Amendment 3.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

PAGE OF PAGES

1 30

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3 3. EFFECTIVE DATE

04/27/2011

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO

REQ-EGAT-10-000203

5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (IF OTHER THAN ITEM 6) CODE

U.S. Agency for International Development Office of Acquisition and Assistance, M/OAA/EGAT, Rm. 567, SA-44 1300 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20523

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State, and Zip Code)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

SOL-OAA-11-000027

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11) 03/04/2011

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

CODE:

FACILITY CODE:

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered, solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers, FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If Required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO., AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify Authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43,103 (b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is NOT is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.

The purpose of this amendment is to extend the closing date of the solicitation, insert an attachment containing questions and answers, and to correct errors and omissions in the solicitation.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

Joseph Lentini

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE

SIGNED

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

16C. DATE

SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Previous Edition Unusable Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

1) On the Cover Letter, SF-33 Block 9, and in Section L.6.(b), delete the May 9, 2011 Closing Date and replace with it May 16, 2011.

2) In Section L.1, delete “52.222-46 EVALUATION OF COMPENSATION FOR PROFESSIONAL

EMPLOYEES FEB 1993”

3) In Section B.5.(b), second paragraph, delete “August 2004” and replace with “July 2007”.

4) In Section F.5.1.2, first sentence, delete “$2,500” and replace with “$3,000”.

5) In Section G.5.(b), following “provided”, insert “however, that cash, checks, or other forms of actual payment have been made by the Contractor for such costs”

6) In Section I.(c)(3), second sentence, delete “proceeding” and replace with “preceding”.

7) In Table L-1, delete the word “Total” wherever it appears.

8) In Section L.8(b), add “No smaller than Times New Roman font 9 may be used for tables and graphics."

9) In Section L.8(b), in the bulleted list, following “Table L-1: Consortium Experience”, add “Table L-1 is limited to a maximum of two pages.”

10) In Section L.9(c), Part 3 - Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors, insert the following text at the end of the section:

“In addition, the offerors and each proposed subcontractor must include a completed copy of SF LLL – Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (See Attachment J.1) and DD 254 - Department of Defense Contract Security Classification Specifications (See Attachment J.6) as an annex to the Cost/Business Proposal.”

11) In Section M.3(a)(1) and M.3(a)(2), from the definition for “Technically Unacceptable”, delete from Line 3, “or understanding”.

12) Insert Attachment J.7, Economic Growth for Poverty Reduction IDIQ Questions & Answers, following

Attachment J.6.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

ATTACHMENT #J.7

Economic Growth for Poverty Reduction IDIQ Questions & Answers

Questions are grouped by the solicitation section to which they are most related.

Section B

1. Section B.2 (Contract Type and Contract Services) on page 5 notes that task orders will be either firm fixed price or time and materials. Can USAID clarify what type of Fixed Price mechanism will be used? Are these Performance Based Fixed price with Incentive or other types of contracts?

It will be at the discretion of the Task Order Contracting Officer (TOCO) to determine the order type appropriate to the requirement. Firm-fixed-price orders may be used in conjunction with award-fee incentives and performance or delivery incentives when the award fee or incentive is based solely on factors other than cost.

2. Could USAID please clarify when it might use a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) task order and a Time and Materials (T&M) task order, respectively? For instance, does USAID intend to utilize FFP task orders for problem identification, diagnostics, and/or analyses; program/project design; and evaluation tasks, which tend to be based on deliverables, and T&M task orders for multi-year program/project implementation tasks, which tend to be labor driven?

It will be at the discretion of the TOCO to determine the order type appropriate to the requirement.

3. The cover letter indicates that, for FFP task orders, Contractors may propose lower fixed daily rates and local-hire multipliers than those proposed and included in Section B of the IDIQ contract; however, Sections B.5 (page 5) and F.4 (page 28) indicate that, for T&M task orders, Contractors are encouraged to proposed lower fixed daily rates and lower local-hire multipliers than those proposed in the IDIQ contract. Could USAID please clarify these statements?

The cover letter reads “For Fixed Daily Rate task orders, Contractors may propose lower fixed daily rates and local-hire multipliers than those proposed and included in Section B of the IDIQ contract.”

“Fixed Daily Rate” does not refer to Firm Fixed Price, but rather it is a reference to Time and Materials orders containing fixed daily rates.

4. Could USAID please clarify its expectations regarding the use of fixed daily rates and multipliers to price FFP task orders?

In a FFP task order, the TOCO would likely request contractors to propose a single FFP or separate FFPs for multiple deliverables. Contractors are not required to use the proposed fixed daily rates or local-hire multipliers to develop FFP proposals.

5. Page 4 of the RFP, Section B.2 (2), states that Time and Materials task orders will use “…Fixed Daily Rates for U.S. Expatriates with reimbursement of actual salaries for locally hired national professionals and other non-U.S. expatriates and fixed multipliers applied to salaries for locally-hired national professionals and other non-U.S. expatriates” Please clarify whether locally hired national professionals and other non-U.S. expatriate salaries are to be reimbursed using actual salaries or a fixed multiplier.

Reimbursement for locally hired national personnel and other non-U.S. expatriates will be at the fixed multiplier applied to the actual unburdened daily salary. For example, using the illustrative multiplier contained in Section L.9(b)(2), if a locally hired trade specialist receives an actual unburdened salary of

$170 per day and the applicable multiplier is 1.605, reimbursement would be for $272.85 (the product of $170 multiplied by 1.605).

6. Section B.5(a) notes that contractors may not bill USAID directly for key full-time technical or program managers and “central management costs.” Is there a limit on LOE for technical/program manager budgeted on individual Task Orders?

The contract will not include a specific labor category for IDIQ management. Contractors may propose task order management costs under identified labor categories. Limits on LOE for management functions performed by the Grant/Contract Manager or other labor categories will be at the discretion of the TOCO.

7. Under what labor category should personal security contractors (necessary to work in CPCs) be billed? It is correct to assume that these costs will be billed as ODCs?

Personal security subcontracts should be billed as ODCs as their work will not fall under the labor category descriptions contained in Section B.5(a)(1). Please note that personal security subcontracts are subject to consent by the TOCO in accordance with FAR 52.244-2.

8. To the extent half the value of EG4PR is reserved for critical priority (high risk) countries, what is USAID’s expectation with regard to pricing Personal Security Contractors at the IDIQ level or at the task order level?

See previous question. Consent to subcontract with personal security contractors should be requested at the task order level.

9. Please confirm that contractors proposing rates and multipliers lower than the ones listed in the RFP, as encouraged in Section B.5, will not be considered lacking sound management judgment or failing to comprehend the complexity of contract requirements as per FAR 52.222-46 (b) and (c).

Because the price evaluation at the IDIQ level is based on Time and Materials pricing, and 52.222-46 is not indicated for Time and Materials contracts, 52.222-46 is deleted from the solicitation by this amendment. It will be at the discretion of the TOCO to incorporate 52.222-46 in Request for Task Order Proposal solicitations, when relevant to fixed price orders for services to perform an identifiable task rather than furnish an end item of supply.

10. Page 2 of the cover letter states that “contractors may propose lower fixed daily rates and local hire multipliers than those proposed and included in Section B of the IDIQ Contract.” Please clarify whether the multiplier is only applicable to local hires, or if it is also applicable to other non-U.S. expatriate personnel.

The multiplier is applicable to both locally hired and other non-U.S. expatriate personnel.

11. Would USAID like the IQC Manager’s CV to be included with the proposal submission?

No, this will not be evaluated.

12. Page 10, Definition of Labor Categories 11. Administrative support. Does this description mean that home office recruitment, deployment, etc. is billable for short term technical assistance as well as for recruiting volunteers?

This would be at the discretion of the TOCO.

13. Section B.5 (a) (1), on Page 7 Training Specialist/M&E Specialist is combined in the Labor Category Fixed

Daily Rates table beginning, but is split out in the Definition of Labor Categories beginning on Page 9. Would the government also separate these labor categories on the Fixed Daily Rates chart so that Training Specialist is a separate line item than M&E Specialist?

These labor categories are intentionally combined for purposes of the Fixed Daily Rate Table and Price Evaluation Matrix based on USAID’s cost experience.

14. Section B.5 (a) (1), on Page 9 the Definition of Labor Categories split out trade specialist from attorney/legal advisor, but the Fixed Daily Rate Table on Page 7 and the Price Evaluation Matrix (J.2) on Page 114, combine Attorney/Legal Advisor/Trade Specialist. Given the difference in market value between trade specialists and attorneys/legal advisors, could the government de-couple the labor category in the Fixed Daily Rate chart and Price Evaluation Matrix, so that Trade Specialist is a separate line item in than Attorney/Legal Advisor?

These labor categories are intentionally combined for purposes of the Fixed Daily Rate Table and Price Evaluation Matrix based on USAID’s cost experience.

15. Page 20, C.3(b) Implementation and Program management: “The contractor shall provide one primary point of contact to support this IDIQ”. Later on p.33 Section F.6 Key Personnel, the RFP states that “there are no key personnel associated with the IDIQ award itself.” Does USAID want the Offeror to put forward the name of the primary point of contact in the proposal, or can this person be identified following award? Where in the technical proposal should this person be presented and should contractors provide a resume of the manager’s qualification, even though it is not a key personnel position? Does USAID want contractor’s IDIQ management plan as a part of the corporate capability?

Neither a management plan nor information regarding the primary point of contact are desired because they will not be evaluated. The primary point of contact will be identified post-award. Corporate capability/experience will be demonstrated based on the required 15 project submissions.

16. Section B.5(a), page 6, states that “a key (full-time) technical or program manager is not necessary or required to administer the basic IQC. Contractors will not be authorized to bill USAID directly for central management costs.” We would argue that allowing for direct billing of central management costs benefits the U.S.

Government and improves responsiveness, access to information and congressional reporting requirements, particularly considering the multi-dimensional, technically rigorous nature of this $2 billion procurement. It is requested that USAID consider revising this requirement accordingly. Without the authority to properly direct charge these costs, there could result in a significant burden to every Prime Contractor’s NICRA rate. Not being able to directly allocate costs, which in fact are necessary and directly allocable to the performance of this contract appears contrary to OMB and FAR Council guidance on these matters.

To the extent that the contractor performs administrative work directly allocable to a task order, that effort may be charged directly to the task order. However, the IDIQ mechanism does not provide a methodology for direct recovery of central management costs. The central management costs would vary significantly depending on how many task orders are awarded to each contractor, and it’s possible that a contractor could receive no task orders - USAID has not guaranteed contractors anything beyond the $25,000 minimum order guarantee.

17. We note that the description of Sector Specialist on p. 9 of the final RFP refers to experts who can provide “assistance and expertise in specific EG4PR technical areas, including workforce development…” Please clarify whether or not USAID considers workforce development to be included as a technical area.

USAID does not anticipate workforce development to be a significant component of this procurement and will not evaluate offerors on their corporate capability/experience in this area.

18. In the second sentence on page 6, the RFP states “The fixed daily rates in effect when the task order is executed will remain in effect for the entire task order period.” In at least two other places (e.g., later on page 6 and on page 12), the RFP states that work begun in one IDIQ year and extending into another will normally use the applicable FDRs from each IDIQ year in question. Please confirm that the first reference, i.e., to the second sentence on page 6, is an error.

Both references are correct. The first reference indicates that the fixed daily rates included in the task order when it is awarded will remain in effect for the entire task order period. The fixed daily rates proposed by the contractor and included in the task order may include different FDRs for different years, if applicable.

19. Section B.5(a), first paragraph, suggests once a fixed daily rate is in effect under a task order, it cannot escalate from year to year. However, the Note in the same section suggests fixed daily rates may be escalated from year 1 to year 2 (and one assumes, in ensuing years). Please clarify whether contractor will be able to escalate fixed daily rates from year to year.

See question No. 18.

20. Page 11, Section B.5.(b)(1) Multiplier: This section states “The multiplier must include indirect costs applicable to labor, and profit or fee, if any.” However, the next paragraph states: “Fringe benefits and social welfare costs for locally-hired or non-U.S. expatriates will be reimbursed as direct costs….” Typically the majority of our fringe benefit rate for LCNs and non-U.S. expatriates is an indirect cost applicable to labor.

Some costs that may be only relevant to a particular country may be direct billed, but the majority of what are typically viewed as fringe benefits (paid vacation, sick, holiday; health; social welfare; etc) are part of our indirect fringe cost rate. Can our normal fringe benefit “indirect cost rate” be billed as part of the multiplier, or do we need to set up a structure where these costs are billed as direct costs?

The indirect cost rate(s) applicable to locally hired national personnel and other non-U.S. expats, including the fringe rate, should be used to calculate the multiplier (see L.9(b)(2) for an example).

Fringe benefits and social welfare costs relevant to particular countries that are not captured in your indirect cost rates will be reimbursed as direct costs if allowable/authorized under task orders.

21. In section B.5.(b)(1) on page 11, the RFP notes that “fringe benefits and social welfare costs for locally-hired and non-U.S. expatriates will be reimbursed as direct costs” … and “are not to be considered part of the multiplier.” Please clarify whether this refers only to local fringe benefits that may be required by law or custom in a cooperating country and not to any corporate fringe benefits that a firm might normally apply to TCN or CCN salaries as part of its standard accounting policies.

See question No. 20.

22. Section B.5(b), page 11, states that “Salaries for individual locally-hired personnel and other non-U.S.

expatriates under this contract or any resulting subcontract must be in accordance with AIDAR 752.7007, Personnel Compensation (August 2004)”. That AIDAR Clause was revised in July 2007. Please revise the reference to incorporate the current AIDAR Clause.

This amendment revises Section B.5.(b) to incorporate the current clause by reference.

23. Please explain how USAID envisages contractors proposing lower fixed daily rates and multipliers at the RFTOP level. For example, would contractors be able to propose discounts on fixed daily rates associated with proposed individuals, or propose discounts on labor bottom line?

It would be up to the IDIQ holders to determine how to competitively price task order proposals.

24. Could USAID please confirm that Section B.6© would not apply to FFP task orders, since FAR 16.601 applies only to T&M contracts?

Confirmed.

25. Will subcontractor G&A expenses on ODC be reimbursable if prime contractor does not have a G&A rate?

Yes, subject to the approval of the TOCO. See Section B.7.(a), Note 2.

26. Per Section B.8 (b)., “If the final indirect cost rates are less than the negotiated ceiling rates, the negotiated rates will be reduced to conform to the lower rates.” Please confirm whether this implies that the contractor will make no reimbursement at the end of the contract term to compensate for any possible difference between provisional and final indirect cost rates, even if the latter are lower than negotiated ceiling rates.

No, settlement of indirect costs will be in accordance with FAR 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment (December 2002), incorporated by reference in Section I.

27. For the Cost/Business Proposal, are proposed subcontractors required to propose indirect rate ceilings for other direct costs, in order to recover these when participating on task orders?

No, Subcontractor indirect rates and ceilings applicable to ODCs will not be incorporated into the IDIQ.

They should be included in task order proposals and subject to the approval of the TOCO. See Section B.7.(a), Note 2.

28. Are ceiling rates on indirect costs rates applicable to other direct costs required from all subcontractors in addition to the prime contractor?

See previous question.

Section C

29. Business Environment Improvement is described as one of the five broad technical areas under EG4PR

(Section C.2). However, it is not discussed in Section C.3. Please provide further guidance.

Business Environment Improvement is within the scope (Section C.2) of this IDIQ and is one of the five technical areas that require project submissions per Table L-1.

30. On page 16 of the RFP, Business Environment Improvement is described as one of the five broad technical areas under EG4PR. It is not discussed under Section C.3 (beginning on page 17). Could USAID please provide further guidance to involving Business Environment Improvement.

See previous question.

31. The statement of work in the original draft RFP included a paragraph on p. 15 [C.2 (c) (3)] that related to workforce development. It read “Workforce Development: Assist youth and adults in acquiring knowledge and skills beyond basic literacy and numeracy, attitudes, behaviors, experience and contacts to secure legitimate jobs, establish viable self-employment, or set up entrepreneurship ventures.” We note that in the final RFP, this paragraph has been removed from Section C. Does the removal of this language mean that USAID intends to address workforce development issues via other contract mechanisms?

USAID does not anticipate workforce development to be a significant component of this procurement.

Section F

32. Section F.5.1.1, page 28, and F.5.1.2, page 29, identify conflicting values ($3,000 vs. $2,500) for the consideration of Fair Opportunity to bid on a task order. Please confirm which value is correct.

This amendment revises the value to $3,000.

33. F.5.2.2.2 and F5.2.2.3 Is confusing- “For task orders estimated to be more than US $2,000,000”… the small business threshold on page 29 was stated to be $3,000,000 or less. May we assume that F5.2.2.2 refers to small business set asides and F5.2.2.3 for non small businesses?

Sections F.5.2.2.2 and F.5.2.2.3 are not intended to relate to the small business threshold. The purpose of Section F.5.2.2 in its entirety is to describe the fair opportunity process for issuing Requests for Task Order Proposals (RFTOP) to ensure that the process as well as length and complexity of proposals requested by RFTOPs is commensurate with the estimated value.

34. Page 20, C.3(b) Implementation and Program management: “The contractor shall provide one primary point of contact to support this IDIQ”. Later on p.33 Section F.6 Key Personnel, the RFP states that “there are no key personnel associated with the IDIQ award itself.” Does USAID want the Offeror to put forward the name of the primary point of contact in the proposal, or can this person be identified following award?

The primary point of contact will be identified post-award.

Section G

35. In section G.5(b) on page 37, there appears to be language missing – please provide the wording that should follow “provided” at the end of that clause.

This amendment adds the missing language.

Section H

36. Page 39, Section H.1 (a) – the statement “The authorized source for procurement is Geographic Code 000 unless otherwise specified in the schedule of this contract”. Given this, are all contractors in the consortium required to be US incorporated at the point of submission of the proposal?

Yes, at the IDIQ stage.

37. According the Solicitation, the geographic code is 000. Does this mean that non-U.S. firms are precluded from being subcontractors?

Non-U.S. firms are precluded from being subcontractors only at the IDIQ stage. Task orders may specify a different Geographic Code or source/origin waivers relevant to the specific requirement.

Further, local subcontractors may be engaged in accordance with AIDAR 752.225-71, Local Procurement (February 1997), incorporated by reference in Section I.

38. In the interests of promoting efficiency in the use of United States foreign assistance resources, we respectfully request that USAID assign a 935 geographic code for this procurement at Section H.6.

The 000 Geographic Code will be retained at the IDIQ level, however a less restrictive Geographic Code may be assigned for task orders at the TOCO’s discretion.

39. On p. 42 of the RFP, the authorized geographic code for procurement of goods and services under this contract is 000 United States of America, or as specified in Task Orders. Could USAID please clarify that offerors can only procure goods and services from the United States, and not from any other country?

See question No. 37

40. Section H. 14, Grants under Contracts, page 44. This section currently incorporates prior approval for grant recipient selection. We respectfully request a minimum threshold of $50,000 for USAID COTR grant approval in accordance with the intent of ADS 302.3.4.8 b. (3) which states that "USAID may be less significantly involved when grants are quite small and are incidental to the contractor's technical activities."

It will be at the discretion of the TOCO to approve variations to the approval requirements contained in the IDIQ.

Section J

41. Certain labor categories may not be applicable for some offerors. For evaluation purposes, is it acceptable that the offeror shows “N/A” or to zero out any of the rates levels?

No. Offerors must submit fixed daily rates for all labor categories.

42. Regarding the sample task order provided for calculations (page 115): Since only the prime offeror ceiling rates on applicable indirect costs will be utilized (see Note page 116), what will USAID use for ODCs designated as Subcontractor travel, allowances, and ODCs?

The subcontractor ODC line-items in the Matrix (i.e., travel, allowances and miscellaneous ODCs) include all subcontractor costs and indirect recovery. The associated line-items for indirect recovery on subcontractor costs (i.e., J, L and N) refer to the prime offeror’s indirect recovery applicable to these subcontractor costs.

43. Attachment J.2, Price Evaluation Matrix, page 114, and Clause M.4(b), page 109, both state that USAID will evaluate the indirect rate ceilings as one of two elements (FBDR being the other) as evidence of a balanced price. Since many offerors may have various indirect rates (Overhead, G&A, off-site, on-site), all of which are based on various methods of allocations (DL, TMDB, Total Cost, etc), please provide insight to how USAID has assessed that applying ceiling rates can establish balance?

Unbalanced pricing exists when the price of one or more cost elements is significantly over or understated. The purpose of reviewing unbalanced pricing as part of cost realism analysis is to determine whether an over- or understatement of cost elements poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. It is at the discretion of the CO to determine what constitutes “unacceptable risk”. For example, if an offeror has a Negotiated Cost Rate Agreement showing a G&A rate of 10%, however the offeror proposes a G&A ceiling of 1%, the CO will have to determine whether the much lower ceiling presents an unacceptable risk that the offeror may not be able to perform a task order.

44. Attachment J.2, Price Evaluation Matrix, page 115, establishes a ratio of 70%-15%-15% for Levels Senior-

Mid-Junior as the method for calculating the USFDR. Furthermore, the Sample Task Order Budget on page 116, uses a ratio of 4 to 1 for USFDR to CALM level of effort. While these ratios give an indication of the weighting of experienced personnel which USAID is anticipating, and the extent of non-US staff to US staff, the RFP does not give any indication of how the contractor shall allocate labor among the offeror and the subcontractors, nor the allocation between home office staff, intermittent staff, and consultants. This is especially true since several key technical areas are not being evaluated in the current Table L-1 nor are the qualifications for all members of a consortium even being considered. To provide more insight to the technical requirements anticipated by USAID, please provide a sample task order program description to assist the offerors in estimating more accurate percentages of labor distribution.

The Price Evaluation Matrix was developed to establish a relatively simple methodology to capture the proposed fixed daily rates for every labor category/level for all 5 years and the local-hire multiplier for all 5 years. The weight of the FDRs and the labor ratio set forth in the Matrix are not intended to provide USAID’s expectation for labor utilization under this IDIQ sector. Moreover, providing a single real or illustrative task order as part of the IDIQ evaluation will provide no added insight regarding the global utilization of this IDIQ sector over the next 5 years.

45. Attachment J.2, Price Evaluation Matrix Sample Task Order Budget, page 116. In the presentation of the sample analysis, USAID apparently considers only one ceiling rate? Does USAID expect to receive one ceiling rate for all years of the proposal period? How will USAID take into the “balance analysis” firms with more than one indirect rate?

Offerors should propose one ceiling rate to cover the entire period of performance of the IDIQ for each indirect rate applicable to ODCs. The applicable ceiling rate will be used for each line-item in the Matrix. If the offeror proposes annual ceilings for each indirect rate applicable to ODCs, USAID will average those annual ceiling rates and utilize the applicable average ceiling rate in the Matrix.

46. Attachment J.2, Sample Task Order Budget, page 116. In the Other Direct Costs sample, no costs for local subcontracts or grants have been included. Since many firms may apply differing indirect rates to these type of costs, please provide USAID estimates for these line items.

This is not a factor in the IDIQ evaluation. These costs will be considered as part of the task order evaluation, if local subcontracts/grants are utilized.

47. USAID’s price evaluation methodology treats all offerors as though they have the same indirect rate structure and cost allocation practices, which does not facilitate equal price comparison across offerors. Given that the award will be made primarily on the basis of cost, this could allow organizations that are, in fact, more costly to the government to prevail in the IQC competition over those who are less costly. Could USAID please clarify how it will account for differences in evaluated price that are the sole result of differences in organizational cost accounting practices, and that may not necessarily reflect the price the government can expect to pay on task orders? Examples of this include:

Differences in direct vs. indirect labor cost allocation. Offerors who directly bill more labor, such as home-office backstopping, will have lower indirect rates than they would if they billed such costs indirectly. This may enable them to construct lower FDRs and multipliers than firms who bill indirectly. However, the direct-billing firms would also have to bill more LOE on each task order to recover the same costs. This is not accounted for in a cost evaluation methodology that requires all offerors to use the same number of LOE days.

Differences in ODC cost allocation. Similar to the above, offerors who directly bill a significant volume of ODCs that other organizations include in their overhead pools will have lower indirect rate percentages, allowing them to construct apparently low FDRs and multipliers without having to account in their evaluated price for the offsetting costs that would be billed on task orders as additional ODCs. Requiring all offerors to use the same plug figures for ODCs does not account for such differences in the evaluated price.

Given the inherent unknowns in actual performance of task orders at this time, it is impossible to perfect a pricing methodology at the IDIQ stage that will be reflective of the universe of actual task orders to be performed and account for all cost allocation differences among firms, while still establishing a firm pricing methodology for task orders that will be included in the IDIQ awards. For example, differences in cost allocation methods for the prime contractor could easily be offset by the rest of the consortium and their treatment of labor and ODCs, depending on the utilization of subcontractors in performance of the orders.

Further, historical data suggests that price differences between and among offerors with different cost allocation methods are very minor give that offerors typically propose level of effort directly responsive to the RFTOP. It is extremely rare to see contractors propose a higher or lower level of home office LOE based on their indirect rate structure. Given the large number of anticipated awards and that the Contracting Officer will consider, among other things, the extent of price differentiation between and among offerors, USAID expects that any difference in pricing due to cost allocation methods would not be significant enough to include or exclude an offeror from award.

48. On page 114 of the RFP, Attachment J.2 requires that all offerors use a plug figure of 4,000 days for USNs and

1,000 for non-U.S. nationals. However, this price evaluation methodology does not address the fact that some firms bill certain types of labor directly, therefore, requiring more LOE during the implementation than those who have higher indirect cost rates, and presumably higher FDRs and Multipliers. This evaluation methodology could artificially cause such offerors to appear more expensive in the IQC evaluation than those who would bill more LOE at the Task Order level and therefore, costing the same or more during the actual implementation. How does USAID plan to account for such inconsistencies in offerors' rate structures?

See question No. 47.

Section K

49. RFP Page 80: Section K.3 – I (3) we find a Certificate for Monetary Exemption. “The Offeror hereby certifies that the Offeror, together with all divisions, subsidiaries, and affiliates under common control, did not receive net awards of negotiated prime contracts and subcontracts subject to CAS totaling $50 million or more in the cost accounting period immediately proceeding the period in which this proposal was submitted. The Offeror further certifies that if such status changes before an award resulting from this proposal, the Offeror will advise the Contracting Officer immediately.” Shouldn’t the word proceeding be replaced with preceding? Also, what if an offeror has already exceeded this amount in the period (12 months) preceding/ prior to the submission of the proposal? Does it have any impact on eligibility to submit the proposal?

This amendment changes the word “proceeding” with “preceeding”. The net amount of CAS covered awards received by an offeror does not affect eligibility to submit a proposal. The purpose of Section K.3 is for offerors to examine each part and provide the requested information in order to determine Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) requirements applicable to any resultant contract.

Section L

50. On pages 16-17: Section C.2 (f), May we provide monitoring and evaluation projects under this section? If so, can they count as part of the 15 project requirement as requested in Table L-1?

Yes---provided they are relevant to the technical area for which they are submitted.

51. Could you please specify what goes in the cells labeled "Total:" in Table L-1?

This is an error and the rows labeled “Total:” should be removed under each category

52. On page 99 of the RFP Table L (contains 5 cells with the text "Total: ". What is supposed to go into these cells? Are they supposed to reflect the total expected percentage of work that will go to the consortium members called out as contributing to those technical areas? Can they add up to anything less than or equal to 100%, or does USAID have a preference for how consortia manage the internal distribution of their work?

See question No. 51.

53. Page 97, section (1) Corporate Capability/Experience point (i) states: “Offerors must provide a completed copy of Table L-1 (see below), Consortium Experience, identifying the three consortium members (prime or subcontractors) anticipated to perform the largest percentage of effort under each of the five technical areas set forth in Table L-1.” Can USAID please clarify whether only three firms total or three firms per category on Table L-1 is required?

Three firms per technical area.

54. Questions related to Table L-1 page 99:

a. Is it expected that offerors estimate a % of effort per consortium member?

No.

b. What is the offeror expected to write under “Total”?

c. Would USAID allow offerors to add a column for project names?

55. In Table L-1, what “Total” is requested?

56. Table L-1, Consortium Experience includes a cell for “Total” under the list of consortium members for each technical area. Can USAID please clarify the information to include for this line item?

57. How do we present the qualifications of our small businesses, given that in total they will do at least 20% of the business, but they do not all have qualifications that allow presentation in Table L1, and they will not likely be the leading organization for any of Table L1 technical areas?

The RFP does not require that small businesses perform “at least 20% of the business”. Large business offerors must provide Subcontracting Plans that include a small business subcontracting goal of at least 20% of total planned subcontracting. There is no need to submit qualifications of small businesses in the Technical Proposal if they are not among the three firms anticipated to perform the largest percentage of effort under each of the five technical areas. Proposals will be evaluated only in accordance with the criteria in Section M.3. Information regarding small businesses will need to be included in the Price/Business Proposal to meet the stated Subcontracting Plan requirement.

58. Is there a requirement to propose 3 consortium members for each technical area? Is it acceptable to propose 2?

Three consortium members must be proposed for each technical area. It is not acceptable to propose less than three in each area.

59. May Offerors submit fewer than three consortium members for a technical area? If yes, please confirm that

Offerors may submit more than one project description per consortium member per technical area.

See question No.58.

60. What is the relationship between the L-1 Table and the 15-page technical proposal? Should the L-1 Table be just a list of the three major consortium members and their technical areas, or should it be more extensive in the description of each firm?

The 15 page technical proposal is for the purpose of providing the 15 project submissions which will be evaluated to demonstrate corporate capability/experience.

61. Table L-1, Consortium Experience includes a column for “Areas of Expertise” Can USAID please clarify the information required for each consortium member under each of the technical areas?

Offerors should provide the specific areas of expertise within the technical area of the firm proposed.

For example, a specific expertise under Trade and Investment might be customs administration.

62. Would USAID please clarify if there is a page limit for the completed “Table L-1, Consortium Experience”?

Table L-1 is limited to a maximum of two (2) pages. This has been clarified in the Amendment.

63. In order to avoid major discrepancies among the various proposals that USAID will evaluate, could you provide further guidance about completing Table L-1 (page limit or page range)?

Table L-1 will only include the name of the consortium member and the areas of expertise of that firm in that technical area.

64. The RFP suggests that the bidders are encouraged to utilize small businesses and organizations which are new to USAID. However, the Table L-1 only provides us with a chance to highlight projects for consortium members who are expected to perform the largest percentages of work under each of the five technical areas.

What would be the most desirable way for us to highlight the experience and capabilities of new organizations and small businesses that are part of our consortium but would not meet the requirements for inclusion in Table L-1?

While we encourage you to use small business subcontractors and organizations new to USAID, their use is not a technical evaluation factor. Proposals will be evaluated only in accordance with the criteria in Section M.3.

65. In section L.1 on page 88, FAR 52.222-46 is incorporated by reference. In that clause, the provision states: “As part of their proposals, offerors will submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract. … Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure.” Does the J.2 Price Evaluation Matrix (and rates presented in response to B.5(a)(1) of the RFP) satisfy this requirement or are offerors expected to submit a separate compensation plan?

See question No. 9.

66. In reference to table L-1 on page 99 of the RFP, could USAID please offer further guidance on page range and content of table L-1? For example, is the table expected to include project goals, approaches, or results?

Table L-1 will only include the name of the consortium member and the areas of expertise of that firm in that technical area.

67. Please clarify what goes into Table L, which is an appendix. Do the project summaries also go into Table L, or is Table L a one-page document that just identifies which consortium members are expected to do most of the work in each of the five technical areas? If the latter, do the project summaries go into the body of the proposal as the primary content of the technical proposal that is subject to the RFP's 15-page limit?

The 15 page technical proposal is provided for the project summaries. Table L-1 will only include the name of the consortium member and the areas of expertise of that firm in that technical area.

68. Please confirm that an offeror may propose a prime contractor and up to 14 firms for this IDIQ Contract

(assuming the prime contractor and each subcontractor would submit one project for each technical area and each technical area has 3 projects).

The offeror may propose a prime contractor and up to 13 firms for purposes of evaluation (two of the fifteen must have been performed by the prime offeror). While the offeror may form a larger consortium, USAID will only evaluate “the three consortium members (prime or subcontractors) anticipated to perform the largest percentage of effort under each of the five technical areas set forth in Table L-1”

69. Section L.4(c)(2) specifies the information that should be included on the first page of the proposal. Please clarify whether the information specified in sections L.4(c)(2)(i) through L.4(c)(2)(v) should be:

included on both technical and cost proposals; and included on the cover/transmittal letter of the technical and cost proposals, rather than the cover.

The specified information must be included on the first page of the Technical Proposal and the first page of the Price/Business Proposal. Typically, the first page is a title page.

70. Section L.4. (e)(1), please confirm that the legend specified on Page 91 of the RFP can be included on the cover letter/transmittal letter of both technical and cost proposals.

The solicitation specifies that the legend shall be marked on the title page. The title pages of each volume (Technical Proposal and Price/Business Proposal) shall be marked.

71. On page 91, Section L.4.(f) states that “The Government intends to award a contract or contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors and subfactors in the solicitation.” This would appear to be in conflict with the cover letter that calls for the selection process to be “Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable.” Would you please identify the selection process that will be used? In the case of “Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable,” would you please provide information as to how the selection process will be done? That is, will the lowest price offer be determined first, then the corresponding technical proposal reviewed for acceptability and, if acceptable, the process stops there? Or will there be some other method by which the determination will be made?

Best value is defined in FAR 2.101 as “the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement”. The tradeoff process and lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) are two source selection processes to achieve best value.

LPTA will be the source selection process to achieve best value in the case of this solicitation. The evaluation criteria are specified in Section M.3. Offerors’ technical proposals will be evaluated against the criteria in M.3. Offerors who are evaluated greater than technically unacceptable for corporate capability/experience and greater than unsatisfactory for past performance will be ranked by price. The CO will then determine whether enough information is available to make awards without discussions or whether to proceed with a competitive range. For example, if the corporate capability/experience of one of the lowest-priced offerors is determined “susceptible to being made acceptable,” discussions may be necessary to permit a proposal revision to determine whether the offeror is technically acceptable.

72. Please confirm that a firm that is a prime contractor on a non small business set-aside proposal submission cannot also be a subcontractor on another non small business set-aside proposal submission.

There are no restrictions on other than small business prime offerors also being proposed as subcontractors on any other proposal.

73. The instructions page 94 state: “include two (2) copies in Compact Disc (CD) format containing both the

Technical and Price/Business Proposal together”. Please confirm that it means both the Technical and the Price/Business Proposal should be included on each CD. Given that the Technical and Price/Business Proposals must be kept separate (per page 94), should the CDs be separate from both proposals?

The technical proposal and price/business proposal should be included together on each CD and packaged separately from the hard copies. The CDs are for use by the Office of Acquisition and Assistance and are not provided to technical evaluators.

74. In section L.6 (d) on page 94, the instructions for number of copies include the following sentence: “Along with the hard copies of your proposal submission, include two (2) copies in Compact Disc (CD) format containing both the Technical and Price/Business Proposal together in text accessible version with Excel formulas accessible.” The preceding paragraph, however, indicates that “the Technical and Price/Business Proposals must be kept separate from each other.” Please clarify whether these CDs should be packaged together with the Technical Proposal or with the Cost Proposal, or in a separate envelope not included in either the Technical nor Cost Proposal envelopes.

See question No. 73.

75. The instructions in Section L.7 on page 95 provide delivery hours for the 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue location, but no delivery hours are specified in L.6 (f) for hand-deliveries at Federal Center Plaza. If an offeror is submitting its proposal before March 18, please confirm the hours between which USAID will accept receipt of proposals at the Federal Center Plaza location.

8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time. Please note the revised closing date of May 16, 2011.

76. What time does the USAID Office of Acquisition & Assistance, located at Federal Center Plaza, open on April 18th?

See question No.75.

77. Section L.6(a), page 94. While we recognize that a CD containing electronic files is required as part of the submission, please explain why electronic proposal submissions are not acceptable.

We anticipate a large number of proposals under this RFP and we do not have the logistical capacity to make all of the copies required for evaluators.

78. Page 96 L.8 (b): The written technical proposal is limited to 15 pages. It appears that the 15 page limit is exclusively devoted to describing the 15 projects. Can you confirm that is the case, or is it supposed to include an introduction to the full consortium, as well as considerations on IDIQ and Task Order management?

The 15 page technical proposal is for the purpose of providing the 15 project submissions which will be

79. Page 97: “All critical information from appendices should be summarized in the technical proposal.” It appears that the only appendices for the technical proposal are the Contractor Performance Reports. Are there any additional appendices which should be provided? Will additional appendices be considered?

No additional appendices should be provided or will be evaluated.

80.