Amendment_No._4.pdf

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED

SOL-167-15-000014 Amendment No. 4

PAGE OF

2 38

NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR

ITEM NO.

(A)

SUPPLIES/SERVICES

(B)

QUANTITY

(C)

UNIT

(D)

UNIT PRICE

(E)

AMOUNT

(F)

The purpose of this Amendment Number 04 to Solicitation SOL-167-14-000019 "AGRICULTURAL

GROWTH AND RURAL OPPORTUNITIES (AGRO)

ACTIVITY" is the following:

1. Incorporate Questions and Answers related to this competitive process, as included in Attachment A.

2. Incorporate Other Donors related information, as included as Attachment B (document inadvertently omitted in the original solicitation).

3. Provide an extension to the deadline for submission of proposals from January 7, 2015 to January 21, 2015.

4. Incorporate clarification related to the means and venue for submissions of proposals, as included in Attachment C.

5. Incorporate USAID/Kosovo FSN Salary Scale, as included in Attachment D (omitted in previous Amendments).

6. Incorporate Development Investments Analysis and Projections, as included in Attachment E (omitted in previous Amendments).

7. Incorporate NOA lessons learned, as included in Attached F (omitted in previous Amendments).

NSN 7540-01-152-8067 OPTIONAL FORM 336 (4-86)

Sponsored by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.110

ATTACHMENT A

USAID/Kosovo SOL-167-14-000019; Agricultural Growth and Rural Opportunities (AGRO) Activity Questions and Answers

QUESTION 1 :

We would appreciate your clarification namely on the Special Contract Requirements related to the nationality of the candidates. As you surely know, "the Authorized Geographic Code for this award is 937 defined as the United States, the Cooperating Country (Kosovo), and developing countries other than advanced developing countries, and excluding prohibited sources".

Therefore, could you please clarify if a private company incorporated in Serbia can act as a contractor or subcontractor of the above mentioned project?

ANSWER 1:

Advanced Developing Countries are excluded from USAID Principal Geographic Code 937, except for the procurement of commodities and services when part of any assistance to such country (i.e., where such country is the cooperating /recipient country) under Code 937.

Serbia is listed as an Advanced Developing Country under Code 935. Only Geographic Code 937 countries may apply as either prime or subcontractors under this solicitation.

QUESTION 2 :

Page 11, Section B.1, Improved farm production and food processing and Page 13, Section B.3, Strengthened strategic partners state that the contractor’s interventions will lead directly to;

“Growth in domestic and export sales of the supported value chains of an additional $20 million euro for the Kosovo agriculture sector (pg.

11)” and “facilitate at least $5 million euros of increased private sector investment (pg. 13).”

Question: Please clarify if expected targets are denoted in U.S. dollars or Euros.

ANSWER 2:

The numbers growth in sales should be in U.S. dollars.

QUESTION 3:

Page 23, Section C (b), Subcontracts limits subcontracts to the simplified acquisition threshold of $100,000.

Question: The simplified acquisition threshold has recently been increased to $150,000. Will USAID consider raising the ceiling of subcontracts to $150,000?

ANSWER 3:

USAID confirms the ceiling of the subcontracts is $150,000.

QUESTION 4:

Page 37, Section F.7 Key Personnel, states that all key personnel should have a graduate degree.

Question: Please consider substituting additional relevant years of work experience in lieu of a graduate degree.

ANSWER 4:

USAID will not entertain changes to the Solicitation requirements at this stage of the process.

QUESTION 5:

Page 37, Section F.7 Key Personnel, 1. Chief of Party states that “The expatriate COP shall serve as the primary point of contract with USAID/Kosovo…”

Question: Will USAID/Kosovo consider a qualified Kosovar candidate for the Chief of Party position?

ANSWER 5:

USAID will consider a qualified Kosovar candidate for the Chief of Party position.

QUESTION 6:

Page 38, Section F.7 Key Personnel, 3. Chief Technical Advisor states that “this expatriate individual will serve as the primary technical expert on the Activity.

Question: Will USAID/Kosovo consider a qualified Kosovar candidate for the Chief Technical Advisor position?

ANSWER 6:

USAID will consider a qualified Kosovar candidate for the Chief Technical Advisor position.

QUESTION 7:

Page 38, Section F.7 Key Personnel, (1) Chief of Party, states that the desired qualifications for the COP include “a graduate degree in agriculture, agribusiness, agricultural marketing or other agricultural field.”

Question: Please consider expanding educational requirements to include other relevant fields such as business, marketing, economics, etc.

ANSWER 7:

Please refer to Answer No. 4.

QUESTION 8:

Page 61, Section H.16 Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation, d) Annual Salary Increases states that “one annual salary increase (includes promotional increase) of not more than five percent may be granted after the employee’s completion of each twelve month period of satisfactory services under the contract.”

Question: May the successful Offeror “pool” the funds for an annual increase so that highly successful and qualified employees may be given a salary increase in excess of 5%, as long as the total amount for salary increases does not exceed 5% of the total base salary amount?

ANSWER 8:

Pursuant to Section H.16 Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation of the Solicitation, Offerors will abide by their own established policies, procedures and practices and cost principles, it is understood that USAID has already vetted such policies and procedures.

QUESTION 9:

Page 61, Section H.16 Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation, h) Compensation of Cooperating Country and Third Country Nationals (CCNs/TCNs) states that “Reimbursable salaries and wages for TCNs and CCNs employees shall not exceed, without justification, the prevailing grade under the prevailing grade under the USAID/West Bank and Gaza salary survey scale for CCNs.

Question: Please confirm that this section is not meant for the Kosovo: AGRO Solicitation. If this clause is intended for Kosovo, will USAID please provide a copy the FSN scale.

ANSWER 9:

Thank you for noting the “WEST BANK GAZA” reference as it is a typo, and it should read “KOSOVO”.

Please see Attachment D the USAID/Kosovo FSN Salary Scale.

QUESTION 10:

Page 67, Section H.24 includes references to taxes paid to the Palestinian Authority.

Question: Please confirm that this section is not meant for the Kosovo: AGRO Solicitation and that this agreement will fall under the Bilateral Agreement between the United States and Kosovo and that the successful Offeror will be exempt from paying taxes.

ANSWER 10:

The reference to “Palestinian Authority” is a typo; it should read “Kosovar Authority”.

Please refer to VAT GUIDANCE included as ATTACHMENT J-4 in Amendment No.1.

QUESTION 11:

Page 118, Section L.3, Hand-carried Address, states that the Offeror must submit four hard-copy proposals to the addresses provided in Kosovo.

Page 120, Section L.5, Delivery Instructions, states that email submissions are required.

Question: Please confirm that Clause L.3 refers to submission of a protest and not to the actual submission of the proposal responding to the solicitation, which may be submitted electronically and not in hard copy.

ANSWER 11:

Instructions provided by L.3 52.233-2 Service of Protest (SEP 2006) correspond exclusively to Service of Protest.

QUESTION 12:

Page 122, Section L.6 (A), Technical Proposal states that the technical approach will be limited to 40 pages while page 123 of the same section states that the technical proposal “must not exceed 30 pages.”

Question: Please clarify the page limit for the Technical Proposal.

ANSWER 12:

The page limit for the Technical Proposal should read “42” including Executive Summary, throughout the Solicitation.

QUESTION 13:

Page 123, Section L.6 (A), Technical Proposal lists an “Innovation Incentive Funds (IIF) Manual” as one of the required attachments to the technical proposal.

Question: We respectfully request that USAID consider only requiring submission of the manual during competitive round negotiations.

ANSWER 13:

USAID confirms the IIF Manual will be required during the competitive round negotiations.

QUESTION 14:

Pages 130-145, Section L.7 Cost Instructions is unclear and has several duplicate sections with conflicting cost instructions.

Question: Please revise section L.7 in order for Offerors to have a clear understanding of the cost instructions preferred by USAID/Kosovo.

ANSWER 14:

Instructions related to a Development Focused Budget are self-explanatory. No revision will be considered.

QUESTION 15:

Page 131, Section L.7 Cost Instructions states that “Offerors are required to summarize cost data using development-focused budgeting (DFB) in cost proposals submitted in response to this solicitation” … and that “cost data must be summarized into DFB/OP categories.”

Question: Please provide a template for budget submission that encompasses all intended requirements for this solicitation.

ANSWER 15:

Template is provided on Page No. 135 “5 YEAR BUDGET” chart.

QUESTION 16:

Page 134, Section L.7 Cost Instructions, (M) Grants under Contract (GUC) states that the Offeror must detail the proposed amount and administrative costs for the Grants under Contract (GUC) mechanism for the award of Sub-Grants and Sub-Contracts, while Page 138, Section L.7 Cost Instructions, (2) Part 2-Proposed Costs/Prices, (J) Grants-under-Contract states that “…this amount is exclusive of any prime contractor indirect costs or fees as well as any costs associated with grants management and handling.”

Question: Please clarify if administrative costs applicable to the GUC mechanism shall or shall not be counted against the $2.8M total plug figure for Sub-Grants and Sub-Contracts.

The plug figure of $2,800,000 corresponds to both GUCS and Subcontracts. No administrative costs will be included is this broken down estimation as follows:

GUCS $2,400,000

Subcontracts $400,000

TOTAL $2,800,000

Offerors are encouraged to note that all grant and subcontracts are expected to be done in-kind. No cash transfers are anticipated.

QUESTION 17:

Page 135, Section L.7 Cost Instructions, third paragraph states that “the following standard cost elements shall be included in the submission as applicable for the base year and for each of the two option years”, however the fourth paragraph on page 135(after the 5-year budget) states that “the above is a summary Budget for the 5 year period of performance” and Page 30, Section F.2 Period of Performance states that “the period of performance for this contract is estimated for five years.” References to option periods are also made on page 136, in paragraphs 3 and 5.

Question: Please confirm that the budget should be for 5 years, with no option periods.

ANSWER 17:

USAID confirms that the budget should be for five (5) years with no option periods.

QUESTION 18:

Page 138, Section L.7 Cost Instructions, (2) Part 2- Proposed Costs/Prices, (I) Partner Contracted Audit (PCA) states that “PCA must be proposed at $XX for the five year period.

Question: Please confirm the price to be proposed for a Partner Contracted Audit on this project and the anticipated audit objective.

ANSWER 18:

Per USAID Rules and Regulations, any multi-year award over the $300,000 threshold amount should comply with yearly audit requirements.

The offerors shall determine the range of costs for PCA based on the $10-$12 Million range for a five (5) year period of performance.

QUESTION 19:

Page 139, Section L.7 Cost Instructions, (2) Part 2- Proposed Costs/Prices, (4) Indirect Cost Information, Section a. states that “offerors may propose ceilings for indirect costs for the prime and all major subcontractors. Please refer to Section B.5.”

Question: Please confirm that the submission of ceilings for indirect costs for the prime and all major subcontractors is optional and is not required.

ANSWER 19:

USAID confirms submission of ceilings for indirect costs for prime and all major subcontractors is optional.

QUESTION 20:

Page 149, M.4 Technical Evaluation Criteria, presents the evaluation points per technical section in both a table and paragraph form.

Question: Conflicting numbers of evaluation points are presented for the Technical Approach and the Key Personnel sections. Please confirm which sets of evaluation points are applicable.

ANSWER 20:

Technical Approach 40 points;

K e y Personnel 40 points;

Implementation & Management Plan 10 points;

Past Performance 10 points.

Total Possible Technical Evaluation Points 100 points

QUESTION 21:

The RFP states two different closing dates and times: “January 7, 2015, 18:00 DC Local Time” on the RFP cover letter and “1/20/2015, 14:00 LT” on SF33 to which the instructions in Section L refer.

Please confirm the offeror should follow the instructions of Section L, and that the closing date and time is January 20, 2015, at 14:00.

ANSWER 21:

Closing Date will be January 21, 2015.

QUESTION 26:

RFP instructions regarding team structure and key personnel require detailed descriptions of each long-term position and corresponding proposed candidates. May this information be provided in a staffing matrix in an attachment to the technical proposal that does not count against the technical proposal page limit?

ANSWER 26:

“Team Structure and Key Personnel” heading that starts on page 126 and ends on page 129, shall be provided in a staffing matrix in an attachment to the technical proposal that does not count against the technical proposal page limit.

QUESTION 22:

Please clarify what is meant by “DC Local Time.” Is this US East Coast Standard time?

ANSWER 22:

USAID confirms that DC Local Time refers to U.S. East Coast Standard Time.

QUESTION 23:

Section L5 of the RFP indicates that 5 CD-ROMs of the Technical and Cost proposals are requested but not required. Instructions also request that the CDs arrive within three days of the closing date.

Pending courier efficiency, this later request may prove difficult. Please clarify that proposals can be submitted electronically by the due date and time, and that hard copies and CD-ROMs may follow and will be accepted if they arrive at the Mission in Kosovo later than the three days after the closing date.

ANSWER 23:

Electronic proposals shall be submitted by the closing date and time stated in this Amendment (i.e., January 21, 2015 at 18:00 DC Local Time).

QUESTION 24:

Section L6 states two different page limitations for the Technical Proposal/Approach is 40 pages, and then later references it as 30 pages. Please clarify the page limitation for the technical proposal.

ANSWER 24:

Please refer to Answer No. 12.

QUESTION 25:

Point 3 on page 126 of the RFP calls for the inclusion of an Implementation Plan for the life of the AGRO activity. Please confirm that this Implementation Plan may be included in an attachment to the technical proposal and that it will not count against the page limit for the technical proposal.

ANSWER 25:

The implementation plan may be included in an attachment to the technical proposal and it will not count against the page limit for the technical proposal.

QUESTION 27:

Pages 124–126 of Section L provide in-depth details on what is to be included in the technical approach. However, these instructions are not consistent with Section C and are not addressed within the evaluation structure of Section M.

Please confirm what offerors are to include in the technical approach from Section L pages 124, 125, and 126.

ANSWER 27:

Offerors shall include in the technical approach all information requested under the “Technical Approach” heading that starts on page 123 and ends on page 126.

Offerors shall note that PMP and Implementation Plan mentioned on page 126 (Articles No. 2 and

3) as well as “Implementation and Management Plan” heading on pages 129-130 shall be included in a separate annex and do not count within the 42 page limit.

QUESTION 28:

Instructions regarding the technical approach (pg.

125) reference a “Development Investment Analysis” that is not attached to the RFP. Can USAID provide bidders with this document?

ANSWER 28:

USAID confirms the “Development Investment Analysis” document is included in this Amendment as Attachment E.

QUESTION 29:

The final bullet on page 125 of the RFP states that proposals must “demonstrate an understanding of the role an Advisor to MAFRD will play,” but this position is not otherwise mentioned in the RFP. Please confirm that this position is not required under AGRO.

ANSWER 29:

A full-time Advisor (LTTA) to the MAFRD is not required under AGRO, however as the MAFRD will be an important counterpart USAID recommends an STTA advisor.

QUESTION 30:

RFP instructions regarding presentation of past performance states that the offeror must provide performance information for itself and each major subcontractor. Please confirm that the definition of “major” is relative to the subcontractor’s intended role on the project and not to the dollar value or percentage of the overall budget.

ANSWER 30:

USAID confirms same.

QUESTION 31:

Page 16, section IV Statement of Work – C provides two results for No. 3: “Minimum of ten public-private partnership events among GOK and other agriculture sector stakeholders documented with partnership agreements signed” and “Three public-private partnerships among GOK and other agriculture sector stakeholders established.” Please clarify how these two indicators are different.

ANSWER 31:

USAID confirms that a minimum of ten public-private partnership events among GOK and other agriculture sector stakeholders documented with partnership agreements signed is the required result. By this Amendment, USAID confirms deletion of “Three public-private partnerships among GOK and other agriculture sector stakeholders established” result.

QUESTION 32:

Section M.4.I Page 149 lists contradicting point values for the sub-sections of the proposal. Please confirm what the point allocation will be for Technical Approach, Key Personnel, Implementation and Management Plan, and Past Performance.

ANSWER 32:

Please refer to Answer No. 20.

QUESTION 33:

RFP pg 149 of 154, selection criterion B, is named “Key Personnel and Staffing” yet the accompanying text says only “Extent to which the proposed key personnel [emphasis added] convincingly demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to successfully achieve the contract’s objectives.”

Are only key personnel going to be evaluated, or will a portion of Criterion B’s points be awarded based on other non-key staff members that are proposed?

ANSWER 33:

USAID hereby clarifies, on page 149 under M.4 Technical Evaluation Criteria; Key Personnel in the chart shall read as follows “Team Structure and Key Personnel”. Further, delete the evaluation language under “B. Key Personnel and Staffing” and replace with the following, “B. Team Structure and Key Personnel (40 Points) Extent to which the proposed team structure and key personnel convincingly demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to successfully achieve the contract’s objectives.”

QUESTION 34:

Section C paragraph VIII, Innovation and Incentive Fund, states that “Subcontractors should not surpass the simplified acquisition threshold of $100,000.” The current threshold is $150,000. We respectfully request that the limit be updated accordingly.

ANSWER 34:

Please refer to Answer No. 3:

QUESTION 35:

Section C, paragraph VIII, Innovation and Incentive Fund (RFP page 23), states that Grants Under Contract total funding should be $2.4M.

Section L, Part 1, Standard Form 33, 5 Year budget (RFP page 135) also states $2.4M.

However, Section L, Part 2 Proposal Cost/Price paragraph J (RFP page 138) states $2.8M. Please clarify.

ANSWER 35:

Please refer to Answer No. 16.

QUESTION 36:

Section D.3 Branding Strategy (page 26) refers to West Bank and Gaza. Please change to Kosovo.

ANSWER 36:

The “WEST BANK GAZA” reference is a typo it should read “KOSOVO”.

QUESTION 37:

Section H.16 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONNEL COMPENSATION paragraph h (page 62) states “Reimbursable salaries and wages for TCNs and CCNs employees shall not exceed, without justification, the prevailing grade under the USAID/West Bank and Gaza salary survey scale for CCNs.” Please change this reference to Kosovo.

ANSWER 37:

The “WEST BANK GAZA” reference is a typo it should read “KOSOVO”.

QUESTION 38:

H.21, PROHIBITION AGAINST SUPPORT

FOR TERRORISM, paragraph c (page 65) refers to USAID/West Bank and Gaza. Please change to Kosovo.

ANSWER 38:

The “WEST BANK GAZA” reference is a typo it should read “KOSOVO”.

QUESTION 39:

Section I.11 52.236-5 MATERIAL AND WORKMANSHIP (APR 1984) is not standard language for a services type contract. We respectfully request this it be deleted.

ANSWER 39:

Clauses incorporated in this contract will be used as applicable.

QUESTION 41:

Section L, Part 1, Standard Form 33, paragraph J (RFP page 134) refers to Sub-Awards. Please confirm that this should be Subcontractors and not Sub-Awards as there are Grants Under Contract in paragraph M.

ANSWER 41:

This should be both Subcontractors as well as Sub-Awardees meaning Grants under Contracts.

QUESTION 42:

Section L, Part 1, Standard Form 33 paragraph M (RFP page 134) appears to be language for an RFA and not a RFP requiring subcontracts be under Grants under Contract. Please clarify.

ANSWER 42:

This Contract is expected to have both Subcontracts as well as Grants under Contracts.

For clarity please refer to Answer No. 16.

QUESTION 40:

Section L Part 1 Standard Form 33 (page 131) states that the budget should be development-focused budgets (DFB) and requires the budget to be summarized based on the results/outcomes and approved categories. Please confirm that this is presenting the budget by CLIN.

ANSWER 40:

USAID confirms that the budget should be presented by CLIN as well as by traditional cost line items and elements as illustrated on Page 135 “5 YEAR BUDGET “. Offerors are also hereby reminded that breakdown charts and narratives should also form part of their offers.

QUESTION 43:

Section L, Part 2, Proposed Costs/Prices (RFP page

136) states “Although for proposal purposes the Offeror is to propose costs associated with the option, if exercised, as if incurred in years 4 and 5 of the contract…” Section F.2 Period of Performance (page 31) states “The period of performance for this contract is estimated for five years.” Please clarify whether years 4 and 5 are to be presented and costed as option years.

ANSWER 43:

Period of performance is expected to be five years.

QUESTION 44:

Section L, Part 2, Proposed Costs/Prices Paragraph A (RFP page 137) states that “Offerors are encouraged to review Mission Notice No. 2011- WBG-10 for the West Bank and Gaza Mission local salary scale that can be accessed through the following link:

http://www.usaid.gov/wbg/misc/2011WBG/2011- WBG-10.pdf” Can USAID please provide the local salary scale for Kosovo?

ANSWER 44:

Please refer to Answer No. 9.

Please see Attachment D, FSN salary scale for Kosovo.

QUESTION 45:

Section L Part 2 Proposed Costs/Prices Paragraph I Partner Contracted Audit (PCA) (RFP page 138) states PCA, must be proposed at $XX for the five year period.” Please clarify.

ANSWER 45:

Please refer to Answer No. 18.

QUESTION 46:

Would USAID please clarify the solicitation number for this procurement? The cover letter lists SOL- 167-14-000019, but Block 3 of Standard Form 33 lists SOL-167-15-000014.

ANSWER 46:

USAID confirms solicitation number is SOL- 167-14-000019.

QUESTION 47:

The cover letter lists the closing date and time as January 7, 2015 at 18:00 DC local time. However, Block 9 of Standard Form 33 states that offers will be accepted until 14:00 LT on January 20, 2015.

Section L.5(b) (page 120) reiterates that “All proposals in response to this RFP shall be due not later than the date stated in Block 9 of the SF 33 cover of this Solicitation.” Would USAID please clarify the closing date and time, including the time zone?

ANSWER 47:

Please refer to Answer No. 22 and 23.

http://www.usaid.gov/wbg/misc/2011WBG/2011-http://www.usaid.gov/wbg/misc/2011WBG/2011-

QUESTION 48:

Would USAID please provide Attachment A, referenced on page 18 of the RFP?

ANSWER 48:

USAID confirms the referenced attachment on page 18 of the RFP is hereby incorporated as Attachment B to this Amendment.

QUESTION 49:

Would USAID confirm that the Grants Manual, mentioned on page 23, Grants Management Manual (page 53), and Innovation and Incentive Fund Manual (page 123) all refer to the same document?

ANSWER 49:

USAID confirms the Innovation and Incentive Fund Manual shall cover grants as well as subcontracts and is the only manual required for submission.

QUESTION 50:

RFP Section L.3(a) (page 118) notes, “Offerors must submit both hard copies and electronic copies of their proposals.” Section L.3(b) states, “Electronic copies must be submitted…No other forms of Submission will be accepted.” Would USAID clarify whether hard-copy submissions are required?

ANSWER 50:

Please refer to Answer No. 23.

QUESTION 51:

If hard-copy submissions are required, would USAID accept on-time electronic submissions followed by receipt of hard copies within three days of the closing date, as specified in Section L.5(c) (page 121) for receipt of CDs?

ANSWER 51:

Please refer to Answers No. 23 and 50:

QUESTION 52:

Section L.6.A (page 122) notes that the technical approach should not exceed 40 pages and, directly below, “Maximum page limit for the technical proposal is 42 pages.” The same section states, “The Technical Proposal must not exceed 30 pages” (emphasis added). Would USAID confirm that the 40- page limit refers to the entire technical proposal (that is, the technical approach, team structure and key personnel, implementation and management plan, and past performance sections), and not just to the technical approach?

ANSWER 52:

Please refer to Answer No. 12.

QUESTION 55:

Section L.6.A (page 125) states that Offerors should demonstrate understanding of the role an advisor to MAFRD will play. Would USAID please clarify the nature of this advisor and whether it envisions an embedded expatriate advisor in addition to the two expatriate key personnel positions described in the RFP?

ANSWER 55:

Please refer to Answer No. 29.

QUESTION 56:

Would USAID consider adding the life-of-project implementation plan referenced on page 126 to the list of attachments that do not count against the page limit?

ANSWER 56:

USAID confirms same.

QUESTION 57:

Section L.6.A (page 130) instructs offerors to “List in an annex…up to 5 of the most recent and relevant contracts…” Would USAID please clarify whether offerors are to submit information on up to five contracts for themselves alone, or if they may provide in addition information on up to five contracts for each major subcontractor?

ANSWER 57:

Offerors should provide a List of up to five

(5) most recent and relevant contracts.

Subcontracts do not count.

QUESTION 53:

Section L.6.A (page 123) notes, “Applicant must use 12 Point Times New Roman Font size…10 characters per inch.” As these requirements are incompatible with one another, would USAID please confirm that the required font is Times New Roman, 12 point?

ANSWER 53:

USAID confirms that the required font is Times New Roman, 12 point.

QUESTION 54:

The list of attachments that are not subject to the page limit (Section L.6.A, page 123) includes a Past Performance Key Personnel Placement Table.

The content of this table is not described in the RFP. Would USAID please explain what is required?

ANSWER 54:

Please refer to Attachment J-12- Contractor Performance Report – Short Form.

QUESTION 58:

Would USAID please specify how it defines major subcontractors for this contract?

ANSWER 58:

Please refer to Answer No. 30.

QUESTION 59 :

In Section L.7, the period of performance is listed as five years (page 135) and also as a three-year base period with two option years (page 136).

Would USAID clarify the period of performance?

ANSWER 59:

Please refer to Answer No. 43.

QUESTION 60:

In Section L.7, the budgeted amount for Grants Under Contract is listed as $2,400,000 on page 135 and as $2,800,000 on page 138. Would USAID please confirm the correct figure?

ANSWER 60:

Please refer to Answer No. 16.

QUESTION 61:

In Section L.7, biographical data sheets are required for key personnel (page 137) and for long- and short-term expatriate personnel and all long-term cooperating country personnel proposed (page 132). Would USAID please clarify for which personnel biographical data sheets are required?

ANSWER 61:

Please refer to Attachment J-1 –USAID Form AID1420-17 Contractor Biographical Data Sheet.

QUESTION 62:

Section L.7(3) Part 3 (page 140) notes, “Offerors must also register with the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) at http://www.ccr.gov/. This registration must be printed out and attached as an annex to the cost proposal.” Since the SAM database now replaces the CCR, would USAID please confirm that submission of a SAM statement is sufficient?

ANSWER 62:

USAID confirms that submission of a SAM statement is sufficient.

QUESTION 63:

The table in Section M.4 (page 149) assigns 40 points each to the Technical Approach and Key Personnel sections. Directly below the table, the values of those sections are listed as 35 and 45 points, respectively. Would USAID please clarify the point value of those two sections?

ANSWER 63:

Please refer to Answer No. 20.

QUESTION 64:

The link to Amendment 3 of the solicitation, NOA lessons learned, is inactive. Would USAID please provide this document?

ANSWER 64:

USAID confirms incorporation of NOA lessons learned, as included in Attached F (omitted in previous Amendments).

http://www.ccr.gov/

ATTACHMENT B

Financial Overview of Donors in Agriculture Sector

Organization /Country of origin

Name of Project Field Period Contact person

SNV (CNVP) &

Sida

Strengthening Sustainable Private and Decentralized Forestry/ Promotion of Economic Development through Capacity Building in Farmer Based Forest Management in Kosovo and its region

Forestry 2013-2014 Peter Kampen; a nd Haki K ola

KFW & Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit

(GIZ)

Rural Economic Development Rural Development

2010 - 2014 Michael Nebelung

FAO/ Government of Finland

Support to implementation of the Forestry Policy and Strategy in Kosovo

Forestry 2012-2014 Aleksandar Nikolovski; and Naser Krasniqi

Norwegian Forestry Group

(NFG)

Support to forestry management with GIS phase 4

Forestry 2011-2014 ErlingBergsaker

World Bank Real Estate Cadastre and Registration Project RD 2011 – 2015 Cora Melania Shaw; and Arlinda Arënliu

European Commission (EC)

Strengthening MAFRD in the implementation of reforms in compliance with the agriculture and rural development policy and the Agricultural Rural Development Plan in Kosovo

Policy 2011 - 2014 Arton Osmani

European Commission (EC)

RD Grants phase 2, IPA 2011 RD 2012 -2014 Arton Osmani

World Bank Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment

Agriculture and Environment

2011 – 2016 Cora Melania Shaw

Danida Grants Agriculture 2012-2016 Mihai Constantinescu

European Commission (EC)

Implementation of Rural Spatial Planning

DAP&T 2014-2016 2.3 M € Arton Osmani

European Commission (EC)

Support to Advisory Service DAS 2014-2016 1.5 M € Arton Osmania

European Commission (EC)

Technical Assistance to MA & ADA MA&ADA 2014-2016 2.5 M € Arton Osmani

The total amount of the projects is approximately 57.7 Million Euro

ATTACHMENT C

This amendment hereby replaces Section L.5 of the subject RFP with the following:

L.5 DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

E-mail submissions are required. In order to assure USAID receives the complete package, please specify the number of pages for 1) Technical Proposal; and 2) the cost and price proposal. Technical and Cost proposals must be sent as separate files. E-mail submissions of proposals shall not exceed the 8 MB limit. Fax submissions will NOT be accepted.

(a) Proposals submitted in response to this RFP will be received in the following manner:

DESIGNATED OFFICE:

Attn: Ms. Claudia Koziol Regional Contracting Office USAID/Kosovo

Proposals shall be submitted to:

USAIDRCOPackages@usaid.gov. NOTE: Each e-mail must contain subject line, which clearly indicates the name of the Offeror and the solicitation number. Sample subject line: “ABCD, Inc. – SOL-167-14-000019, AGRICULTURAL GROWTH AND

RURAL OPPORTUNITIES (AGRO).”

(b) Closing Date and Time. All proposals in response to this RFP shall be due not later than the date stated in Block 9 of the SF 33 cover of Amendment No. 4 of SOL-167- 14-000019.

Subject line will state the RFP number and title of the Project:

RFP No.: SOL-167-14-000019 (Title) “Agricultural Growth and Rural Opportunities (AGRO)” Technical and Cost/Business Proposals must be kept separate from each other. Technical Proposals must not make reference to pricing data in order that the technical evaluation may be made strictly on the basis of technical merit.

(c) Five (5) CDs of the Technical and Cost proposal is requested but not required.

They may be contained within the same CD, but the files for the cost and technical mailto:USAIDRCOPackages@usaid.gov proposals must be separate. If multiple files exist, the file name must clearly express the order for collating purposes, e.g. Technical proposal file 1, technical proposal file 2, etc. Please note CD submission must arrive by the closing date of this RFP.

Mailing Addresses. CDs submitted as letter mail shall be dispatched to the applicable following address:

If Sent via U.S. Postal Service:

U.S. Embassy

DPO AE 09714

Attn. Ms. Claudia Koziol

Hand-Carried, or via Courier Service:

Arberia (Dragodan) Nazim Hikmet St. No. 30 10130 Pristina, Kosovo Attention: Mr. Florentin Emini

If your firm utilizes the services of an independent agent in Pristina for delivery, please be certain they understand that additional time may be needed to allow for security review of any packages and that the closing date and time are firm. USAID and the State Department accept no liability for late delivery, or non-delivery, attributable to the diplomatic pouch. Offerors should plan accordingly and are advised not to send their proposal via diplomatic pouch. Any proposal not received in the designated office listed below by the closing date and time will be processed as late. Delivery to the post office or air courier representative does not constitute meeting the statutory requirement that proposals are received timely at the designated office. The official receipt of proposals will be signed by both parties (person delivering the proposal and the individual receiving the documents) upon delivery, noting the time and date as agreed to by both parties.

(d) Electronic Submission:

Instructions for submitting the proposal by e-mail:

• The USAID e-mail gateway accepts messages whose total size with attachments is no more than 8 Mb (no zipped or compressed files);

• E-mailed proposals must be submitted to USAIDRCOPackages@usaid.gov. The subject line of the e-mail must contain the solicitation number RFP No.: SOL- 167-14- 000019, and indicate which proposal (cost or technical) in the order in which the files should be collated; e.g. RFP No. SOL-167-14-000019, technical proposal file 1 of 3.

• Acceptable native files shall be submitted in unlocked format (with formulas readable and possible to track) including Microsoft Office Suite applications (DOC, XLS, MDB) or Adobe Acrobat (PDF);

• Time of receipt of the e-mail is the USAID e-mail gateway time-stamp of the message header.

For proposals submitted by e-mail, respondents are encouraged to request a return receipt.

NOTE: Offerors are reminded that e-mail is NOT instantaneous, in some cases delays of several hours occur from transmission to receipt. Offerors are strongly encouraged to review FAR 15.208 regarding electronic submissions.

3. Late Proposals

Late proposals shall be subject to the restrictions set forth in FAR 52.215-1.

mailto:USAIDRCOPackages@usaid.gov

ATTACHMENT D

SALARY SCALE

Effective MAY 9, 2010

Salaries denominated in Euros.

Grade

Step

Step

Step

Step

Step

Step

Step

Step

Step

Step

Step

Step

Step

Step

WGI

FSN 12

23852

24586

25320

26054

26788

27522

28256

28990

29724

30458

31192

31926

32660

33394

FSN 11 21684 22351 23018 23685 24352 25019 25686 26353 27020 27687 28354 29021 29688 30355 667 FSN 10 19713 20320 20927 21534 22141 22748 23355 23962 24569 25176 25783 26390 26997 27604 607

FSN 9 17920 18471 19022 19573 20124 20675 21226 21777 22328 22879 23430 23981 24532 25083 551 FSN 8 16291 16792 17293 17794 18295 18796 19297 19798 20299 20800 21301 21802 22303 22804 501 FSN 7 14810 15266 15722 16178 16634 17090 17546 18002 18458 18914 19370 19826 20282 20738 456 FSN 6 12961 13360 13759 14158 14557 14956 15355 15754 16153 16552 16951 17350 17749 18148 399 FSN 5 11338 11687 12036 12385 12734 13083 13432 13781 14130 14479 14828 15177 15526 15875 349 FSN 4 9916 10221 10526 10831 11136 11441 11746 12051 12356 12661 12966 13271 13576 13881 305 FSN 3 8755 9024 9293 9562 9831 10100 10369 10638 10907 11176 11445 11714 11983 12252 269 FSN 2 7952 8197 8442 8687 8932 9177 9422 9667 9912 10157 10402 10647 10892 11137 245

FSN 1 7195 7416 7637 7858 8079 8300 8521 8742 8963 9184 9405 9626 9847 10068 221

ATTACHMENT E

Development Investment Analysis

Based on the data sources, GOK priorities and most of all CDCS strategy a key USAID objective in Kosovo has been sustainable and long-term economic growth. The new USAID/Kosovo Country Development and Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) 2014 -2018 have identified agriculture as one of the key areas of support during the strategy period.

In order to determine how to program USAID’s new agriculture project the challenge will be to program this strategically. USAID will certainly have grant funds and technical assistance available to the sector should it decide to invest from 2015. USAID is seen as a critical stakeholder in agricultural development and is able to provide significant direction and support to GOK in terms of investment decisions, policy analysis and decisions, procedures, target outcomes, and technical support required and most importantly results achieved. As USAID funding will be small compared to other donor’s funding these investments by USAID will have to be catalytic – ensuring that USG public funds are effectively utilized. This is a key ingredient to future investments.

Assume that based on the CDCS and the USAID/Kosovo Mission Program Management Plan (PMP) we are targeting agriculture investment decisions that result in:

1. Increased Full Time Equivalent (FTE) jobs both direct and indirect

2. Increased Sales both export and Import substitution

3. Increased hectares under improved productivity/technology conditions

4. Sustainable enterprise expansion after a 5 year investment period

In order to determine which interventions/value chains/enterprises should receive support, the analysis are evaluated by FTE job creation, sales growth realistically projected, and increase in units of production (hectares, livestock units etc) over a 5 year period as related to market access, production experience, secondary industry etc.

Projected sales increases are based on current levels of production, reasonable yields under good management and technologies, and market availability. FTE levels are based on current experience, detailed FTE assessments, and projections of improved productivities. Indirect FTE are approximations but are very conservative. For example rural non-farm income levels are frequently quoted at 2-3 times direct FTE creation. The attached model assumes only between

1.3 and 0.7 times the direct FTE creation. Prices and sales values are only farm level sales. In other words increased sales are projected to be received by the producer only. Depending on enterprise, value added to this projection will be between 50 and 150%. The sales projections are therefore extremely conservative since they do not consider value added beyond the producer.

USAID funding will leverage other funding since a grant fund of $3 million will only provide 5% of capital requirement, and the results are obtained as a result of the investment of limited grant funding ($2-$3 million) and critically strategic direction to public and private investment streams in emerging value chains. The activity will ensure that USAID is seen as the premier provider of strategic thinking to the agribusiness sector something that is missing from other donor efforts.

Capital requirement to achieve the sales is however made up of direct (farmer related) capital required as well as an estimate of additional value chain investments. For example, MAP investments required include farm level investments plus investments in processing off farm such as drying. Similarly for dairy - cost includes livestock plus ancillary investments but not high level processing since there have been significant and adequate investments in processing over the past 5 years.

Ranking is based on sales and FTE and the final rank is based on the average of the two independent rankings.

Enterprise

Direct FTE

Indirect

FTE per Sales per FTE ($) per million million in in sales ($) Sales ($)

Base sales -producer level annual ($)

Producer level Sales increase projection (%)

Resulting Producer level Sales values

Additional over baseline Sales after 5 years ($)

Additional FTE Created

Physical increase required (units)

Units

Leveraged Funding based on lessons learned from previous activities

Sales rank

FTE Rank average overall

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Dairy 54,990 18.19 9.09 14,973,000 26% 24% 15% 15% 15% 18,865,980 23,393,815 26,902,887 30,938,321 35,579,069 20,606,069 562 6,358 cows 17,548,281 1 4 2.5 2 Peppers 44,445 22.50 11.25 2,760,000 25% 25% 30% 20% 20% 3,450,000 4,312,500 5,606,250 6,727,500 8,073,000 5,313,000 179 616 Ha 637,560 5 8 6.5 7 cabbage 89,700 11.15 5.57 414,000 25% 40% 40% 20% 0% 517,500 724,500 1,014,300 1,217,160 1,217,160 803,160 13 129 Ha 214,176 15 17 16.0 16

MAP 20,010 49.98 24.99 2,242,500 30% 40% 35% 20% 20% 2,915,250 4,081,350 5,509,823 6,611,787 7,934,144 5,691,644 427 687 Ha 2,513,810 4 6 5.0 4 Sheep 24,840 40.26 20.13 828,000 5% 15% 50% 50% 50% 869,400 999,810 1,499,715 2,249,573 3,374,359 2,546,359 154 15,377 sheep 3,925,636 9 11 10.0 9

Beekeeping 14,490 69.01 34.51 869,400 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 999,810 1,149,782 1,322,249 1,520,586 1,748,674 879,274 91 10,114 hives 1,605,024 14 13 13.5 13 Raspberry 17,171 58.24 32.36 1,987,200 30% 50% 50% 50% 50% 2,583,360 3,875,040 5,812,560 8,718,840 13,078,260 11,091,060 1,005 335 Ha 6,469,785 2 1 1.5 1 Blueberry 12,699 78.74 39.37 248,400 30% 50% 50% 50% 50% 322,920 484,380 726,570 1,089,855 1,634,783 1,386,383 164 42 Ha 2,599,467 12 9 10.5 10

Lettuce 19,759 50.61 25.30 1,380,000 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 1,545,600 1,731,072 1,938,801 2,171,457 2,432,032 1,052,032 80 51 Ha 175,339 13 14 13.5 13 Asparagus 13,800 72.46 36.23 27,600 300% 50% 50% 50% 50% 110,400 165,600 248,400 372,600 558,900 531,300 58 55 Ha 652,740 16 15 15.5 15

Apples 18,577 53.83 29.91 3,312,000 30% 50% 40% 20% 15% 4,305,600 6,458,400 9,041,760 10,850,112 12,477,629 9,165,629 767 474 Ha 16,336,424 3 2 2.5 2 Pears 15,790 63.33 31.66 483,000 30% 75% 40% 20% 15% 627,900 1,098,825 1,538,355 1,846,026 2,122,930 1,639,930 156 74 Ha 2,049,912 11 10 10.5 10

Sour Cherry 22,292 44.86 17.94 579,600 50% 50% 40% 20% 15% 869,400 1,304,100 1,825,740 2,190,888 2,519,521 1,939,921 122 251 Ha 2,771,316 10 12 11.0 12 Saffron 10,566 94.65 47.32 48,300 5% 100% 60% 40% 40% 50,715 101,430 162,288 227,203 318,084 269,784 38 16 Ha 153,546 17 16 16.5 17

Table Grapes 18,017 55.50 30.84 3,312,000 5% 20% 15% 15% 15% 3,477,600 4,173,120 4,799,088 5,518,951 6,346,794 3,034,794 262 200 Ha 2,896,849 8 7 7.5 8 Gherkins 16,318 61.28 30.64 338,100 150% 150% 50% 30% 30% 845,250 2,113,125 3,169,688 4,120,594 5,356,772 5,018,672 461 297 Ha 1,351,969 6 5 5.5 6

Strawberries 10,943 91.38 45.69 3,105,000 25% 25% 25% 15% 15% 3,881,250 4,851,563 6,064,453 6,974,121 8,020,239 4,915,239 674 119 Ha 3,768,350 7 3 5.0 4

Totals 75,884,249 5,213 3,346 Ha 65,670,183

Moreover, as agriculture enterprise development is at different stages USAID should also consider investing differentially in agribusiness value chains at the levels of their development.

USAID should consider investing differentially in agribusiness value chains at 4 levels as follows:

Level 1: Experimental crops – totally new crop/technology. Independent investment designed to become level 2 crops during 5 year investment period on proof of concept. Anticipate 15% of explored options moving to level 2.

Level 2: New enterprises that have passed Level 1 proof of concept stage. Require USAID investment since commercial adoption has not taken place and public funds will not flow until a critical mass of producers are engaged. This level requires significant hand holding/technical support and some grant funds.

Level 3: These are emerging opportunities. These have probably come out of preceding USAID investments and are now being supported by commercial loans some from public funds, have more than critical mass commercial adoption and are beginning to take on “a life of their own”.

USAID financial engagement is not required here since public funds are adequate to cover demand. This level of investment needs technical assistance.

Level 4: These are stabilizing enterprises by definition of size as well as critically the aggregation function provided by secondary industry (processors etc) as well as emerging strong industry associations. USAID investments - mainly in the form of TA and work force developments will work through the higher level structures, as well as making linkages that will create public private partnerships with GOK, and other relevant stakeholders that will become sustainable.

USAID will play a critical role at all levels, regardless of actual financial investment since knowledge will be the key and not finance especially at higher level interventions.

Enterprise

Direct FTE

Indirect

Sales per FTE ($) per million FTE per in sales ($) million in

Sales ($)

Base sales -producer level annual ($)

Producer level Sales increase projection (%)

Resulting Producer level Sales values ($)

Additional over baseline Sales after 5 years

Physical Additional FTE increase Units

Created required (units)

Leveraged Funding based on lessons learned from previous activities

Sales rank FTE Rank average overall

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Dairy 54,990 18.19 9.09 14,973,000 26% 24% 15% 15% 15% 18,865,980 23,393,815 26,902,887 30,938,321 35,579,069 20,606,069 562 6,358 cows 17,548,281 1 4 2.5 2 Peppers 44,445 22.50 11.25 2,760,000 25% 25% 30% 20% 20% 3,450,000 4,312,500 5,606,250 6,727,500 8,073,000 5,313,000 179 616 Ha 637,560 5 8 6.5 7 cabbage 89,700 11.15 5.57 414,000 25% 40% 40% 20% 0% 517,500 724,500 1,014,300 1,217,160 1,217,160 803,160 13 129 Ha 214,176 15 17 16.0 16

MAP 20,010 49.98 24.99 2,242,500 30% 40% 35% 20% 20% 2,915,250 4,081,350 5,509,823 6,611,787 7,934,144 5,691,644 427 687 Ha 2,513,810 4 6 5.0 4 Sheep 24,840 40.26 20.13 828,000 5% 15% 50% 50% 50% 869,400 999,810 1,499,715 2,249,573 3,374,359 2,546,359 154 15,377 sheep 3,925,636 9 11 10.0 9

Beekeeping 14,490 69.01 34.51 869,400 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 999,810 1,149,782 1,322,249 1,520,586 1,748,674 879,274 91 10,114 hives 1,605,024 14 13 13.5 13 Raspberry 17,171 58.24 32.36 1,987,200 30% 50% 50% 50% 50% 2,583,360 3,875,040 5,812,560 8,718,840 13,078,260 11,091,060 1,005 335 Ha 6,469,785 2 1 1.5 1 Blueberry 12,699 78.74 39.37 248,400 30% 50% 50% 50% 50% 322,920 484,380 726,570 1,089,855 1,634,783 1,386,383 164 42 Ha 2,599,467 12 9 10.5 10

Lettuce 19,759 50.61 25.30 1,380,000 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 1,545,600 1,731,072 1,938,801 2,171,457 2,432,032 1,052,032 80 51 Ha 175,339 13 14 13.5 13 Asparagus 13,800 72.46 36.23 27,600 300% 50% 50% 50% 50% 110,400 165,600 248,400 372,600 558,900 531,300 58 55 Ha 652,740 16 15 15.5 15

Apples 18,577 53.83 29.91 3,312,000 30% 50% 40% 20% 15% 4,305,600 6,458,400 9,041,760 10,850,112 12,477,629 9,165,629 767 474 Ha 16,336,424 3 2 2.5 2 Pears 15,790 63.33 31.66 483,000 30% 75% 40% 20% 15% 627,900 1,098,825 1,538,355 1,846,026 2,122,930 1,639,930 156 74 Ha 2,049,912 11 10 10.5 10

Sour Cherry 22,292 44.86 17.94 579,600 50% 50% 40% 20% 15% 869,400 1,304,100 1,825,740 2,190,888 2,519,521 1,939,921 122 251 Ha 2,771,316 10 12 11.0 12 Saffron 10,566 94.65 47.32 48,300 5% 100% 60% 40% 40% 50,715 101,430 162,288 227,203 318,084 269,784 38 16 Ha 153,546 17 16 16.5 17

Table Grapes 18,017 55.50 30.84 3,312,000 5% 20% 15% 15% 15% 3,477,600 4,173,120 4,799,088 5,518,951 6,346,794 3,034,794 262 200 Ha 2,896,849 8 7 7.5 8 Gherkins 16,318 61.28 30.64 338,100 150% 150% 50% 30% 30% 845,250 2,113,125 3,169,688 4,120,594 5,356,772 5,018,672 461 297 Ha 1,351,969 6 5 5.5 6

Strawberries 10,943 91.38 45.69 3,105,000 25% 25% 25% 15% 15% 3,881,250 4,851,563 6,064,453 6,974,121 8,020,239 4,915,239 674 119 Ha 3,768,350 7 3 5.0 4

Totals 75,884,249 5,213 3,346 Ha 65,670,183

ATTACHMENT F

KOSOVO NEW

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

AGRICULTURE PROGRAM

LESSONS LEARNED

NOVEMBER 2014

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Tetra Tech ARD.

USAID Contact Information:

• Contracting Officer’s Representative: Besa Ilazi, Office of Economic Growth, bilazi@usaid.gov

NOA Contact Information:

• Chief of Party: Mark Wood, New Opportunities for Agriculture, Kosovo mwood@noakos.com

• Senior Technical Advisor/Manager: Claudia LaLumia, Associate, Tetra Tech ARD, claudia.lalumia@tetratech.com

Prepared for the United States Agency for International Development, USAID Contract Number EDH-I-00-05-00006-00, TO AID-167-TO-11-0000, Kosovo New Opportunities for Agriculture Program, under the Rural and Agricultural Incomes with a Sustainable Environment (RAISE Plus) Indefinite Quantity Contract (IQC).

Implemented by:

Tetra Tech ARD 159 Bank St., Suite 300 Burlington, VT 05401 mailto:bilazi@usaid.gov mailto:mwood@noakos.com mailto:claudia.lalumia@tetratech.com

KOSOVO NEW

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

AGRICULTURE

PROGRAM

LESSONS LEARNED

NOVEMBER 2014

DISCLAIMER

The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...............