Amendment_2_RFP_SOL-117-16-000003.pdf

June 24, 2016

Amendment Issuance Date: June 24, 2016

Closing Date and Time: July 11, 2016, 17:00 Kyiv Time

Subject: Amendment 02 to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. SOL-117-16-000003

Reference: High Value Agriculture Activity (HVA)

Dear Prospective Offerors:

The purposes of this Amendment 02 to the Request for Proposal SOL-117-16-000003 are to:

(i) amend SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD to incorporate the adjectival evaluation system description;

(ii) provide an answer to a follow on question to the answer to Question 4 included in the

Amendment 01 and;

(iii) provide clarifications for the authorized geographic code.

The specific changes are as follows:

1. SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD; M.1 GENERAL INFORMATION:

Delete the following item in its entirety.

(d) The points shown after each evaluation criterion in section M.2 below indicate the relative importance of each criterion. There are no sub-criteria.

2. M.2 TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

Add the following description of the adjectival evaluation system following the first paragraph under M.2 TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

Evaluation System. The following adjectival scoring system will be used as by the technical evaluation committee to assess each of the technical criteria and the technical proposal as a whole:

“Outstanding” O Very significantly exceeds most or all solicitation requirements.

Response exceeds a “Better” rating. The Offeror has clearly demonstrated an understanding of all aspects of the requirements to the extent that timely and highest quality performance is anticipated.

“Better” B Fully meets all solicitation requirements and significantly exceeds many of the solicitation requirements. Response exceeds an “Acceptable” rating.

The areas in which the Offeror exceeds the requirements are anticipated to result in a high level of efficiency or productivity or quality.

“Acceptable” A Meets all solicitation requirements. Complete, comprehensive, and exemplifies an understanding of the scope and depth of the task requirements as well as the Offeror’s understanding of the Government’s requirements.

“Marginal” M Less than “Acceptable.” There are some deficiencies in the technical proposal. However, given the opportunity for discussions, the technical proposal has a reasonable chance of becoming at least “Acceptable.” (Areas of a technical proposal which remain to be “Marginal” after “Final Proposal Revision” offers shall not be subject to further discussion or revision.) If award is made on the initial offers, there will not be an opportunity for discussions nor a chance to become at least “Acceptable.”

“Unacceptable” U Technical proposal has many deficiencies and/or gross omissions:

Failure to understand much of the scope of work necessary to perform the required tasks; failure to provide a reasonable, logical approach to fulfilling much of the Government’s requirements; failure to meet many personnel requirements of the solicitation. (When applying this adjective to the technical proposal as a whole, the technical proposal must be so unacceptable in one or areas that it would have to be significantly revised to attempt to make it other than acceptable.)

Offerors should note that these criteria: (1) serve as the standard against which all proposals will be evaluated, and (2) serve to identify the significant matters which Offerors should address in their proposals.

3. FOLLOW ON QUESTION TO ANSWER PROVIDED IN AMENDMENT 01:

Question:

In light of USAID’s response to Question 4 in Amendment 01 and the fact that key personnel references are optional, could USAID clarify how it will evaluate the Key Personnel sub-factor “the quality and appropriateness of the proposed key personnel”? Are the required qualifications on pages 23 and 24 of the RFP the only criteria by which quality and appropriateness will be determined? Are all of the required qualifications listed on pages 23 and 24 of the RFP of equal weight or are they listed in descending order of importance? For example, is a minimum of 10 years’ experience in the agribusiness private sector considered more important than having managed complex agricultural programs in CIS or Eastern Europe for the Chief of Party candidate? We would appreciate if USAID could elaborate on how the key personnel sub-factor will be scored for the Chief of Party and Grants/PPP Program Manager. Further, if offerors name additional key personnel, as is allowed on page 22 of the RFP, could USAID elaborate on what criteria those key personnel will be evaluated against?

Answer:

Please note that the requirements on page 23 and 24 of the RFP for Key personnel are set as Minimum Qualifications and are not included as sub criteria for Key Personnel in Section M for evaluation of “the quality and appropriateness of the proposed key personnel”. Thus, the minimum requirements are mandatory for the key personnel to be considered as responsive to the RFP requirements.

Also, please be informed that evaluation for appropriateness of the Key Personnel will be done for qualifications in access to the minimum requirements and by using adjectival evaluation method, not scoring.

In case, offerors propose key personnel in addition to the identified key personnel in the solicitation document, USAID will evaluate it as part of Management Plan for quality of the management and staffing plan and the extent to which the plan properly staffs the contract to accomplish the requirements.

4. The Authorized Geographic Codes for this requirement are 110 and 937. Also, please be informed that a waiver was processed that allows procurement of marketing and market research services from 935 Geographic Code E.U. countries in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 over the lifetime of the activity.

Please note that the deadline for submission of proposals was not changed and remains 17:00 Kyiv time on July 11, 2016.

Sincerely, /s/

Michael Rossman Regional Contracting Officer USAID/Caucasus & Moldova

---End of Amendment 02---