Amendment No 2 RFP Number72067424R00005 Responses to Questions FE.pdf

USAID Responses to Questions Received Under RFP Number: 72067424R00005, USAID/Southern Africa Countering Wildlife Crime (CWC) Activity

No Question USAID Response 1 In the RFP Cover Letter, Section B.2 (page 3), and

Section B.8 (page 6), USAID states that this is intended to be a CPFF Term contract. However, in B.7 (page 6), it states that fee will be “tied to the execution of tasks and achievement of results per objective outlined in Section C and the deliverables and outputs outlined in Section F, subject to inspection and acceptance by USAID and in compliance with the terms of this Contract. Upon acceptance by USAID and receipt of approval from the Contracting Officer, the Contractor must submit an invoice for the amount of the fee associated with the deliverable and approved fee schedule…” This language appears to suggest a CPFF Completion contract type. Can USAID please confirm which contract type is correct?

This is a CPFF Term contract. The language in B.7 has been updated accordingly.

2 In Section B.4 (page 4), the amount of $5,500,000 is listed as a lumpsum reserved for GUCs, and this figure is also listed under C.8 Grants Under Contract (page 21); however, in Section L.10(2)(d)(ix) (page 116) the amount states that the offer must use a plug-in number of $5,000,000 for Grants Under Contract. Can USAID please clarify which is the correct and required Grants Under Contract plug figure?

The correct and required Grants under Contract plug figure is $5,500,000. L.10 has been updated accordingly.

3 In Section C.3 (page 9), USAID states that bilateral missions “outside of the responsibility of USAID/Southern Africa may buy in to potentially receive support under this Activity, to complement their own bilateral efforts.” Would you USAID please clarify how USAID defines “outside of the responsibility” of USAID Southern Africa? Does this refer to any country not including in the following list:

Angola, Botswana, eSwatini, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe?

The countries within the responsibility of USAID/Southern Africa include Angola, Botswana, eSwatini, Lesotho, Madagascar, Namibia and South Africa. All other countries are outside of the responsibility.

4 Section C.4 (page 10) mentions a compilation of lessons learned and feedback with respect to countering wildlife crime. Would USAID consider sharing a summary of these lessons and feedback so that proposals build on these lessons and feedback, enhancing the overall quality of proposals?

No, no additional information will be provided.

No Question USAID Response 5 In Section C.7 (page 19) and Section C.10 (page 22), the

RFP mentions a new Activity on investigative journalism and states that the CWC Activity must complement and coordinate with the Investigative Journalism Activity. However, the link in Section C.10 appears to be broken. Could USAID provide more information on the Investigative Journalism Activity to ensure that CWC proposals adequately understand that Activity and can describe appropriate coordination and collaboration approaches (and avoid duplication)?

The link has been restored. No additional information will be provided. Here is the updated link https://www.grants.gov/search-results-detail/350970

6 In Section C.10 (page 22), USAID mentions a USAID Strengthening Anti-Corruption Efforts and Procedures in Southern Africa Activity. Could USAID provide more information on this Activity to ensure that CWC proposals adequately understand the Activity and can describe appropriate coordination and collaboration approaches (and avoid duplication)?

No, no additional information will be provided.

7 In Section F.6. (page 40), among the Chief of Party’s required skills, USAID states “They should have demonstrated experience managing similar programs in Africa.” Would USAID kindly consider revising the listed qualification to “managing similarly complex programs”?

No, they should have demonstrated experience managing similar programs in Africa.

8 In Section J.2 (page 99), the list of attachments notes that biographical data sheets are to be submitted for all proposed Key Personnel. Could USAID kindly confirm that these are to be submitted as part of the cost volume?

This has been removed.

9 In reference to Section L.8(b) (page 108), as with graphics and tables, may offerors present textboxes in Calibri font point size 9?

No, text boxes should be Calibri point size 12.

10 In reference to Section L.8(c) (page 108), may offerors include an Executive Summary that does not count toward the 20-page technical proposal limit?

No, USAID will not consider this.

11 Section L.8(c)(5) (page 109) states that there is no page limit for Annexes, however, Section L.9(c) Annex A (page 112) states that Annex A is not to exceed 5 pages. Could USAID kindly clarify page limits for Annex A?

Section L.8 states that Annexes are not included in the page limit, not that annexes do not have page limits. The page limit for Annex A is 5 pages.

12 In Section L.9(c)1 (page 111), in describing the

Management and Staffing Plan, USAID notes “Details of each Key Personnel position should be included in Annex B, not in the Management and Staffing Plan.”

Would USAID kindly confirm whether names of proposed Key Personnel are permitted to be referenced in the Management and Staffing Plan section?

Names of Key Personnel can be referenced in the Management and Staffing Plan section.

13 In Section L.9(c), in reference to Annex B (page 112), could USAID clarify whether this Annex should speak to only the proposed position qualifications (generally) or whether USAID seeks bidders to cite the nominated key personnel candidate’s qualifications and experiences to meet the key personnel role requirements?

Offerors should speak to the proposed qualifications generally.

14 In Section L.9(c), Annex A (Technical Volume) (page 112), USAID requests that “The Offeror must also submit a level of effort chart for the proposed staffing plan for the performance of this Contract.” Would USAID kindly clarify or confirm that the LOE table belongs only in the cost proposal?

The LOE chart must also be submitted as Annex A to the Technical Proposal, as per the instructions in Section L.9(c).

15 In reference to Section L.9(c), Annex B (page 112), could USAID kindly confirm that, at proposal submission, no additional information is required regarding the backgrounds of the proposed Key Personnel other than names and three professional references?

Offerors must select key personnel candidates who meet the qualifications proposed by the Offeror for each position.

The Offeror must also propose the name of the individuals proposed to fill each Key Personnel position and provide a minimum of three professional references for each individual.

16 Section L.9(c) (page 112) states the details of each Key Personnel position should be included in Annex B, not in the Management and Staffing Plan. However, in the first paragraph under Factor 2: Management and Staffing Approach, the last sentence states “This section will describe how the team will be managed, including the roles and responsibilities of team members…” Could USAID kindly clarify that Offerors will not be penalized for including brief descriptions of Key Personnel positions in this section?

Confirmed. Offerors will not be penalized for including brief descriptions of Key Personnel.

However, detailed information regarding Key Personnel is only required in Annex B.

17 Section L.9(d) (pages 113) does not indicate the total number of past performance references if the Prime Offeror is providing only projects listed in CPARS. Could USAID kindly confirm the number of past performance references that meet the conditions of L.9(d)(1)?

Offerors must provide three past performance references of projects listed in CPARS.

18 M.2(c) indicates that (4) Summary of Key Personnel will be a component of the Management and Staffing Approach. Does this refer to the summary of Key Personnel descriptions included in Annex B? Is USAID suggesting this summary should also fall in the Management and Staffing Approach?

Please note that Annex A and Annex B, detailed in L.9(c), are part of the Management and Staffing Approach. As Key Personnel are detailed in Annex B, this information is part of the Management and Staffing Approach and will be evaluated, as per M.2(c).

19 Section L.9(b)(5) (page 110) and Section M.2(b)(5) (page 120) state that Grants Under Contract must include clear criteria with respect to “those identified by local communities and stakeholders…” Could USAID please clarify what sort of criteria from local communities and stakeholders should be included? Do these criteria from local communities and stakeholders refer to objectives of the grants program stated in Section C.8 (page 21)?

Yes, these criteria from local communities and stakeholders refer to objectives of the grants program stated in Section C.8 (page 21). Any grants under contract to fund should be clearly linked to priorities and objectives that Southern Africa organizations and local communities and stakeholders have. This should be a top criteria that we consider under this contract as we decide what grants to fund.

20 In Section M.2(c) (pages 120 and 121), there appear to be two sets of sub-factors related to the Management and Staffing Approach: four sub-factors on page 120 and six sub-factors on page 121. Could USAID please clarify if these are all sub-factors and whether they are all of equal importance?

Yes, all sub-factors on pages 120 and 121 are of equal importance.

21 Section L.8(b), page 108, specifies, “Calibri font point size 9 is acceptable for graphics and tables provided that it is legible.” Would USAID confirm offerors may also use 9-point font for text boxes?

See response to question number 9.

22 Section L.9(c), on page 111, Factor 2: Management and

Staffing Approach requires offerors to propose “(2) An Implementation Plan for how the Offeror will establish on-the-ground operations and mobilize human and financial resources to launch the program rapidly.”

Would USAID consider allowing the Implementation Plan to be moved to an annex that does not count against the overall 20-page limit for the Technical Proposal? Given the importance of Factor 2, this would allow for additional room for offerors to fully address Factor 2 in sufficient detail to respond to USAID’s requirements.

No, USAID will not consider this.

23 Section L.9, Annex B, on page 112, USAID states “The Offeror must also propose the name of the individuals proposed to fill each Key Personnel position and provide a minimum of three professional references for each individual.” Further in Section M on page 121, USAID states among the evaluation criteria, “The ability of the Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel to effectively and efficiently respond to the requirements described in Section C.” Will USAID clarify that only the position descriptions are being evaluated? Will USAID consider removing the requirement to provide key personnel names or allow offerors to include the CVs of named key personnel so they can be effectively evaluated according to Sections L and M requirements?

See response to question number 15.

24 Would USAID please confirm that the resultant award will be a CFPP Term contract?

Confirmed. This will be a CFPP Term Contract

25 If a CPFF Term contract, kindly clarify whether USAID will provide a level of effort (LOE) ceiling for professional LOE or whether each Offeror may propose a ceiling for professional LOE based on its own technical approach.

Each offeror must propose a ceiling for professional LOE based on its own technical approach.

26 If a CPFF Term contract, could USAID please confirm that the payment of fixed fee will be linked to LOE days and Offerors are not required to include a fee schedule in their Cost and Business proposal?

Confirmed.

27 If a CPFF Term contract, could USAID please remove or amend the language in Sections B.2 and B.7 that is relevant to a CPFF Completion contract?

See response to question 1.

29 Would USAID please clarify which plug amount offerors should set aside for GUC?

See response to question 2.

30 Could USAID please clarify whether the $5M (or $5.5M) in GUC is a fixed plug or a ceiling that offerors should not exceed but may adapt per their proposed technical approach?

$5,500,000 is a fixed plug.

31 Section B.7, Payment of Fixed Fee, on page 6, states, “… the fixed fee payable under this Contract will be tied to the execution of tasks and achievements of results per objective outlined in Section C and the deliverables and outputs outlined in Section F …” Would USAID please clarify whether offerors should include a fee schedule as a required element of the Cost and Business Proposal or whether USAID will negotiate a fee schedule only with the successful offeror at award?

Fee schedule will be negotiated with the successful offeror at award. B.7 language has been revised.

32 Both RFP Section B.5 on page 6, and RFP Section L.9(d)(2) on page 113, state, “‘Major Subcontractors’ [are] those subcontractors whose proposed costs exceed 20% of the Contractor’s proposed total cost or perform a key element of the RFP.” However, Section L.8(c)(1) on page 108, states, “… major subcontractors, defined as those subcontractors whose proposed cost is expected to exceed 20% of the Offeror’s total estimated cost for the resulting Contract (Major Subcontractors).” Would USAID please confirm the definition of “major subcontractor” for the purposes of this solicitation?

The correct definition is "subcontractors whose proposed costs exceed 20% of the Contractor’s proposed total cost or perform a key element of the RFP." L.8 has been updated accordingly.

33 Would USAID please confirm that offerors should set aside $2 million for buy-ins in their proposed budgets?

No amount should be set aside for buy-ins. Other missions may fund certain activities under this contract that are included in the overall budget. Offerors do not need to take this buy-in into consideration in their proposals.

The language has been updated accordingly.

34 Would USAID please confirm that the $2 million for buy-ins is inclusive of direct costs plus an offeror’s applicable indirect costs and fixed fee?

As stated above, Offerors do not need to consider this amount in their proposals.

35 Would USAID please confirm that offerors may budget the buy-ins as a separate cost category in their proposed budgets?

Offerors should not budget for the buy-ins.

36 Would USAID please clarify what percentage of the

GUC could be funded by buy-ins? Should offerors budget less than $5 million (or $5.5 million) for GUC to avoid duplication with the $2 million for buy-ins?

Again, offerors should not consider the buy-in in their proposals.

37 Regarding Attachment J.3, Budget Template, on page 99, would USAID please confirm that offerors may use their own standard template, provided the major cost items are ordered in the same way as USAID’s budget template in Attachment J.3?

Yes, offerors may use their own template so long as ordered in the same order.

38 RFP Sections L.4(e)(1), Offer of Acceptability, and L.4(g), Offer Validity, both on page 106, as well as Section L.10(1), Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost and Business Proposal (Standard Form [SF] 33) on page 114, require offerors to complete boxes 12 through 18 of SF 33; however, USAID has not included this form with the solicitation. Would USAID please provide an SF-33 for this proposal?

https://www.gsa.gov/system/fil es/SF33-22.pdf

39 Section M.3(d), Cost and Business Proposal Evaluation, on page 123, refers to “The competitiveness of ceilings proposed for indirect rates, if any.” Including indirect cost limitation instructions in the “Cost and Business Proposal Evaluation” section of an RFP is counter to guidance contained in ADS 300mah (Best Practices Guide for Indirect Costing), which states, “Indirect costs should not be reviewed as part of any cost-effective evaluation criteria.” Would USAID please remove the reference to indirect costs ceilings from Section M.3(d)?

This has been removed.

40 While not listed as a required element of the cost proposal, would USAID please confirm that offerors may submit Information to Support Consent to Subcontract per FAR 44.202-2 as an Annex to the Cost/Business Proposal to ensure timely engagement of subcontractors?

Submission of consent to subcontract is not required and should not be submitted at this time.

41 Would USAID consider inclusion of a two-page executive summary outside the twenty-page Technical Proposal page limitation?

No.

https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/SF33-22.pdf https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/SF33-22.pdf

42 The cover letter and Section B.2 (p. 3) state that the resulting award will be a Cost-Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) Term Type contract. However, Section B.2 mandates that the Offeror “provide the deliverables our outputs described in Sections C and F” and Section B.7 incorporates a deliverable based fee schedule, both of which are more indicative of a CPFF-completion contract. Can USAID please confirm that the intended mechanism is a CPFF Term Type Contract?

See response to question number 1.

43 Section C.3, Place of Performance (p. 9) states that “USAID bilateral missions outside of the responsibility of USAID/Southern Africa may buy in to potentially receive support under this Activity, to complement their own bilateral efforts. Buy-ins would fall under the $24 million ceiling for this Activity. USAID estimates approximately $2 million to be set aside for potential buy-ins.” However, there is no cost category/line item for the $2 million buy-in fund in any of the budget formats USAID provided (J.3, B.2, and L.10). Could USAID clarify how offerors should budget for the $2 million buy in fund?

See responses to questions 33- 36.

44 Section F.6 (p.39) states, “All Key Personnel must be employed by the prime Contractor and fully attributed to this activity.” Would USAID consider allowing key personnel positions proposed by the offeror to be employed by a subcontractor instead of the prime contractor, while still being fully attributed to this activity?

Yes, USAID would consider this.

Section F.6 has been updated.

45 Section I.5 (e)4 (p. 94) refers to an award fee schedule, stating, “Loss of award fee, consistent with the award fee plan, for the performance period in which the Government determined Contractor non-compliance.”

Assuming USAID intends to award a CPFF-type contract, would USAID remove reference to “award fee” from the RFP?

This has been removed.

46 Would USAID confirm that offerors should also include key personnel CVs in Annex B, Summary of Key Personnel Positions?

Please see the response to question number 15.

47 Section J, List of Attachments (p. 99), includes as Attachment J.2 “Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet – Form No. AID 1420-17 (to be completed only for key personnel)”. Can USAID clarify where in

This has been removed. Offerors do not need to submit this biographical data sheet for key personnel.

the Cost and Business Proposal offerors should provide the key personnel Biographical Data Sheets?

48 Section L.8 ‘Instructions for Preparation of the Technical Proposal’ (page 108) states that “The Cover Page must list all proposed major subcontractors, defined as those subcontractors whose proposed cost is expected to exceed 20% of the Offeror’s total estimated cost for the resulting Contract (Major Subcontractors).” Could USAID confirm that major subcontractors can also be defined as those who perform a key element of the RFP, as stated under B.5 and L.9?

See response to question number 32.

49 Section L.9(c) (p. 112) states, “The Offeror must submit an organizational chart depicting the Activity’s organizational structure and office(s) with lines of authority, general descriptions of staff roles, and responsibilities for all home office and field employees necessary to implement the Activity.” Could USAID confirm that the organizational chart should depict the activity’s organizational structure and office(s) with lines of authority and that the staffing plan matrix, as a separate table/graphic, should depict general descriptions of staff roles and responsibilities for all home office and field employees necessary to implement the activity?

Yes, confirmed.

50 Section L.9(d)(1) (pg. 113) states that “For past performance for which the Contractor has received a Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) report, the Offeror need only provide the prime Offeror’s name, UEI number, and contract number.” Could USAID confirm that offerors should provide the above information for three of the most relevant awards within the last five years for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal, as required under L.9(d)(2) for contracts not in CPARS? Would USAID consider allowing preparation of the “Past Performance Information Sheet” attached as Attachment J.1 for these awards as well?

See response to question number 17. No, J.1 should not be submitted for contracts in CPARS. Offerors are not restricted from nor required to submit the “Past Performance Information Sheet” for contracts that are in CPARS.

51 Section L.9(d)(2) (pg. 113) states that “For contracts not in CPARS, Offerors and Major Subcontractors (those subcontractors whose proposed costs exceed 20% of the Contractor’s proposed total cost or perform a key element of the RFP) must use the ‘Past Performance Information Sheet’ attached as Attachment J.1 to this RFP. Using this Past Performance Information Sheet, Offerors must submit, as Annex C, a list of three of the most relevant awards within the last five years for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal.” Could USAID confirm that the requirement is for three most relevant awards for the offeror and three most relevant awards per major subcontractor?

Yes, confirmed. Three for prime and three for Major subcontractors.

52 Section L.10(2)(d) (p. 116) states under “ix. Grants Under Contract” that “The Offeror must use a plug-in number of $5,000,000 for Grants Under Contract.” Can USAID confirm that this number should read $5,500,000, in alignment with Sections B.4 and C.8?

See response to question number 2.

53 In Section F.6 on KEY PERSONNEL, the Solicitation states that all Key Personnel must be employed by the prime Contractor and fully attributed to this activity.

This stipulation would limit the full participation of local partners and small businesses who might employ key personnel positions to ensure shared ownership and participation in decision making for the project. In the spirit of contributing to USAID’s localization efforts, might USAID reconsider this requirement to allow key personnel to be employed by subcontractors?

Please see the response to question number 44. Section F.6 has been updated.

54 Section L.10 (2)(d) (page 116) under “x. Indirect Costs” the RFP states that “If the Offeror or any Major Subcontractor(s) does not have a cognizant Government Audit Agency, audited balance sheets and profit and loss statements for the last two complete years, and the current year-to-date statements (or such lesser period of time if the Offeror is a newly-formed organization), must be included in the proposal. The profit and loss statements must include detail of the total cost of goods and services sold, including a listing of the various indirect administrative costs, and be supplemented by information on the prime Contractor’s customary indirect cost allocation method, together with supporting computations of the

This language has been updated accordingly.

basis for the indirect cost rate(s) proposed.” This requirement will severely and negatively impact the ability of small and local organizations to serve as major subcontractors. Would USAID consider changing this clause to have any and/or all of the following be acceptable: (a) Accountant prepared financial statements for the last two complete years? (b) Labor categories and rates accepted under previous USAID/USG contracts (e.g., GSA MAS Schedules or similar Category Management vehicles)? (c) Waiving the requirement for organizations with revenues of less than $5M?

55 In Section C.3 Place of Performance, how will initiatives be prioritized in limited USAID presence countries vis-a-vis presence countries?

This will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Please see the response to question number 33.

56 In Section C.3 Place of Performance, the RFP mentions that $2M of the ceiling will be set aside for potential buy-ins. If bilateral missions provide additional funding beyond the initial $2M, will the $24M ceiling be raised?

Section C.3 Place of Performance has been updated.

57 Section F.6, page 39, states that “All Key Personnel must be employed by the prime Contractor and fully attributed to this activity.” In light of USAID’s localization strategy would USAID consider removing the requirement that Key Personnel be employed directly by the Prime Contractor?

Please see the response to question number 44. Section F.6 has been updated.

58 Page 99 of the RFP states that “Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet – Form No. AID 1420-17 (to be completed only for key personnel)” are required, and page 112 states that “The Offeror must also propose the name of the individuals proposed to fill each Key Personnel position and provide a minimum of three professional references for each individual.” Given that Offerors will present a list of each KP’s skill sets, the name of individuals proposed to fill each KP role, and the KP biographical data sheets at proposal submission, is it USAID’s intent to provide KP approval upon award?

The Biographical Data Sheet has been removed from Section J.

USAID does intend to give KP approval upon award.

59 Section F.5, page 38, states that “Quarterly financial reports should be disaggregated by funding stream and budget line.” Given reports are to be disaggregated by funding stream, will USAID please share the anticipated

This information will be provided at award.

funding streams for this Activity?

60 Section C.3, page 9, states that “Buy-ins would fall under the $24 million ceiling for this Activity. USAID estimates approximately $2 million to be set aside for potential buy-ins.” Is the $2m that is to be set aside for potential buy-ins anticipated to come from the CWC Activity budget?

Please see the response to question number 33.

61 Section L.10, page 116, states that “The Offeror must use a plug-in number of $5,000,000 for Grants Under Contract,” however, the RFP states in other places that it is $5,500,000. Could USAID confirm the correct plug-in number for Grants Under Contract?

Please see the response to question number 2.

62 Section L.10, page 114, states that “The summary budget must reflect summary cost information for each of the major budget categories for each of the Contract years separately as synopsized under Attachment J.4.”

To ensure alignment with offerors’ cost structures, would USAID allow offerors to use their own budget templates as long as they adhere to the primary budget categories featured in the budget template?

Please see the response to question number 37.

63 Section K.1, page 101, list “52.222-56 - Certification Regarding Trafficking in Persons Compliance Plan.”

Could USAID confirm that the Trafficking in Persons Compliance Plan is to be submitted at the time of award by the apparently successful awardee, and not as part of the cost proposal submission?

Yes, confirmed.

64 Section L.8, page 107, does not include an Executive Summary as part of the proposal. Would USAID allow for an executive summary of up to 2 pages, not to be counted against the 20-page limit?

No, USAID will not consider this.

65 Section L.9.C, page 111, states that “Offeror must provide details of the proposed Key Personnel, by completing the table in Section F.6 of this RFP and attaching it as Annex B.” As Section F.6 contains two tables, would USAID be open to Offerors presenting one table as Annex B as long as all required information is captured?

Both tables should be presented together, as Annex B.

66 Section H.15, page 116, states that “Pending USAID approval, the Contractor may provide grants to local Community Based Organizations (CBOs), Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), and Faith Based Organizations (FBOs).” Would USAID consider allowing grants to be made to entities other than CBOs, CSOs, and FBOs (such as for-profit entities that may be working in the CWC/conservation sector)?

Yes, confirmed.