Amendment_No._01_-_SOL-168-15-000003.pdf

SOL-168-15-000003

Amendment No. 01

CONTINUATION PAGE

Responses to Questions Received

I. General

Q.1 Can you tell me if there is an incumbent contractor currently performing work for this requirement? If so, could you please provide their company name and contract number?

A.1 Chemonics International is currently implementing the Fostering Agricultural Markets

Activity (FARMA) activity in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is similar in scope to the

Agriculture Market Activity (AMA). The Contract Number is: AID-168-C-00-09-00102.

Q.2 Has a contractor performed similar work to this for the government in the past? If available, please provide the incumbent contract number. If you are unable to provide a contract number, is it safe to assume this is a new requirement for the government?

A.2 See answer to Q.1.

Q.3 The RFP and supporting materials contain different names for the program. Can USAD confirm that "Agricultural Market Activity (AMA) in Bosnia and Herzegovina" is the official name of the program, as shown on page 1 of the Branding Strategy in Attachment A.2?

A.3 The official title of the activity is “Agriculture Market Activity (AMA).” Attachment A.2

Branding and Marking is amended to indicate correct title of the activity.

II. Section B

Q.4 Section B.4, Price Schedule (p. 2) lists “Small Grants Fund” after “Total Estimated Cost”. Does this mean that the $3.5m allocated for grants includes associated indirect costs?

A.4 The total amount of $3.5 Million allocated for grants must not include any associated indirect costs or any other costs of managing the grants fund (salaries etc.).

Q.5 Would the Mission consider providing plug figures for the Small Grants Fund for the 6 option periods listed (see image below) or allow offerors to propose estimated cost net of grants? Section B.5, Option to Extend Services (p.3) and Section L currently require offerors to include an estimate for the grant fund for the option periods.

A.5 Offerors are allowed to propose estimated costs for the 6 one-month options.

Q.6 In Section B.5 (page 3), the RFP states the option to extend services under the contract for six additional one-month periods. The table in Section B.5 include only five option periods. Would USAID please confirm that six one-month option period are to be included?

A.6 Confirmed. The RFP will be amended accordingly to add the 6 th

Option to Extend (1 month).

III. SECTION F

Q.7 Section F.8.4, Grants Manual (page 11) and Section H.22, Grants Under Contract (pages 28–30) state that contractors may not issue grants to “foreign governments” or “government organizations,” with reference to http://inside.usaid.gov//ADS/300/302.doc and http://inside.usaid.gov//ADS/300/350.doc. Per recent changes (2014), USAID regulations now allow the issuance of Grants under Contract (GUC) to

“partner government entities,” provided requirements are met per ADS 302.3.4.13 (reference http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/1868/302.pdf). Please confirm that bidders may proceed with proposal development with the assumption that GUCs may be issued to partner government entities in accordance with the above regulations.

A.7 Confirmed. Section F.8.4 and H.22 is hereby amended accordingly.

Q.8 The reporting table under Section F.8.1 (page 10) structures deliverable requirements by contract year rather than the U.S. government fiscal year. Section F.8.7 (page 12) requires that the annual report be based on the USAID fiscal year. Would USAID consider aligning all reports to USAID’s fiscal year rather than the contract year?

A.8 Reporting will be done on a USAID fiscal year basis. However, for M&E Reporting the offerors need to be prepared to report on an annual/calendar years.

Q.9 Please clarify if the M&E Plan is due 60 days or 90 days following contract award.

A.9 90 days. RFP will be amended accordingly.

IV. SECTION H

Q.10 Refer to page 26, Section H.18 (2) of the RFP states that “USAID has determined that a Negative

Determination with conditions applies to one or more proposed activities, as described in the attached

IEE.” The IEE however indicates that components 1 and 4 are likely to receive positive determinations

(deferred and that components 2 and 3 received categorical exclusions. Can USAID please clarify which proposed activities received a Negative Determination?

A10. The Negative Determination check box on the IEE cover sheet was erroneously checked.

However, the interventions and activities proposed by the selected contractor will determine the final environmental determination for categories that are designated for deferral. Possibly some interventions may end up falling under Negative Determination while others under Positive

Determination. The IEE will be amended after the evaluation process is completed to reflect the exact scope of activities that will be incorporated into the final contract.

http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/

Q.11 Refer to page 26 & 27, Sections H.18 (3 and 6c) of the RFP which indicates that an EA addressing environmental concerns of activities receiving a positive determination needs to be prepared.

The IEE (2015-BOS-004) indicates for components 1 and 4 (Section 3) that “Specific Mitigation

Measures will be determined in Amendment. This will include mitigating measures identified in the existing Programmatic Environment Assessment (PEA) Section 7 DCN: 2010-BOS-010.” This suggests that the EA developed for the FARMA program should be followed. If all of the proposed activities analyzed in the FARMA PEA (2010-BOS-2010), does a new EA and Scoping Statement need to be prepared? Can the existing FARMA EA and Scoping Statement be amended if needed?

A.11 In case the interventions proposed for AMA differ from the interventions carried out under the FARMA project, the contractor will be required to update (amend) the PEA.

V. SECTION J

Q.12 Does USAID expect the Contractor to continue a full-scale program in the monthly option periods? Any relevant details will be appreciated.

A.12 No. See answer to Q.5.

Q.13 Refer to page 67, Section L.8 (ix), of the RFP which states that the grants fund for this activity

"must be $3,500,000." Section C.6 of the AMA SOO states that grant fund "will be at a minimum US$3.5 million (larger than US$ 3.5 million Grant Fund as part of the overall Budget will also be considered)."

Can USAID clarify whether proposals that include a grant fund larger than $3.5M will be viewed more favorably?

A.13 The SOO is hereby amended to make Grant Fund language consistent with other sections of the RFP. Proposals must include $3.5M for the Grants Fund.

Q.14 To provide bidders with increased implementation flexibility, can the $3.5 million Grants Fund instead be renamed as an Incentives and Innovation Fund that can be used for either GUC or local subcontracts?

A.14 No. The Grants Fund is intended for grants only.

Q.15 The RFP makes no mention of the Harnessing Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) Diaspora for

Economic Development Activity listed on the June 2015 USAID Mission forecast. Can USAID/SIDA please clarify what cooperation and coordination between AMA and the planned Diaspora Activity is envisaged, and if the two activities will be permitted to focus on similar subsectors/products?

A.15 The Harnessing BiH Diaspora Activity is a new procurement separate from AMA.

Information on this new activity will be posted on FBO.

Q.16 In Section L.7, Subfactor 3 (page 62), the RFP states, “the offeror must propose a numerical target for the share of the sub-sectorial output that the assisted POs will represent in each targeted subsector.” However, in Section C.5(a) of Attachment A.1, SOO, the next-to-last paragraph states, “to insure (sub)sector wide impact, the Contractor must provide assistance to POs that represent at least 50% of sub-sector output.” Would USAID please clarify whether the minimum target of 50 percent is mandated, or if offerors are free to propose targets based on their technical strategy?

A.16 The minimum target of 50% is hereby removed from the RFP. Offerors should propose a numerical target consistent with their strategy.

Q.17 The Statement of Objectives in Attachment A.1 states as one of the expected results: “Assistance provided to POs that represent at least 50% of the subsectoral output.” This may be feasible for some narrowly defined subsectors, with either very large or very few POs, but is much more challenging for broader subsectors, such as fruits and vegetables (as commonly referenced by the FARMA project), which have large numbers of participants of widely varying sizes. Reaching POs who represent at least

50% of Bosnia’s fruit output, for example, would likely be well beyond the means of this program.

Would USAID consider removing the 50% of output requirement or, alternately, may bidders define

“subsectors” more narrowly on their proposals in order to concentrate support in a more targeted fashion, and thereby meet this particular result?

A.17 See answer to Q.16.

Q.18 Section C.8 of the Statement of Objectives (Monitoring and Evaluation, paragraph 1) states that that the "Contractor will work with the M&E Contractor on the final impact evaluation design as part of the M&E plan." We assume that once the final impact evaluation design is approved by USAID-Sida, the

"M&E Contractor" will carry out the actual evaluation. If that is the case, can USAID please clarify whether the AMA Contractor should include the cost of conducting the actual evaluation in its budget for the AMA Activity or whether it will be covered by the M&E Contractor?

A.18 The AMA contractor should not include the cost of conducting the actual evaluation.

However, the AMA contractor should include sufficient costs for its regular monitoring activities, including collecting monitoring data.

Q.19 Refer to page 45, Section J of the RFP lists the solicitation's exhibits and attachments. Please confirm that Exhibit E.1 and Attachment A.2 (regarding Branding and Marking) and Exhibit E.4 and

Attachment A.6 (regarding Small Business Subcontracting) are equivalent, and that no exhibits or attachments are missing.

A.19 Confirmed. No exhibits or attachments are missing. Exhibit E.1 and E.4 will be submitted by the offerors and will become part of the resultant contract.

VI. SECTION K

Q.20 Section K.1 (page 46) incorporates FAR 52.237-8, Restriction on Severance Payments to Foreign

Nationals. Pursuant to the language included in Section L.8(iii), Allowances (page 67), of the RFP and in order to comply with local labor law regarding severance payments, we respectfully request that USAID include FAR 52.237-9, Waiver of Limitation on Severance Payments to Foreign Nationals.

A.20 The requested FAR Clause will not be included in the RFP. FAR 52.237-8, Restriction on

Severance Payments to Foreign Nationals will be deleted from the RFP by amendment. Please refer to Page 68 of the RFP for severance payment restrictions.

VII. SECTION L

Q.21 Can USAID please provide a telephone number in order for Offerors to confirm timely receipt of their proposals?

A.21 USAID will do its best to acknowledge receipt of proposals. However, whether receipt is acknowledged or not, offerors are still responsible for complying with the timeliness requirement in

FAR 15.208(b).

Q.22 Can USAID please confirm that there is no limit on the size of attachments to be included in each of the emails for the proposal submission?

A.22 Size of attachments to be included in each email must not exceed 25MBs. The RFP is hereby amended to include this requirement.

Q.23 In Section L.7 (page 58), USAID details information regarding electronic submission of proposals. What is the maximum file size for attachments in e-mails sent to USAID?

A.23 See answer to Q.22.

Q.24 May bidders submit a staffing matrix (including an organizational chart) in an annex that does not count against the technical proposal page limit?

A.24 Staffing plan and organizational structure information is requested under Management

Plan on Page 62 of the RFP and does count against the page limit.

Q.25 Will an organizational chart be required, and if so, will it be included in the 50-page limit?

A.25 See answer to Q.24.

Q.26 Would USAID please confirm that the cover of the technical proposal, including information required by the RFP, does not count against the 50-page limit for the technical proposal noted in Section

L.7(3)v (page 59)?

A.26 We are confused by the phrase “including information required by the RFP,” but the cover of the technical proposal counts against the 50-page limit. The RFP will be amended accordingly.

Q.27 May offerors provide an executive summary that does not count against the page limit for the technical proposal?

A.27 Executive Summary may be provided by Offerors but it will count against the 50-page limit for the technical proposal.

Q.28 Please confirm that an executive summary may be included in bidders’ technical proposals to

NOT count against the 50page limit.

A.28 See answer to Q.27.

Q.29 Included in the list of items in Section L.7(3)v (page 59) that are subject to the page limit is a

Subcontracting Plan Description. Subfactor 2 (Page 61) instructs large business offerors to submit small business subcontracting goals. Would USAID please clarify whether the Subcontracting Plan Description and the small business subcontracting goals noted under the subhead “small business utilization” and the

Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Attachment A.6) refer to the same requirement?

A.29 “Subcontracting Plan Description” from Page 59 of the RFP is hereby deleted. Small business subcontracting goals must be included under “Small Business Utilization” of the

Management Approach.

Q.30 Section L.7.3.v of the RFP (page 59) lists “Subcontracting Plan Description” as a narrative section to be included in the 50page technical proposal. Proposal instructions for Subfactor 2 –

Management Approach (page 61) and Section M. 3 (page 72) reference “Small Business Utilization,” with no mention of a “Subcontracting Plan Description” in the technical proposal. Please confirm that

“Small Business Utilization” is to be addressed under Subfactor 2 of the technical proposal and not

“Subcontracting Plan Description.”

A.30 Confirmed. Please see answer to Q.29.

Q.31 Section L.7.3.v. (p. 59) lists a “Monitoring & Evaluation Plan Description” as part of the 50-page limit. Does USAID consider this description to be part of the Monitoring & Evaluation Draft Plan Annex referred to in Section L.7.3.vi (p. 60)? Neither the instructions for Subfactor 2, Management Plan (ref.

Section L.7.3, p. 61-62) nor the instructions for Subfactor 3, Monitoring & Evaluation Plan (ref. Section

L.7.3, p. 62) provide instructions about what should be included in the Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Description.

A. 31 “M&E Plan Description” is hereby deleted from Page 59. Offerors must submit a Draft

M&E Plan as an annex to the technical proposal (Page 61).

Q.32 Please confirm that bidders are to submit a Draft M&E Plan that addresses performance indicators and relevant targets and benchmarks, with the expectation that a full M&E plan with appendices will be submitted following contract award?

A.32 Confirmed.

Q.33 Please confirm that Performance Indicator Reference Sheets are not required in the Draft M&E

Plan submitted with the technical proposal.

A.33 Confirmed.

Q.34 Please confirm that the mixed method evaluation outlined in Section L.7 under Subfactor 3 (page

62) will be funded by USAID as an external third party evaluation.

A.34 Confirmed.

Q.35 Section L.7.3.vi. (p. 60), which enumerates the items that should be included as an annex/exhibit, lists in the first bullet an item called “Resumes, references, and tables that summarize detailed qualifications of proposed key personnel.” However the instructions for the Key Personnel section (under

Subfactor 2, Management Approach, p. 61-62) do not reference any tables that summarize detailed qualifications of proposed key personnel. Can USAID confirm that offerors must indeed provide these summary tables? And, if so, that they should be included in the same Annex as Key Personnel resumes and references?

A.35 Tables that summarize detailed qualifications of proposed key personnel are not required.

The RFP will be amended accordingly.

Q.36 Would the Mission consider revising the requirement in Section L.6.3, Item (d) (B) (p. 62) to read:

“(B) To supplement the narrative summary in (A), provide with your summary a copy of the most recent

SF 294 ‘Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts’ against which you were required to report

(maximum of 10) for the past 3 years. The reports may be enclosed as an annex and will not be considered in the page limit”

A.36 The RFP currently includes the same language as suggested above. USAID notes that the reference provided by the interested party was not found in the AMA RFP.

Q.37 RFP Section L.7, Factor 2, paragraph 1 (p. 63) requires Offerors and major subcontractors to list up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts in order to demonstrate past performance. May

Offerors and major subcontractors also include programs implemented through cooperative agreements or other funding mechanisms in this list?

A.37 Yes.

Q.38 Per Section L.7.2.c, Factor 2 – Past Performance, Contractor Performance Information (page 63), may bidders present quality award and certification information for contracts in addition to those for which we present PPRs?

A.38 Yes.

Q.39 Please confirm that bidders may submit up to five Past Performances References for the prime contractor AND up to five for any/each major subcontractors proposed.

A.39 The Offeror is required to submit up to five past performance references for itself AND up to five references for each major subcontractor. Paragraph (a) of “Contractor Performance

Information” under Section L is hereby amended to clarify this requirement.

Q.40 Under Factor 2 (page 63), offerors are required to provide “up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal.” Would USAID please confirm that offerors should provide a total of five past performance references, inclusive of any major subcontractors?

A.40 See answer to Q.39.

Q.41 Section L.7.3.v. (p. 59) lists a “Past Performance Information Summary” as part of the 50-page limit, and Section L.7.3.vi. (p. 60), which enumerates the items that should be included as an annex/exhibit, lists an item called “Past Performance References.” Can USAID please clarify which elements of Contractor Performance Information as enumerated in items (b) – (d) (RFP p. 62-63) may be included in the annex/exhibit called “Past Performance References” referenced on p. 60?

A.41 All information pertaining to the Past Performance Factor 2 is not counted within the page limitation of the Factor 1 Technical Proposal. “Contractor Performance Information” detailed on

Pages 63-65 of the RFP must be included as an Annex to the technical proposal. Offerors may use

Attachment A.4 Contractor Performance Report or a similar format to present the Contractor

Performance Information. “Past Performance Information Summary” from Section L.7 is hereby deleted from the RFP and “Past Performance References” is renamed “Contractor Performance

Information”, to avoid confusion.

Q.42 Under Factor 2 (page 63), offerors are asked to provide a narrative summary of the use of small business concerns over the past three years. Would USAID please consider adding this narrative to the list of annexes in Section L.7(3)vi (page 60) that are not subject to the page limitation?

A.42 See answer to Q.41.

Q.43 Please confirm that bidders may include the narrative presentation of their organizations’ use of small business concerns (as required under Factor 2 – Past Performance [page 63]) in the SF294 annex.

A.43 See answer to Q.41.

Q.44 Section L.7.3, FACTOR 3 - BUSINESS/COST PROPOSAL, Paragraph (3) Extension Option(s)

(p. 64) refers to B.4.b. Should this read B.5?

A.44 Yes, it should read B.5. RFP will be amended accordingly.

Q.45 In Section L.8(i) (page 66), in the paragraph on biographical data sheets, USAID asks offerors to provide proposed annual salary escalation. Would USAID please confirm that offerors may provide this information in the detailed budget narrative?

A.45 Confirmed.

Q.46 Refer to page 65, Section L.8 (b) of the RFP requires the subcontractors' budgets to be in the same template as the Offeror. Could USAID please confirm that a different budget template would be acceptable for subcontractors with Firm Fixed Price contracts?

A. 46 Confirmed.

Q.47 Section L.8.i (page 66) states that no waivers to the U.S. Mission’s Local Compensation Plan will be provided. Could USAID confirm that this applies only to CCNs?

A.47 Confirmed.

Q.48 Would USAID please share the Mission’s Local Compensation Plan for BiH?

A.48 The USAID/BiH Mission Local Compensation Plan will not be shared. USAID will include the maximum salary in the upcoming amendment.

Q.49 Can USAID kindly share the most recent Local Compensation Plan for BiH?

A.49 See answer to Q.48.

Q.50 Section L.8.iii, Allowances (pages 66–67) states that meals and transportation allowances are unallowable for TCNs and CCNs. Can USAID kindly explain if this is an exception from the AIDAR

722.170 (http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/other/aidar/722.htm#P22_1720)?

A.50 According to AIDAR 722.170, “It is USAID policy that cooperating country nationals

(CCNs) and third country nationals (TCNs), who are hired abroad for work in a cooperating country under USAID-direct contracts, generally be extended the same benefits, and be subject to the same restrictions as TCNs and CCNs employed by the USAID Mission.” USAID/BiH

Mission employees are not entitled to Meals and Transportation Allowance.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/other/aidar/722.htm#P22_1720

Q.51 Section L.8, Information to Support Consent to Subcontractors (page 69) references “proposed subcontractors,” while the bulleted list at the bottom of page 64 of the same section only references

“Information to Support Consent to Major Subcontractors.” Please clarify whether bidders must demonstrate the FAR 44.202 factors for all subcontractors or only for major subcontractors?

A. 51 Offerors must demonstrate FAR 44.202 factors for all subcontractors that require CO consent as per the cited FAR section. RFP will be amended accordingly.

VIII. SECTION M

Q.52 Among the evaluation criteria for Small Business Utilization (ref. RFP Section M.3, Subfactor 2, Management Approach p. 72) are “the extent to which the offeror has identified specific small business concerns; the extent of commitment to use small business concerns …[and] types, amount, complexity, and variety of work to be performed by small business concerns…” May offerors interpret this to mean that the Small Business Utilization portion of Subfactor 2 will be evaluated on their use of local organizations and local sub-contracts, among other items? Given that the Bosnia AMA is partly funded by the Swedish Embassy, and in light of USAID’s emphasis on local solutions, will the utilization of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Swedish small businesses also be considered as small business concerns for evaluation purposes?

A.52 No. Only U.S. small businesses will be evaluated under Subfactor 2. See Procurement

Executive Bulletin (PEB) 2014-05 and FAR 19.702.

Q.53 Under Section M.3, Subfactor 2 (page 72), the RFP indicates that the Professional Compensation

Plan will be reviewed under this subfactor. Per Section L.7 (page 59), “no cost information must be presented in the Technical Proposal.” Would USAID consider removing the Professional Compensation

Plan from the evaluation criteria for Subfactor 2 to ensure cost information is not included in the

Technical Proposal?

A.53 Professional Compensation Plan is hereby removed from the evaluation criteria for

Subfactor 2.

Q.54 Section M.2, Subfactor 2: Management Approach – The Management Plan (page 72) states that

“the Professional Compensation Plan will be reviewed under this subfactor.” It is unusual that this is to be evaluated in a technical (as opposed to cost) proposal. Please clarify where bidders are to include the

Professional Compensation Plan.

A.54 See answer to Q.53. As stated in the RFP, “The detailed salary and benefit information for professional employees that the Offeror provide in its cost proposal will be considered your professional compensation plan.”

Q.55 Can USAID confirm that there are only four evaluation criteria for Factor 2, Past Performance

(ref. Section M.3, p. 72-73)? The current list jumps from item (d) to item (f). Has item (e) been left out, or is the list simply mis-numbered?

A.55 Paragraph (f) will be changed to paragraph (e) in the amendment.

Q.56 Section M.2 of the RFP (page 71) details the adjectival ratings that will be used to evaluate bidders’ past performance (Factor 2). Please also provide the range of adjectival ratings the technical committee will use to evaluate Factor 1 (Technical).

A.56 The adjectival ratings for the Past Performance were provided in response to the FAR

15.304(d) which requires us to describe the general approach for evaluating Past Performance.

While FAR 15.304 allows us to refrain from disclosing the overall rating method, we will do so in the amendment in the interest of transparency.

Q.57 Will the three parts of Subfactor 2 (Management Approach) be accorded equal weight?

A.57 Subfactor 2 is not composed of three separate parts. The three paragraphs are all part of

Subfactor 2 – a significant subfactor. As such they will be evaluated and given an adjectival rating at the subfactor level. See FAR 5.304(d).

[END OF Q&A]

Amendments to the Solicitation

1. In Section “B.4, Price Schedule”, paragraph “(a) Cost Category”, Amount for Small Grants Fund is replaced from “TBD” to “$3.5 Million.”

2. In Section “B.5, Option to Extend Services”, “6 th option to extend (1 month)” is added to “Cost

Category.”

3. In Sections “F.8.1 Reports Submission Schedule and F.8.2 Annual Work Plans”, submission dates for the Work Plan, and Monitoring and Evaluation Plan were changed from “60” to “90” days.

4. Section “F.8.4 Grants Manual”, is revised to delete links and delete: “The Contractor may not award Grants to Foreign Governments.”

5. Section G.4 title is revised to read “Authority/Limitations of Contracting Officer’s

Representative”.

6. Section “H.18 Environmental Compliance” is revised to clarify Negative Determination.

7. In Section “H.22 Grants under Contract”, reference to “ADS 302.3.4.8” is replaced with “ADS 302.3.4.13.” In addition, paragraphs 1., 3. and 9. are revised to indicate that Partner Government Entities may also receive grants.

8. In Section K, the following contract clause incorporated by reference is deleted: “52.237-8 Restriction on Severance Payments to Foreign Nationals (AUG 2003).”

9. In Section L.7, the following paragraph is inserted: “(2) The offeror must limit the size of its attachments to 25MB per email.”

10. In “Proposal Format and Content” paragraphs v. and vi. are deleted in their entirety and replaced with the following:

“v. The 50-Page Limitation stated above is inclusive of the following:

Statement of Work (SOW) (Limit of 30 pages);

Management Approach;

Cover Page;

Cover Letter;

Table of Contents;

Acronym List;

Title Pages; and

Dividers.

vi. The following are to be included in the Technical Proposal as an annex/exhibit and will not be subject to 50-Page limitation:

Draft Monitoring and Evaluation Plan;

Contractor Performance Information;

SF 294 Subcontracting Reports;

Resumes and references of Key Personnel; and

Statement of Intention and Availability of Key Personnel.”

11. In Section L, Factor 2 – Past Performance, under “Contractor Performance Information”, the following sentence was added to paragraph (a): “Attachment A.4 - Contractor Performance Report – Short Form may be used by offerors to present the information requested below.”

12. In Section L, Factor 2 – Past Performance, under “Contractor Performance Information”, the following sentence under paragraph (a) 1. was revised as follows: “List in an annex to the technical proposal up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts for the offeror and up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts for each major subcontractor for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal.”

13. In Section L, Factor 3 – Business/Cost Proposal, paragraph (3) Extension Options, reference changed from “Section B.4 (b)” to “Section B.5.”

14. In Section L.8, “Instruction for the preparation of Cost Proposal”, under paragraph (a)

“Information to Support Consent to Major Subcontractors” is replaced by: “Information to Support Consent to Subcontractors (if CO consent is required).”

15. In “Proposed Cost/Price, i. Salary and Wages”, the maximum annual rate of BAM 87,913 is included.

16. In “Proposed Costs/Price, ix. Grants under Contracts”, the following sentence is added: “Offerors must not include indirect costs or other management costs (salaries etc.) associated with the

Grants Fund under this cost category.”

17. In Section M.2 “Method of Evaluation”, adjectival ratings for evaluation of Factor 1 inserted.

18. In Section M.3 “Evaluation Factors, Factor 1, Subfactor 2, The Management Plan”, the following sentence is deleted: “The Professional Compensation Plan will be reviewed under this subfactor.”

19. Section M.3, Factor 2 – “Past Performance”, paragraph “(f)” is renumbered as paragraph “(e).”

20. In Attachment A.1 “Statement of Objectives”, Section C.6 Grant Fund” the following is deleted “Grant Fund that will be at a minimum US$3.5 million (larger than US$ 3.5 million Grant Fund as part of the overall Budget will also be considered)” and replaced with “The Contractor will administer a Grant Fund that must be US$3.5 million.”

21. In Attachment A.1 “Statement of Objectives”, under Section C.5 (a), the following sentence is deleted: “To insure (sub)sector wide impact, the Contractor must provide assistance to POs that represent at least 50% of sub-sector output.”

22. In Attachment A.1 “Statement of Objectives”, under Section C.5 (c), the following sentence is deleted: “Assistance provided to POs that represent at least 50% of the sub-sectoral output” and replaced with “Assistance provided to POs based on the principles of focus, selectivity and scale."

23. In Attachment “A.2 Branding and Marking”, the name of the activity is changed from

“Agricultural Market Activity” to “Agriculture Market Activity.”

[END OF AMENDMENT NO. 01 - RFP NO. SOL-168-15-000003]