In fact, we would like to see financial institutions reviewing more loan applications in general.

Answer: A) Loan rejection rates are widely tracked in Rwanda by economic sector, so the indicator in the RFP tracks with those of USAID/Rwanda’s partners and will remain as-is.

B) Noted.

Question 14: Is USAID/Rwanda only interested in supporting local Rwandans, or can refugees living in Rwanda be considered among the beneficiaries of Nguriza Nshore?

Answer: USAID/Rwanda has no guidance on this issue.

Question 15: Attachment 1, Statement of Objectives, Section 4, Performance Work Statement Results and Indicators states that “Offerors should propose targets for the two context indicators” (employment in the agri-food system and annual percent change in value-added in the agriculture and food system). Per the GFSS indicator guidance shared with implementing partners on October 20, 2017, “Context indicators are those we will observe to help inform our working environment and interpret our results, but do not hold ourselves accountable for, nor do we set targets for them.” Could USAID please confirm that Offerors should not propose targets for the context indicators, following GFSS guidance?

https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/de7d92804a29ffe9ae04af8969adcc27/InterpretationNote_SME_2012.pdf?MOD=AJPERES https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/de7d92804a29ffe9ae04af8969adcc27/InterpretationNote_SME_2012.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

The two context level indicators listed are indicated in the GFSS guidance as “National Level”, to be conducted periodically. Based upon the introduction of the GFSS performance indicators in the guidance provided in October 2017, we understand that national level indicators are not to be conducted by the Implementing Partner (indicated as IM in the guidance). Can USAID please confirm that these indicators will be collected by external partners and are not the requirement of the Implementing Partner?

AND

Page F-6, Section F.6(a)(1), Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (MEL) Plan, first states "Context Indicator 1: Employment in the agri-food system (National Level- GFSS) and Context Indicator 2:

Annual percent change in value-added in the agriculture and food system" should be included in the MEL plan. Under C a, lower on the page, it states "a. Percent change in value-added in the agrifood system (‘Ag GDP+”) [National Level] and b. Employment in the agrifood system [National-level]" should be indicators that are included in the MEL plan as well. Question: The Offeror respectfully requests, if there are intended differences between these two sets of indicators and that USAID/Rwanda clarify any distinctions between the two.

Answer: See Amendment to the RFP. The sentence, “Offerors should propose targets for the two context indicators as well” has been removed from the SOO.

Question 16: ATT-1 of the RFP states that “Offerors should propose targets for the two context indicators as well.” ADS 201.3.5.7 states that “Context indicators do not have targets; however, it may be useful to set a trigger for context indicators. A trigger is a value or threshold which, if crossed would prompt an action, such as reexamination of the Results Framework or logical model.” Could USAID please confirm that we are to set triggers, instead of targets, for context indicators?

Further, could USAID please confirm that we can set the trigger for context indicators upon award and when the measure is finalized? For example, one of the context indicators provided is “Annual percent change in value-added in the agriculture and food system” also known as “Ag GDP+”, which is one of the National Level GFSS indicators proposed and submitted to Congress in October 2017. The measure is still currently being developed in collaboration with IFPRI so it not possible to set a trigger at this time.

AND

Page ATT-1, Section 4. Performance Work Statement Results and Indicators: The final sentence states "Offerors should propose targets for the two context indicators as well." Question: The final list of GFSS indicators distinguish performance indicators from context indicators, the latter of which are much less controllable by the contractor. Could USAID/Rwanda please provide guidance on how USAID/Rwanda defines these context indicators, including how USAID/Rwanda defines the boundary of the 'agri-food system' in Rwanda, and required methodology for collection to enable accuracy in setting targets?

Answer: See Amendment to the RFP and response to the question above. USAID will allow for Contractors to set triggers for context indicators after a contract has been issued. Both context indicators will measured by an external entity to that of Nguriza Nshore.

Question 17: Section F.6b (Annual Work Plan) states, “work plans will list activities grouped according to the four primary goals identified in Section C of this solicitation.” However, the Statement of Objectives includes only three objectives. Would USAID please clarify the total number of primary goals or objectives for the solicitation?

AND

Page F-8 of the RFP states “The work plans will list activities grouped according to the four primary goals identified in Section C of this solicitation.” Could USAID please confirm that this should refer to the three objective areas of Nguriza Nshore as listed in Section 3 of the SOO?

Answer: Please see Amendment to the RFP. This sentence now reads “The work plans will list activities grouped according to the three primary objectives in Section C of this solicitation.”

Question 18: On page L-9, the RFP calls for a background section to be included in the PWS. A Technical Approach typically includes a background section to provide context for proposed technical activities, which in this case might be duplicative. Does USAID have any preference regarding the inclusion or exclusion of a background in the Technical Approach? Additionally, would USAID provide further guidance on the level of detail required in the Background section of the PWS?

Answer: See answer to question #19 below.

Question 19: On page L-9 of the RFP, USAID provides very detailed instructions for Annex A:

Performance Work Statement (PWS). However, the structure and content for the Technical Approach are unclear.

A. Given that the PWS includes a number of elements that are commonly found within a Technical Approach, could USAID please provide a brief outline of the structure of the Technical Approach to clarify the difference between the Technical Approach and the PWS?

B. Page L-7 of the RFP states, “The technical proposal must be organized according to the evaluation factors in Section M.2 and must address all evaluation factors in Section M.2.” These evaluation criteria include broad categories. Could USAID confirm that these categories do not serve as the structure of the Technical Approach?

Answer: A) According to ADS 104, “The PWS is performance-based and describes the agency’s needs (the ‘what’), not specific methods for meeting those needs (the ‘how’). The PWS identifies the essential outcomes to be achieved, specifies the agency’s required performance standards, and specifies the location, units, quality, and timeliness of the work.”

USAID/Rwanda believes that to accurately assess offeror’s proposed outcomes to be achieved, it must first assess the offeror’s understanding of the objective(s) and background/context of Nguriza Nshore in Rwanda. The PWS will be included in the resulting contract.

Page L-8 of the RFP states, “The technical approach will present a comprehensive technical discussion that clearly demonstrates how the Offeror will achieve the objectives outlined in the Statement of Objectives…”

B) USAID/Rwanda will provide no guidance on the structure of offeror’s technical approach given the nature of this solicitation.

Question 20: Could USAID please confirm that the Section M Evaluation Criteria regarding the Technical Approach includes the entirety of the Performance Work Statement?

Answer: USAID/Rwanda confirms this is correct.

Question 21: On page M-2 of the RFP, under the technical approach evaluation criteria listed in section M-3, it states that offerors will be evaluated on the “delivery of substantially greater results per dollar than standard development practices.” How can we demonstrate this in our technical proposal without alluding to information which must only remain in the cost proposal?

AND

The first bullet on Page M-2, Section M.3 Technical Approach requires “creative approaches in the implementation of Nguriza Nshore that lead to the delivery of substantially greater results per dollar than standard development practices.” Would USAID please provide guidance on acceptable estimated results per dollar of standard development practices related to Nguriza Nshore activities or other clarification and guidance on how USAID intends to evaluate this criterion? If USAID anticipates requiring Contractors to measure results per dollar for Nguriza Nshore, is there a format in which USAID prefers Offerors to present this information? Should this be presented within the Cost Proposal or the Technical Proposal?

Answer: USAID will not provide additional guidance on this issue; however, as stated in the RFP, Offerors should not include cost information in the Technical Proposal.

Question 22: Would USAID please clarify the list of “Cross-Cutting Themes” to be addressed in the PWS? In the list of General Program Parameters to be addressed in the PWS (page L-10), item (e) is “CrossCutting Themes (e.g., Youth, Disability, Partnerships).” On pages L-6 and M-1, Innovation is identified as a cross-cutting theme. Disability does not appear in the RFP except with reference to AIDAR 752.222-70. Other issues that might be considered cross-cutting themes, including partnerships and gender, appear in Section 5 of ATT-1 as “Program Parameters.” Additionally, five “Implementation Requirements” appear in Section 6 of ATT-1; these might also be considered cross-cutting themes. On page F-10, Section F.6(c) instructs Offerors on monitoring of performance in “cross-cutting themes, such as gender integration, sustainability and local capacity building, and partnership engagement.” We respectfully request that USAID provide a complete list of issues to be treated as cross-cutting.

Answer: Offerors should address cross-cutting themes outlined in the SOO, especially gender equity/integration, youth, disability, environment, and sustainability and local capacity building. This is not an exhaustive list of cross-cutting issues that may be addressed by Nguriza Nshore.

Question 23: At the end of Section L.7 (page L-11), the RFP states, “Finally, the Offeror must address all of the program parameters and constraints included in the SOO, including market distortion, collaborating, learning, and adapting, gender concerns and environmental best practices.” Would USAID please confirm that Offerors should address these elements in the Technical Approach, rather than in the

PWS?

Answer: See answer to question # 19.

Question 24: In Section L.6, the MEL Plan is included as part of the technical proposal, which is limited to 20 pages. Is there a page limit for the MEL plan, bearing in mind the size of the yearly target table and USAID’s request to include an activity-level logframe?

AND

On page L-11, the MEL Plan is described in detail. Given the robust requirements for the MEL plan, would USAID consider allowing a supplementary annex for the MEL plan?

Answer: The Detailed MEL Plan is now Annex J of the RFP; please see RFP Amendment.

Question 25: Section L.8 specifies that the MEL Plan must include an “…activity-level logframe that articulates the links between inputs, activities, outputs, results, the goal and deliverables/outputs (provided in Annex B).” SOO Attachment 1, Section 3 – Goals, Objectives and Results – states, “Offerors should develop an activity Results Framework that addresses the three (3) objectives highlighted and the goal stated.”

a. Does USAID require both an activity-level logframe and a separate results framework, with the understanding that one is a table that outlines indicators, data sources and assumptions and the other depicts the theory of change?

b. If both are required, are they included in the 20-page limit of the technical proposal, or may we include them as annexes to the proposal?

c. Does USAID have a template for the logframe, if it is required?

Answer: a) No, Offerors should propose a logframe in their MEL Plan and a chart outlining their theory of change as part of the PWS. b) No, the detailed MEL Plan is now Annex J of the RFP. The page limit of the MEL Plan annex is 10 pages. c) No.

Question 26: Section L.9(a) on page L-12 notes, “Offerors may propose up to three additional key personnel roles. For each additional proposed key personnel, the Offeror must identify the position title and provide position descriptions, including roles and responsibilities and minimum or desired qualifications (experience, education, skills, etc.).” Would USAID please confirm that this information is required only for any additional key personnel roles, but not for the Chief of Party and Deputy Chief of Party?

Answer: Offerors must propose a COP and DCOP. Offerors may propose up to three additional key personnel positions. For each additional proposed key personnel, Offerors must identify the position title and provide position descriptions, including roles and responsibilities and minimum or desired qualifications.

Question 27: On page F-3, the requirements for the Deputy Chief of Party (DCOP) state, “the DCOP will be responsible for working directly with financial institutions and investment entities to develop products and services tailored for SME lending and investment needs. The DCOP works closely with the Chief of Party (COP) to manage day-to-day operations of the activity.