Question and Answers Combined.pdf

RFP 72011521R00002

USAID Trade Central Asia Activity

Questions & Answers

Technical Questions:

1. Several sections of the RFP (F.5 [page 15], F.6.C [page 20], I.4 [page 84], and M.3.3 [page 143]) refer to task orders. We understand that this activity will be implemented under a standalone contract. Would USAID kindly confirm that all references to task orders in this RFP are not applicable and will be removed?

2. Throughout the RFP, USAID refers to task orders, including on page 143, Section M, where USAID indicates offerors will be evaluated on “capability … to respond rapidly to requests for task orders and perform required supplemental technical assistance without hindering performance under the completion portion of the contract.” Can USAID please clarify what is meant by task orders in this context, and what portion of the contract is not expected to be completion-type? In the event USAID removes reference to offerors capacity to rapidly respond to Task Orders as an evaluation criterion for the Management Approach, can USAID provide additional guidance on how the Management Approach will be evaluated?

USAID’s Response to Questions 1 and 2: USAID confirms that all references to task orders in this RFP are not applicable and are removed, the RFP is revised accordingly.

3. RFP Sections F.6 (page 16) and F.7 (page 23) state that the first-year work plan and the monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) plan will be due within 30 days of contract award.

Would USAID kindly consider extending the due date to 60 days after award to facilitate greater partner collaboration?

4. F.6. Deliverables and Required Reporting, Paragraph J. Final Report (p. 23) states that the final report will be submitted thirty (30) days prior to the project end, but under F.7. Delivery Schedule and Fixed Fee Payment Schedule (pg. 25) the table indicates the final report is due sixty (60) days after contract completion. Could USAID kindly confirm which due date is correct?

USAID’s Response to Questions 3 and 4: USAID extends the period to submit a first-year work plan and monitoring, evaluation and learning plan from 30 to 45 days. RFP is revised accordingly.

5. Section H.20 (page 50) mentions that the contractor (post-award) will develop an environmental manual, which is not a standard 22 CFR 216 document. Would USAID kindly elaborate on the expectations for what the environmental manual will include and how it will supplement the environmental mitigation and monitoring plan?

USAID’s Response: The environmental manual (EM) is a document which helps an implementing partner to identify, assess, avoid, mitigate and report to USAID, as appropriate the potential adverse environmental impacts and ensure environmental and related social sustainability. It briefly describes how the Activity will implement the requirements of the Trade Central Asia Initial Environmental Examination (to be completed by USAID prior to funding obligation) and applicable USAID directing documents such as 22 CFR216, ADS 201, 201mal, 201maw, ADS 312, ADS 312 mad, Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safer Use Action Plan (PERSUAP) (if applicable) and other directive documents in part of implementation of mitigation measures. The EM and related Framework Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (FEMMP) will only be required if USAID decides that there will be multiple interventions qualifying for a Negative Determination with Conditions.

6. Sections H.20 (page 51) and L.7.2.1 (page 128) state that the technical proposal must include an “illustrative budget for implementing the environmental compliance activities, including screening, mitigation, monitoring and reporting” and that “Offerors should reflect illustrative costs for environmental compliance implementation and monitoring in their cost proposal.” Since cost information cannot be included in the technical proposal, would USAID confirm that budget information for implementing environmental compliance activities should be included only in the cost proposal?

USAID’s Response: The offeror must include a brief Environmental Compliance (EC) section in the technical proposal. Cost information should be included in the cost proposal.

7. Would USAID provide the initial environmental examination associated with this activity so that offerors may use it to prepare their approaches to achieving environmental compliance and management, as required per Sections H.20 (page 49), L.7.2.1 (page 128), and L.7.2.4 (page 132)?

USAID’s Response: The IEE for this activity is not available. The Offerors should use information in the Section H.20 and Environmental Review Checklist for Identifying Potential Environmental Impacts of Project Activities and Processes (ERC) Template 2019 provided as an Attachment J.13 for the RFP. USAID is in the process of development of the initial environmental examination. The IIE will be available to the Successful Offeror at the time of the award.

8. Section H.20 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE (p. 49) states the following: “It is expected that most of planned contract interventions will qualify for a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under 22 CFR Part 216.2(c)(2) (no effect on the natural or physical environment) as they will include technical assistance, training programs except to the extent such programs include activities directly affecting the environment (such as construction of facilities, etc.); analyses, studies, academic or research workshops and meetings; and document and information transfers .These activities are excluded from further environmental review and reporting to USAID.” Given that this project qualifies for a categorical exclusion, will USAID consider rescinding the following requirements from the bid submission:

a. The environmental mitigation plan, expertise, and budget in the technical proposal as indicated in L.7.2.1 Technical Approach and PWS (p. 128) and Section L.7.2.2 Key Personnel and Staffing Plan (p. 129).

b. Annex 9: Environmental Compliance (p. 132 and attachment J.13).

USAID’s Response: As not all interventions may qualify for a categorical exclusion, the Environmental Compliance requirements are maintained.

9. Section L.7.2.2 (page 128) states that resumes for key personnel must include contact information for supervisors from the three most recent positions the candidate has held. To mitigate the risk of potential conflicts of interest or the possible inaccessibility of previous supervisors, would USAID consider accepting contact information for non-supervisors from recent positions or supervisors from older positions?

USAID’s Response: Key Personnel references should be submitted as required in the Section L.7.2.2.

10. Would USAID consider allowing a staffing plan matrix as an additional annex?

USAID’s Response: The Offerors should follow the instructions of the Section L.7.2 Content of the Technical Proposal.

11. Under L.7.2. Content of the Technical Proposal (p. 126) numbered requirements for the cover page are listed. However, no text is included after number three (3). Could USAID kindly add any text that is missing regarding the third requirement?

USAID’s Response: Both number (3) and (4) are for proposed partnerships.

12. Under M.3 Technical Evaluation Criteria, the fourth bullet point on p. 143 states “Past Performance” but no other information is listed. Could USAID kindly add any text that is missing from this bullet point?

USAID’s Response: Information regarding Past Performance provided further on the page 143, under point 4. Contractor Past Performance Information.

13. Regarding Annex 7: Contractor Past Performance Information (pp. 130-132), would USAID kindly consider allowing the inclusion of relevant past performance information that ended no more than five years ago?

14. Would USAID consider allowing Annex 7 Past Performance Information to be submitted for the past 5 years?

USAID’s Response to the Questions 13-14: According to the Section L.7.2.4 Technical Proposal Annexes, the Offerors must submit up to five (5) of the most recent (active or ended no more than 3 years ago) and relevant contracts/agreements for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal for the Offeror.

15. Regarding Annex 7: Contractor Past Performance Information, the past performance information be included (point 2 on p. 131) differs slightly from the template in Attachment J.7.

Could USAID kindly clarify if Offerors should include the information as it is listed under point 2 on p. 131 of the RFP or follow the template in Attachment J.7?

USAID’s Response: The Offeror should use Attachment J.7 Past Performance Information (PPI) when providing information regarding past performance included in the CPARS. For all contracts that are not in CPARS the Offeror should follow information listed under point 2 on page 131.

16. Could USAID kindly clarify the order and names of the Annexes? This is in reference to page 127 wherein an “Annex X: Evidence and reasoning that show...” later becomes “Annex 2” on page 129.

17. In L.7.2.4 Technical Proposal Annexes, USAID provides details of the content expected to be included in each of the required Annexes. However, the list of Annexes in this section, which includes Annexes 1-9, does not match the summary of Annexes included in L.7.2 Contents of the Technical Proposal, which includes an Annex X and 8 numbered Annexes. Can USAID clarify which of these lists should guide offerors in the organization and content of the Annexes?

18. Please confirm that offerors should use the annex order and numbering shown in L.7.2.1 rather than as shown in L.7.2.

USAID’s Response to Questions 16 - 18: The order and names of the Annexes is fixed and Section L.7.2 Content of the Technical Proposal is revised accordingly.

19. Section E.3 (p. 13) refers to a QASP as a monitoring and evaluation tool for project performance. Section F.3.B (p. 17) refers to a Performance Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan. Since many aspects of project monitoring will be the same for both QASP and

AMELP, and in order to remove redundancies, would USAID consider using either QASP or AMELP as the monitoring and evaluation tool for this program? If so, would USAID please confirm whether Annex 4 should contain a QASP or an AMELP?

USAID’s Response: Offerors should follow the instructions in Section L and submit QASP as Annex 4 of the Technical Proposal. The MEL Plan will be developed by the Successful Offeror after award.

20. USAID instructs offerors in L.7.2.1 to “explain in Annex X in clear, understandable terms the evidence and reasoning that show why … the proposed technical approach will be successful”.

Recognizing that offerors often include the rationale for proposed approaches and examples of where they have been successful in Technical Proposals, would USAID provide additional guidance on what should be included in Annex X and how it should differ (or not) from supporting arguments incorporated into the PWS?

USAID’s Response: It is acceptable to include rationales, examples of success, evidence, and supporting arguments elsewhere in the technical proposal.

The ultimate goal is for Offerors to demonstrate that their proposed activities are chosen based on solid evidence. Annex 2 exists so that Offerors can put forward supporting evidence, rationales, and arguments for the likely success of their approach without taking up limited pages within the technical proposal.

Note: As clarification, Offerors are free to restate in Annex 2 any rationales, examples of success, evidence, and supporting arguments that they have included elsewhere in the technical proposal if they desire. This is optional.

21. In the AVC final report there is a reference to an assessment entitled, “Agri-logistics Center Assessment for Uzbekistan”. Could USAID please ensure this document and all other relevant technical assessments are available publicly on the DEC?

USAID’s Response: Assessment of Regional Agri-Logistics Centers in Uzbekistan is incorporated as an Attachment J.16 to the RFP.

22. Section B.6 Labor (b) references “most relevant salary history”. Since we are now using the revised SF 1420-17 Employee Biographical data sheet which does not include salary history, rather the basis for salary proposed is the rationale for the market value of the position, would USAID please revise this section to state that Compensation must be based on the market value of the position as well as Contractor’s established personnel policy?

USAID’s Response: The Offeror should not include salary history, Section B.6 is revised accordingly.

Cost Questions:

23. Section B requires indirect rate ceilings. Will USAID confirm whether small business offerors are required to submit indirect rate ceilings?

USAID’s Response: USAID confirms that Small Business Offerors are required to submit indirect rate ceilings.

24. Section L (p. 138) states, “Multipliers. When proposing Time and Material subcontracts, the Offeror will provide the multiplier and its costs breakdown.” Will USAID please consider allowing

T&M subcontractors with fixed daily rates based on documented commercial rates rather than a multiplier?

USAID’s Response: Offerors should follow the instructions of the Section L and use a multiplier.

25. Section L (p. 141) requires only the Offeror submit information concerning workday, workweek, and paid absences. However, the last portion of this section indicates that “The workday and workweek policies and the method of accounting for paid absences for the Offeror and subcontractors in effect at time of award will remain in force throughout the period of the award.” Will USAID clarify whether all subcontractors or only major subcontractors or no subcontractors should provide their own information concerning workday, workweek, and paid absences?

USAID’s Response: Offerors should provide information concerning workday, workweek, and paid absences for the prime and major subcontractors.

26. With respect to Section B.8 Ceiling on Indirect Cost Rates, it is our understanding that the government is not requiring a cost-sharing arrangement under the subject RFP, particularly since this requirement is not applicable to qualified Small Businesses and local organizations.

For offerors with extensive past performance implementing prime contracts for the US Government and established NICRAs, the example situations described in FAR 42.707(b)(1) may not apply. In such cases, will the government consider waiving the requirement to apply ceiling rates for indirect costs? If not, can the government please clarify the requirement for ceilings on indirect costs?

USAID’s Response: The requirements of Section B.8 are maintained.

27. Section L.8 Instructions for the preparation of the Cost Volume under heading “Consultants” on page 134 of the RFP states “Information sufficient to determine the reasonableness of the cost of each specific Consultant expected to be hired must be included. Information provided for the Offeror’s personnel will be provided for all consultants.” What is required for planned consultants who are unable to be named at the time of proposal submission?

USAID’s Response: Offerors should provide information regarding daily rate and level of effort for each consultant.

28. Can USAID please confirm whether electronic signatures are acceptable for all documents requiring original signature?

USAID’s Response: USAID confirms that the electronic signatures are acceptable for all documents requiring original signature.

29. Would USAID please confirm that Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan FSN scales are the most up to date?

30. Would USAID please also confirm that the contractor may reference the Tajikistan Salary Scale dated for November 8, 2020 (PP23-2020)?

USAID’s Response to Questions 29-30: USAID confirms that LCPs for Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan attached to the RFP are the most up to date. The most recent LCPs for Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan are incorporated as attachments to the RFP with the Amendment 1.