AMENDMENT NO.01 72012120R00007.pdf

5. PROJECT NO.

CODE

7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODE CODE

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:

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended,

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning __________ copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment of 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 AC- KNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV. 10-83)

is required to sign this document and return ___________ copies to the issuing office. is not, 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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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.

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

D. OTHER

BY /s/ 09/28/2020

Contractor

16C. DATE SIGNED

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

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.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

STANDARD FORM 30 STANDARD FORM 30

(Type or print) (Type or print)

(Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

(No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

(If other than Item 6)

(Specify type of modification and authority)

(such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)

(If required)

(If applicable)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

(X)

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

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

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

1 7

01 See Block 16 C.

USAID/Kyiv Regional Contract Office Dept. of State 5850 Kyiv Place Washington, DC 20521-5850

USAID/Kyiv Regional Contract Office Dept. of State 5850 Kyiv Place Washington, D.C. 20521-5850

TO ALL OFFERORS x 72012120R00007

September 4, 2020

X x one

The purpose of this Amendment No. 01 is to:

1. Provide answers to the questions submitted by potential Offerors regarding Request for Proposal

(RFP)No.:72012120R00007 USAID Governance and Local Accountability (HOVERLA) Activity; and

2. Revise Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 72012120R00007.

Daniel E. Harter Regional Contracting Officer

RFP No. 72012120R00007 Amendment No. 01

PART I – ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS

Questions regarding RFP No. 72012120R00007

Q.1 Page 130 (Section L.8 B) lists “Past Performance” separately from “Annexes,” while page 133, Section L.8 B (8) lists past performance information as Annex 4. Could USAID please confirm that past performance references are to be included as Annex 4 to the technical proposal?

A.1 Please be advised that your understanding of these two sections is not correct. Page 130 of the

RFP, 7) Contractor Past Performance Information – this is what Offerors should propose for FACTOR 4. PAST PERFORMANCE. Factor 4 is a Technical Evaluation Factor. Additionally, Offerors’ Technical Proposal should include Annex 4 where Offerors should provide Contractor Performance Reports – Short Form (Attachment J.3 of this RFP).

Q.2 Could USAID please clarify the intended focus of the Past Performance references? On page 132

(Section L.8 B (7)), one of the most relevant indicators of performance is “type of work identified in the SOW (local governance, decentralization, community development, infrastructure/service delivery, and/or civic engagement programming);” however, on page 133 (Section L.8 B (8)), it is stated that the past performance should be “relevant to media, communications, countering disinformation, and/or social impact content development activities.”

A.2 USAID apologies for the typo. Page 133, Section L.8 B (8) Annexes to Technical Proposal, ANNEX: 4, first sentence should read as follows: “Prime Offeror’s and Offeror’s Major Sub- Contractors’ past performance information relevant to local governance, decentralization, community development, infrastructure/service delivery, and/or civic engagement programming from the past three years.” Please see the revised RFP.

Q.3 Could USAID please confirm that both the small business narrative summary described in

Section L.8 B (7) (d) (3) (A) and the small business concern references in L.8 B (7) (d) (3) (C) should be part of the Technical Proposal, specifically, Annex 4 (Past Performance Information)?

A.3 It should be part of the Technical Proposal, under Past Performance. This will be evaluated under

Factor 4 Past Performance. It should not be a part of Annex 4.

Q.4 L.8.A. (p. 129). May offerors use a smaller and/or different font for tables, graphics, and textboxes?

A.4 Unfortunately, no. Please be kind to the future evaluators.

Q.5 Section H.9(d) of the RFP (page 55) holds offerors to 5 percent annual salary increases. We respectfully request that USAID remove this salary restriction from the RFP because it appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007, Personnel Compensation, and the RFP incorporates AIDAR 752.7007 into the contract under Section H.8 (page 54). AIDAR 752.7007 stipulates that “direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices,” with reimbursement subject only to the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold. The salary restriction in H.9(d) may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices, as required by AIDAR 752.7007.

A.5 Unfortunately, no. This is special contract requirement based on the current practices in the region.

Q.6 Section H.9(f) and Section H.10(b) of the RFP (page 55) of the RFP appear to be inconsistent with

AIDAR 752.7007, Personnel Compensation, which the RFP incorporates into the contract under Section H.8 (page 54). Although AIDAR 752.7007 stipulates that “direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices,” the salary restrictions in H.9(f) and H.10(b) may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices.

We respectfully request that USAID amend the part of Section H.9(f) on consultants to read:

Consultants: Any consultant’s daily or hourly compensation shall be negotiated with due regard for prevailing compensation levels for similar consulting services. Annual increases are not authorized for consultants.

We also respectfully request that USAID amend Section H.10(b) to read:

The Contractor shall not engage any new or replacement professional personnel (including long-term employees and short-term consultants) to work under the contract without prior written approval of the COR. COR approval is technical approval of professional personnel and does not include the review of biodata or the approval of rates.

A.6 USAID does not plan to revise this section of the RFP. This is special contract requirement based on the current practices in the region.

Q.7 Section H.26 (13) of the RFP (page 63) includes the following sentence: “Copies of all reports received from grantees will be promptly forwarded to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR).” We respectfully request that USAID remove this sentence from the RFP given that neither ADS 302 nor ADS 303 have authorizing language that requires the COR to receive grantee reports.

We also respectfully request that USAID remove the following sentence from the same section:

“At the conclusion of the contract, the Contractor must consult with the Contracting Officer for direction as to which records must be transferred to USAID.” Although USAID retains the visitation and inspection rights to records related to a grant for three years after the grant’s completion date, all records under this contract are considered the property of the contractor. The contractor must, therefore, retain these records in accordance with the contractor’s record retention policies originating from audit requirements.

A.7 USAID does not plan to revise this section of the RFP. Please note, the requirement regarding records is a requirement to consult with the Contracting Officer.

Q.8 Section L.8.B(8) (page 133) states that Annex 4 should include the “Prime Offeror’s and Offeror’s

Major Sub-Contractors’ past performance information relevant to media, communications, countering disinformation, and/or social impact content development activities from the past three years”. Could USAID please confirm that Annex 4 should primarily include past performance information relevant to local governance, decentralization, community development, infrastructure/service delivery, or civic engagement programming activities from the past three years?

A.8 USAID apologizes for the typo. Please see A.2 above and the revised RFP.

Q.9 Section L.9(b)(3)(J) of the RFP (page 140) states that “GUCs are not meant for in-kind support where equipment and supplies and services will be provided to communities and other stakeholders.” Section H.26(3) (page 62), however, notes that “The Contractor is authorized to provide funds as in-kind assistance only to a particular partner government entity,” and Section C.6 (pages 17) states that “USAID anticipates that there will be numerous ‘Grants Under Contract’ (GUCs) to Ukrainian organizations such as various local government associations.” Would USAID consider amending the language in L.9(b)(3)(J) to allow for in-kind grants to both government entities and NGOs?

By providing funds as in-kind grants, the contractor could increase accountability among grantees.

The contractor could require a grantee to perform certain activities that advanced its objectives as well as the contract’s objectives to receive certain goods and services. At the same time, the contractor could maintain ownership of any equipment until the successful completion of the grant and tie capacity building elements into the grant that would improve the grantee’s sustainability.

This arrangement would align with the RFP requirement that in-kind support “always be used to help put in place sustainable systems related to mandates as opposed to ‘one-off presents’” (page 18).

In addition, it would be beneficial to include an in-kind component as part of another grant type — for example, in the case that a grantee has limited cash flow or capacity to manage complex procurements.

A.9 USAID does not envision a revision of this section and believes the scenarios you describe are possible under the requirements for this potential contract. However, please ensure that your firm/organization understands the contracting difference between grants under contract (GUCs) and "in-kind" support. GUCs are not meant for the types of "in-kind" support where the contractor purchases equipment and supplies and/or services and then provides those items or services to communities and other stakeholders. Any GUC to a government entity would need to follow the guidance under ADS 302.3.4.13. USAID anticipates approximately $15M of the program budget for "in-kind" support and $12M specifically for GUCs.

Q.10 Section L.9 of the RFP (page 137) lists “Policies and Procedures” and “Evidence of Responsibility for prime and major subcontractors” as items to include in the cost proposal. However, the detailed instructions for these documents (pages 142 to 143) state that the contractor should submit copies of these materials if the contracting officer or the contracting officer’s representative requests them. Could USAID please clarify whether offerors should submit these supporting documents at the proposal stage or whether offerors should only submit these documents upon request?

A.10 This is to confirm that Policies and Procedures should be submitted upon receiving a specific request from the Contracting Officer. However, Evidence of Responsibility for Prime and Major Subcontractor is required to be submitted as part of the Cost Proposal to make an affirmative determination of responsibility pursuant to the requirements of FAR § 9.104-1.

Q.11 Attachment J.2 of the RFP (page 150) includes SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, and

Section L.9(b) (page 137) lists SF-LLL as an item to include in the cost proposal. Could USAID please clarify whether only the prime offeror should complete this form or whether all major subcontractors should also complete the form?

A.11 Only the Prime Offeror should complete the form.

Q.12 Will USAID kindly share a copy of the PEA on Decentralization Reform Report (2018)?

A.12 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B6zQAUVAtvV-DXuxmusPqBG_NNBra3-n/view?usp=sharing

Q.13 Section L.9: On page 137, the RFP notes that, “Biographical Data sheets and justification in support of proposed salary rates for key personnel and other named personnel.” On page 138, the RFP states that biographical data sheets “must be provided for proposed key personnel and other named professional staff/personnel.” Please confirm that biographical data sheets need to be provided only for long-term technical assistance staff, not short-term consultants.

A.13 Confirmed.

Q.14 Section L.7: Please confirm that Annex 4 should include Contractor Performance Information as described on page 132 in Section L.8.b.7, and projects similar to the type of work identified in the SOW are those with a focus on local governance, decentralization, community development, infrastructure/service delivery, and/or civic engagement programming.

A.14 Confirmed. USAID apologizes for the typo. Please see the revised RFP.

Q.15 Section L.8, page 129: The RFP states that the proposal “must be written in English using Times

New Roman font, point 12 size…” Please confirm that offerors may use a smaller font size for tables and graphics.

A.15 No. Please see A.4.

Q.16 Will USAID please confirm that only major subcontractors are required to include their most current Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA), certification of SAM registration, Section K, Evidence of Responsibility, and information concerning Work-Day, Work-Week and Paid Absences?

A.16 Confirmed.

Q.17 Section H.9: On page 54, the RFP states, “If, during contract performance, the contractor proposes salary or wages for a new individual(s) that exceeds 10% of the current salary or wage or the highest annual salary or wage received during any full year of the immediately preceding three (3) years, the Cognizant Contracting Officer’s approval is required.” The same section on page 55 states, “Any consultants daily or hourly compensation shall be negotiated with due regard for prevailing compensation levels for similar consulting services, and shall not exceed the highest rate of compensation received by the consultant during the immediately preceding three years.

Annual increases are not authorized for consultants.” The latest version of the Contractor Biographical Data Sheet – USAID Form 1420-17, as required in Section L.9, Part 1 (A) on page 138, does not require potential employees or consultants to disclose their salary or consultant rate history. Could USAID please confirm that Offerors should use market data rather than salary or rate history in determining proposed salaries for this activity, including consultant rates, and remove all language related to using salary or rate history to establish proposed salaries and rates?

A.17 USAID does not plan to revise this section of the RFP. All factors should be considered, market data and salary history as well. USAID’s revision of bio data form 1420 does not mean that USAID relinquishes its right to request information to make reasonable rate determinations and https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B6zQAUVAtvV-DXuxmusPqBG_NNBra3-n/view?usp=sharing

CO approvals of those proposed rates during contract performance. USAID reserves the right to request any information related to justifying the salaries proposed at that time.

Q.18 Section H.10, page 55: The RFP states, “if during contract performance, the contractor proposes salary or wages for a new individual(s) that exceeds 10% of the current salary or wage or the highest annual salary or wage received during any full year of the immediately preceding three (3) years, the CO’s review of the bio data and approval of personnel and the rate is required.” The latest version of the Contractor Biographical Data Sheet – USAID Form 1420-17, as required in Section L.9, Part 1 (A) on page 138, does not require potential employees or consultants to disclose their salary or consultant rate history. Could USAID please confirm that Offerors should use market data rather than salary or rate history in determining proposed salaries for this activity, including consultant rates, and remove all language related to using salary or rate history to establish proposed salaries and rates?

A.18 See A.17 above.

Q.19 Section L.9 (b), page 137: The RFP includes SF 294 “Subcontracting Report for Individual

Contracts” as a required part of the cost proposal. However, this document is for projects that require a subcontracting plan, which has not been mentioned as a requirement elsewhere in Section L. Would USAID please confirm the SF 294 is not required as part of the cost proposal submission?

A.19 No. SF 294 should be submitted as part of the Cost Proposal.

Q.20 Section L.9, Part 1, page 137: The RFP states the Standard Form (SF) 33 must include an original signature. Could USAID please confirm the acceptability of electronic signatures for the SF-33?

A.20 Yes.

Q.21 Section L.9, Part 2 (A), page 138: Given the requirement to compile information supporting local salaries to establish the compensation structure, would USAID provide a detailed FSN Scale as an additional set of data to inform a more robust evaluation of Ukraine compensation?

A.21 Please be advised that the current maximum daily rate for senior locally hired specialists is

$251.23 under USAID contracts. The ranges for the grades of the Local Compensation Plan for Ukraine are provided in the tables below (in U.S. Dollars).

UKRAINE

UKRAINE

Grade

Salary Range of the First Step of each Grade (per year)

Salary Range of the Last Step of each Grade (per year)

FSN-12 50,250 65,320

FSN-11 40,043 52,053

FSN-10 28,811 37,461

FSN-9 25,396 33,016

FSN-8 19,494 25,344

FSN-7 17,028 22,128

FSN-6 13,774 17,914

FSN-5 12,354 16,064

FSN-4 10,158 13,208

FSN-3 9,251 12,021

FSN-2 7,959 10,349

FSN-1 6,565 8,535

Please note the Local Compensation Plan for Ukraine is currently under reconsideration. Therefore, Offerors are expected to conduct their own market research for determining the salary scale for locally hired positions in Ukraine or rely on their previous work experience and other implementing partners’ experience in the region.

Q.22 Section L.9, Part 2(M), page 141: The RFP states, “The Offerors are requested to include the ceiling indirect cost rates for Prime and Major Subcontractors.” Could USAID please confirm that U.S. small businesses or local organizations that are proposed as major subcontractors would not be required to propose indirect cost rate ceilings?

A.22 No. The RFP states: “Offerors are requested to include the ceiling indirect cost rates for Prime and

Major Subcontractors.” If local organizations do not have established indirect costs, it should be reflected in the Cost Proposal.

II. PART II – REVISED RFP No. 72012120R00007

Based on the questions received for USAID Governance and Local Accountability (HOVERLA) Activity RFP, the revised version of the RFP is posted. USAID edits/revisions are marked in yellow in the revised document.

[End of Amendment No. 01 to RFP No. 72012120R00007]