Amendment 2 Q with A.pdf

1 of 17 9/1/2011

SOL-182-11-000003 PLGP

Questions received by August 25, noon Budapest time

1. RFP Section L, pages 88 and 93

Page 88 of the RFP lists SF-294 forms as an Annex to the Technical Proposal, and Page 93 of the RFP notes that SF-294 reports for the past three years should be provided as an annex to the cost proposal. Since a complete package of SF-294 reports can be voluminous, would USAID accept that SF-294 reports be included only in a CD- ROM with the hard copy submission? This option would minimize the size of the email submission and would reduce the paper volume of the hard copy submission.

Text has been revised to add the following instructions to Offerors: “…provide the annual summaries of the most recent SF 294 “Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts" for the 10 most relevant contracts, in terms of value and scope, against which Offeror was required to report for the past three years. SF 294 can be submitted as an annex to the cost proposal. Offerors shall submit the annual summaries for the last three years of the SF-294 report as available from eSRS, https://esrs.symplicity.com/index?_tab=signin. Offerors shall provide electronic versions (pdf) via e-mail attachments and hard-copy printed versions.

2. Section L.6, page 87 Would USAID accept email delivery of the proposal by the due date followed by hard copies of the proposal sent by courier by the due date?

The hard copy version and electronic version are due at the time and place as advertised in the RFP.

In the event of version discrepancies, the hard copy version takes precedence.

3. Section L, page 88 Is it acceptable to include summary CVs (not to exceed two pages) for nonkey personnel in the appendix?

Yes.

4. Section I.15, page 67 Can we assume the subcontracting goal to US disadvantaged enterprises (10%) is expressed in terms of percentage of total proposed subcontracting?

The AIDAR Clause requires “Not less than ten (10) percent of the dollar value of this contract shall be subcontracted to disadvantaged enterprises,” however, Contracts that will be performed entirely outside of the United States are exempt from this threshold requirement in accordance with exception authorized by FAR 19.702(b)(3).

RFP text has been added to require that “An Offeror proposing HQ costs as direct costs shall provide a brief explanation why the Offeror would not be able to meet the 10% AIDAR requirement, 752.226-2, for the utilization of disadvantaged businesses. The Offeror must attach a certification stating that “there is no realistic expectation of U.S.

subcontracting opportunities,” in accordance with AIDAR 726.7007.”

SOL‐182‐11‐000003 PLGP USAID/Albania Q&A

5. Section M.2.II, page 100 Is the offeror expected to propose a home office manager as key personnel?

No, home office personnel are not considered “key” personnel. Word “managerial” preceding “complement” removed from M.2.II.(b).(ii).

6. Section L.7, page 93 Does the offeror need to submit staff retention data for all comparable projects in the last five years or only for the 5 projects for which past performance references are provided.

Offerors are required to provide key personnel retention data for all comparable projects over the last five years.

7. RFP Section H. 45, page 59 Authorized Geographic Code The RFP in Section H.45 provides geographic code 000 with blanket waiver for local procurement. However, section C.5.2 Key personnel requires–Urban Planning Expert (U.S. Expat or Third Country National). Please clarify if the offeror proposes a TCN or a Sub contractor TCN, will USAID provide a TCN waiver post award to work under the project for salary and allowances and to be paid in U.S. dollars other than LCP and local currency. Further, please clarify whether USAID will provide a blanket waiver for TCN allowances and salary or the contractor will be required to obtain a waiver each time for TCN personnel.

Propose costs to include TCN professional salaries in excess of the LCP and allowances that are consistent with the Offeror’s personnel policies, subject to waiver approval by the Mission Director. TCN waivers, if any, will be on case-by-case basis.

8. RFP Section M Cost Proposal Evaluation, page 100 Please provide a copy of the USAID/Albania Local Compensation Plan (LCP) or salary range for each FSN labor category in order for offerors to submit fair and reasonable salaries for local employees.

Added as Attachment 16 to the RFP

9. RFP attachment page 111 (III) Cost matrix The budget line items definitions and illustrations for Salaries and Wages require biographical data sheets for Professional Staff. Please clarify which staff categories are considered as “professional staff”.

According to the LCP, grades 9-12 are considered “professional” staff.

10. Would USAID consider removing the exclusivity requirement for local nationals key personnel as stated on page 91 of the RFP? We find it unusual that exclusivity be required for local positions. In this case it seems to be required explicitly of the two local expert positions that are designated as Key Positions. Further, this requirement implicitly extends the practice to all local hires. In many USAID RFPs, such practices are explicitly not condoned for local hires or at least not encouraged.

The exclusivity agreement refers to a proposed international (USA/TCN) candidate committing him/herself exclusively for the life of the project. Exclusivity arrangements with local staff are discouraged.

11. It appears that the COP is also supposed to double as the Municipal Finance Expert. If so, this would be an unusual requirement for the necessary allocation of talent and time for a COP position for this kind of project that has much broader responsibilities and requires a much broader understanding decentralization issues. Please clarify if this representation is illustrative and that USAID is open to other allocations of staffing to meet requirements in the Management Section of the proposal.

Requirements for the COP position have been revised (Section C.5.1 of the RFP).

12. Please clarify if the territorial planning regulations (specifically the Model Planning Regulation, the Uniform Development Control Regulation and the Uniform Planning Regulation contained in the Internet link provided on page 117 of the RFP) have been officially approved by the GOA.

These regulations have been approved by the GOA in late-June 2011.

13. The previous USAID LGPA project had a number of initiatives under the LED framework in the Cities of Korce, Lezhe and Shkodra that we understand were not completed. Does USAID want to include actions to help complete these initiatives?

This will depend on whether these municipalities will be selected in the post-award municipal/commune selection process and, if so, whether this would be a priority for the jurisdiction.

14. The SOW suggests using a mid-level Albanian national to fill the Asset Management position. Please clarify if it will be acceptable to use a local senior level specialist to fill this position.

All the tables containing LOE are illustrative. An Offeror may propose senior level specialist as appropriate to approach.

15. Under the Project Key Personnel and Qualifications section C.5.1 (Chief of Party), subsection 2, the qualifications include “minimal seven years of demonstrated experience in municipal finance and decentralization reform in developing countries”.

May we provide a mix of key staff that together cover all the skills required for this project, rather than assigning the role of financial advisor to the Chief of Party?

Please see response to question 11 and revised requirements in Section C.5.1 of the

RFP.

16. While the qualifications detailed for the Urban Planning Expert (Section C.5.2, page 20 of 128) states that this person must be an Expatriate or TCN, may Offerors propose a CCN as long as that candidate meets the six qualifications detailed within this section for this position?

The requirements for the Urban Planning Expert (Section C.5.2 of the RFP) have been modified. Offerors may propose a CCN meeting required qualifications.

17. Item L.7.(b)V (Instructions to the Preparation of the Technical Proposal – Organization – Annexes) found on page 88 of 128 of the solicitation states that the Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan corresponding to the LoPWP should be included as Annex L to the Technical Proposal. However, in Section L.9, Instructions for the Preparation of the Branding and Marking Plans that begins on page 97 of the solicitation, it states in bold, that “Offeror(s) should submit a preliminary BIP and MP (not to exceed two pages) as a separate annex to the cost proposal.”.

Would USAID confirm that the Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plans should be included in the Cost Proposal as prescribed in Section L.7 and not in the Technical Proposal Annexes as referenced in L.7.(b)V.l? Would USAID further confirm that in accordance with the guidance provided in Section L.7 only a preliminary two page BIP and MP are required at the time of submission with a more detailed plan provided after award?

Relevant subsections of RFP Section L have been revised to require that the BIP and MP are due as Part 11 of the Cost Proposal. The BIP and MP are required to be comprehensive in accordance with the cited Sections of ADS 320 and consistent with the Offeror’s LOPWP.

18. On page 87, Section L.6 Proposal Submission, requests that both electronic and hard-copies are to be provided to USAID. If hard copies are also required on that date this would substantially reduce the time that offerors have to prepare the proposal given the time required for international deliver/customs, etc. Will USAID consider a compliant submission to be electronic copies submitted by 12:00 p.m. Budapest time on October 3rd, with hard copies postmarked to USAID on the same date?

The hard copy version and electronic version are due at the time and place as

In the event of version discrepancies, the hard copy version takes precedence.

19. Would you please provide a copy of the most current FSN Local Employee Compensation Plan for Albania?

Added as Attachment 16 to the RFP.

20. Section I.15 on page 67 of the RFP states that not less than 10% of the value of the contract must be subcontracted to Disadvantaged Enterprises. We respectfully request that USAID consider deleting this requirement in favor of maximizing the participation of Albanian expertise in order to ensure sustainability. The prime contractor must field the expatriate COP, as well as cover the costs for project office and support staff, project activities, procurement, etc., given that outsourcing these portions of the contract would create higher costs by duplicating and layering management and administrative costs, and would represent a performance risk. Therefore, 10% of contract value represents a significantly higher portion of the remaining technical assistance component of the project, possibly 25-50%.

If this level of resources must be set aside for a US organization, it will significantly reduce if not eliminate the ability of the prime contractor to set aside resources for Albanian implementing partners. This seems to contradict the requirement that the project maximize the use of local capacity, as indicated in Section M.2.I. Technical Approach, on page 99:

“(c) Local capacity: Degree to which the Offeror proposes the efficient and effective utilization of local capacity to achieve intermediate and desired project results, in a way that will support sustainability and allow replication on a national scale. (10 points)”

The AIDAR Clause requires “Not less than ten (10) percent of the dollar value of this contract shall be subcontracted to disadvantaged enterprises,” however, Contracts that will be performed entirely outside of the United States are exempt from this threshold requirement in accordance with exception authorized by FAR 19.702(b)(3).

RFP text has been added to require that “An Offeror proposing HQ costs as direct costs shall provide a brief explanation why the Offeror would not be able to meet the 10% AIDAR requirement, 752.226-2, for the utilization of disadvantaged businesses. The Offeror must attach a certification stating that “there is no realistic expectation of U.S.

subcontracting opportunities,” in accordance with AIDAR 726.7007.”

21. Cover letter Please confirm that the anticipated award is a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Level-of-Effort term contract.

In accordance with FAR 16.306 Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts, paragraph (d) (2) The term form describes the scope of work in general terms and obligates the contractor to devote a specified level of effort for a stated time period. Under this form, if the performance is considered satisfactory by the Government, the fixed fee is payable at the expiration of the agreed-upon period, upon contractor statement that the level of effort specified in the contract has been expended in performing the contract work.

Renewal for further periods of performance is a new acquisition that involves new cost and fee arrangements.

22. Page 10 Please clarify if $700,000 in total for the selected municipalities and communes for the purchase of the hardware and software and for training on its use is expected to be defined as grants, and if yes, are grants under contracts authorized under this award, or could this procurement be done as in-kind grants not subject to GUC.

No grants are anticipated under this SOW. The Contractor will prepare property transfer documents for purchases benefitting local governments such as IT equipment.

23. Page 14, at the end of section C.4.1.a, in respect to the following text: "Note to Offerors: Approaches that suggest a certain portion of GOA grant funds be awarded on a discretionary basis by the GOA would not be consistent with the objectives of this program."

We would like to clarify whether the intent of this statement is that support to "…GOA in clarifying and strengthening the process, criteria and transparency for allocating competitive GOA grants to local government entities…" it is intended to refer to the fact that the intention is for competitive grants to remain non-discretionary?

Does this note to offerors exclude the possibility that sometime over the 5-year implementation period and under sub-task 4: "Assist the GOA, LG representatives, and relevant NGOs/municipal associations to make informed decisions based on inclusive consultations/broad consensus that will result in more equitable distribution of resources and delivery of services.", that this assistance could also include a review of the unconditional grant.

The statement does not exclude the possibility of a policy review of unconditional grants.

24. Page 16, Section C.4.2.b. We would like to clarify the deadlines between the recommendation and approval of the 10-15 candidate municipalities (item 1) and the delivery date for the action plan on utilization by selected municipalities who will utilize ICT to improve functions. As it is expected that the final list of partner municipalities will not have been approved until the end of the first three (3) months of the project, then it would seem that there would also only be three (3) months to prepare the action plan. If the intent that the action plan should require 6 months, then it would seem more logical it should be submitted within 9 months from the start of the contract.

The action plan is due six months after award.

25. Page 19, Section C. 4.4.b, Item one.

We would like to clarify that the action plan mentioned in this Item refers only to the National Territorial Planning Agency (NTPA).

Correct.

26. Pages 20, 31 and 90 in reference to key personnel.

We would like to clarify that the intent of USAID is that there should be four key personnel + one additional key management personnel. On page 31, following the list of four key personnel, the paragraph then refers to two key personnel.

Further, if the intent is that there are four key personnel, could you confirm that these four key personnel are: i) the Chief of Party; ii) The Urban Planning Expert (US or TCN);

iii) Municipal Governance / Decentralization Expert (Albanian National) and iv)Urban Planning Expert (Albanian National)? Finally, we would like to confirm that as per Page 91, as part the required elements of the letter of commitment, EACH of these four key personnel must include an agreement of exclusivity?

This project requires four key personnel listed by qualifications in Section C and by title in Section F.11. Offerors are afforded flexibility to propose an additional complementary key personnel who will be evaluated in accordance with Section M.2.II.(b)(i).

RFP text that stated “two” has been corrected.

An exclusivity agreement is required for each key personnel – required and additional – who is international (non-local).

27. Page 73 Attachment 6 is stated in the list of attachments, Part III on page 73 as “Agreement on ceiling rates.” The actual attachment appears to be “Deviation from the NICRA agreement” and refers to reduction of NICRA rates for cost share purposes. It appears that this document was attached by mistake. Please clarify if USAID is seeking a cost share on this project, or a NICRA deviation.

The FAR citation has been added to clarify the purpose of this attachment which includes other than cost share purposes. USAID seeks neither cost share nor a NICRA deviation.

28. Page 87 - L.6. Proposal Submission Please consider allowing the e-mail submission to be the governing one, meaning that the e-mail submission must take place prior to the required time and date for the proposal to qualify as submitted on time, and the hard copy submission could follow at a later date, as long as it is post-marked no later than the submission date of October 3.

The hard copy version and electronic version are due at the time and place as

29. On page 88, Branding and Marking Plans are listed as an Annex to the Technical Proposal, however, on page 97, it is stated that BIP and MP are a separate annex to the cost proposal. Please clarify how we should submit these plans – as an annex to the technical or to the cost proposals?

Please see # 17 above.

30. Page 89, 2) Draft First Year Annual Work Plan Please confirm that the Draft First Year Annual Work Plan is an ANNEX, as this point is not stated in the relevant paragraph on page 89.

It is an Annex. Clarification added to RFP.

31. Page 90, Second paragraph under e. Performance Monitoring Plan, there is a statement: "Offerors shall include complementary results and indicators in their technical proposals to the extent they deem necessary, clearly linking these to their proposed critical path of inputs, outputs, and outcomes leading to strengthened capacity to implement health reforms in selected cities / municipalities."

We understand the objective of PLGP is not in any way related to health reforms?

Corrected to read “local governance/decentralization.” PLGP is not related to health reforms.

32. Page 90, f Mobilization Plan. Will the PLGP inherit any vehicles or office equipment from the recently completed LGPA Project? If yes, could you please detail what is specifically expected to be transferred to the successful offeror?

This project will inherit two four-year-old, four-wheel drive vehicles now included in the RFP listed in Attachment 17.

33. Page 90, g Draft of Section C. We would like to confirm that this annex is intended to take the full Section C – Description / Specifications / Statement of Work, make changes and adjustments to the text in line with the proposal prepared by the Offeror, including the specific indicators which will have been included in the technical approach and PMP? If something other was intended, please clarify what is the intent of this Annex?

This is correct. The intent of this Annex is to standardize the format of elements of the proposal representing performance for the purposes of evaluation and to expedite final draft of Section C of the awarded Contract. This includes capturing additional and attributable interim results, tasks, activities and indicators.

RFP has been updated to direct Offerors to “track changes.”

34. Page 91 Key Personnel Resumes, second paragraph In respect to the requirement that work experience must be presented chronologically, please clarify whether this work experience is to be presented starting with most recent experience and working backwards chronologically?

Please start with the most recent experience and work backwards.

35. Page 92, III Past Performance, a.1) In respect to the following: "1) For the prime Offeror and each major subcontractor: List in an annex to the technical proposal five of the most recent and relevant contracts (within the last four years)…"

We would like to clarify, there are five (5) recent / relevant contracts to be listed PER ENTITY or five (5) recent / relevant contracts to be listed IN TOTAL?

Clarified in RFP to read: List in an annex to the technical proposal five of the most recent and relevant contracts per entity within the last four years for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal.

Note also that for the purposes of past performance, the definition of subcontractors has been changed to be consistent with FAR: the RFP text has been changed from “major subcontractors” to “subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.”

36. Page 110 Is the cost matrix on page 110 required for all, or just major, subcontractors?

Major subcontractors.

37. May we have final versions of the following Planning Regulations approved by Parliament 6/22/11 and effective 15 days later:

Uniform Planning Regulations

Model Planning Regulation

Uniform Development Control Regulation

The regulations appearing in Annex 9 of the RFP are drafts.

The draft provided is the final one. See Item 12 above. These regulations were approved at the end of June 2011.

38. The RFP states that the cost plus fixed fee amount is to be determined. The IEE annex mentions a figure of $8.5 million. Please clarify the estimated total amount.

The IEE document is not a source for estimating the cost of this project. In accordance with ADS 302.3.5.7, COs may not include estimated price ranges in solicitations for a cost-reimbursement term (LOE) contract.

39. Shall we assume that regional councils should be partners and beneficiaries of the program?

No. The RFP refers to municipal and communal councils.

40. The municipal governance/decentralization expert (Albanian national) described on page 20 of the RFP is classified as key personnel. The local full-time decentralization specialist position listed in the table under C.4(1)(c) on page 15 is not noted as such.

Please confirm whether these are the same key personnel position or if USAID envisions these as two separate positions.

The position in the referenced table is key. Corrected and clarified in RFP.

41. Section M.2.II(a) on page 100 describes evaluation criteria for the four key personnel described in Section C.5 (pages 20-21). If offerors propose a fifth key personnel candidate, will that candidate be evaluated with the four key personnel described in the

RFP?

If an Offeror proposes a fifth key personnel, the additional key personnel will be evaluated according to Section M.2.II. (b)(i).

42. In Section L.7(c)(4) on page 89, USAID requests a life-of-contract implementation plan showing key interventions, milestones, and timeframes. Section L.7(d)(1) requests a draft life-of-project work plan (LoPWP) that includes, among other things, principal tasks and activities; timeframes; and how they contribute to benchmarks, milestones, and other indicators. The two appear to require similar — and perhaps duplicative — content and presentation. Please clarify the difference between the implementation plan and LoPWP.

There is one life-of-project work plan required. It is an Annex. The RFP has been corrected to delete duplication.

43. Section L.7(g) on page 90 refers to a draft Section C that... “will correspond to the

Contractor’s approach, replacing illustrative statements with performance statements.

The Offer shall incorporate intermediate results and concomitant tasks/activities/deliverables that are directly and exclusively attributable to the Contractor.” Please confirm that Contractors are not required to include proprietary information from their proposals in the draft Section C.

Offerors may include proprietary information in the draft Section C and must indicate that the information is proprietary.

The intent of this Annex is to standardize the format of elements of the proposal representing performance for the purposes of evaluation and to expedite the final draft of Section C of the awarded Contract. This includes capturing additional and attributable interim results, tasks, activities and indicators.

44. RFP Attachment 5 Section III (Overhead, G&A and Material Overhead) states, “all indirect rates offerors propose must match those ceiling rates proposed in Section B.”

Please clarify whether offerors should prepare cost proposals using current provisional rates or the proposed ceiling rates.

The Offeror must include in its cost proposal the rates in effect in its current NICRA, if any, unless the Offeror is proposing lower indirect cost rates which requires the Offeror to submit Section J, Attachment 6, with rationale and justification. An Offeror’s ceiling rates must be consistent with the NICRA. Offerors are cautioned that ceiling rates may be used for the required cost realism analysis.

45. Section L.8(b)(3) states, “individual subcontractors should include the same cost element breakdowns in their budgets as applicable.” Please confirm that this cost information is only required for proposed major subcontractors.

Major subcontractors and subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement that are included in the definition of contractors subject to past performance evaluation (FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii)).

46. Please confirm whether offerors are required to submit a detailed procurement plan as stipulated in Attachment 5 Section III, since this requirement is not included in Section L.8(b)(2)(D) on page 94 of the RFP.

RFP text is clarified in both Sections L.8 and Attachment 5 as follows: “The Offeror shall break out costs by types and units, and include an analysis that it is more advantageous to purchase than lease. The Offeror shall submit a list of proposed non-expendable property purchases. The Offeror shall specify all equipment to be purchased, including the type of equipment, the manufacturer, the unit cost, the number of units to be purchased. The Offeror shall include a detailed procurement plan for equipment to be purchased under this contract containing explicit information on how procurements will be accomplished.”

47. Section H.9(c) on page 39 states, “reimbursement for local travel in connection with duties directly referable to the contract shall not be in excess of the rates established by the Mission Director for the travel costs of travelers in the Cooperating Country.” For budgeting purposes, would USAID please provide the rates established by the Mission Director?

The rates used by the USAID Mission are in accordance with standard USG per diem rates for foreign locations.

48. Section L.7(III)(b)(3)(ii) on page 93 instructs offerors to provide a copy of the most recent SF 294 “Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts” for each contract against which they were required to report for the past three years. Given the volume of our SF 294s for the past three years, which total hundreds of pages, we ask that USAID consider receiving these forms on CD-ROM as an annex to the technical volume.

Alternatively, we respectfully request the option of submitting 10 relevant SF 294 forms for USAID’s review.

Text has been revised to add the following instructions to Offerors: “…provide the annual summaries of the most recent SF 294 “Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts" for the 10 most relevant contracts, in terms of value and scope, against which Offeror was required to report for the past three years. SF 294 can be submitted as an annex to the cost proposal. Offerors shall submit the annual summaries for the last three years of the SF-294 report as available from eSRS, https://esrs.symplicity.com/index?_tab=signin. Offerors shall provide electronic versions (pdf) via e-mail attachments and hard-copy printed versions.

49. Section L.7.(c).I.c.4 on page 89, under the “Technical Approach” section requires an implementation plan as part of the technical response.

Please confirm that USAID only requires the Work Plans listed in the annex, and that there is no requirement for an implementation plan narrative in the body of the technical proposal.

RFP text has been revised to note which technical submission sections are excluded from the technical proposal body page limit.

50. Section L7.(b).V.l, under the required Technical Approach Annexes requires Branding Implementation Plan and a Marking Plan. Page 97, Section L.9 requires the plans from “the Apparent Offeror”.

Please confirm that Offerors are not required to produce Branding Implementation and Marking plans as part of the initial proposal submission, but rather that the successful Offeror will be required to do so upon award.

Offerors must each submit a comprehensive BIP and MP. Please see # 17 above.

51. Section B does not include an estimated ceiling for this contract, and the RFP does not include the most recent FSN scale.

Please provide the price ceiling or a price range.

In accordance with ADS 302.3.5.7, COs may not include estimated price ranges in solicitations for a cost-reimbursement term (LOE) contract.

Please provide (or point contractors to) the most recent Local Compensation Plan and information regarding local labor laws for severance, 13th month bonus, taxes, registration information, and other labor issues.

Added as Attachment 16 to the RFP.

52. Section L.7.(c).III.a on page 92 under the “Past Performance” section states that major subcontractors are those that have a budget of at least $1M. Section L.7.(c).III.a allows past performance information for Offerors “and each major subcontractor”.

Since the RFP does not include a budget range nor ceiling, and since the requirement listed on page 67, Section I.15 to include disadvantaged business is 10% (which could be less than $1M, if the budget is under $10M), would USAID consider including past performance references for all subcontractors with a confirmed budget for the project?

For the purposes of past performance, the definition of subcontractors has been changed to be consistent with FAR. The RFP text for past performance regarding subcontractors has been changed from “major subcontractors” to “subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.”

The AIDAR Clause requires “Not less than ten (10) percent of the dollar value of this contract Not less than ten (10) percent of the dollar value of this contract shall be subcontracted to disadvantaged enterprises,” however, Contracts that will be performed entirely outside of the United States may be excepted from this threshold requirement in accordance with exception authorized by FAR 19.702(b)(3).

RFP text has been added to require that “An Offeror proposing HQ costs as direct costs shall provide a brief explanation why the Offeror would not be able to meet the 10% AIDAR requirement, 752.226-2, for the utilization of disadvantaged businesses. The Offeror must attach a certification stating that “there is no realistic expectation of U.S.

subcontracting opportunities,” in accordance with AIDAR 726.7007.”

53. Section I.12 on page 65 encourages the use of small and disadvantaged businesses, while Section I. 15 on page 67 requires not less than ten percent of the dollar value of the contract to go to disadvantaged enterprises.

Please confirm that the 10% requirement is for small and/or disadvantaged businesses, rather than only disadvantaged businesses.

The AIDAR Clause requires “Not less than ten (10) percent of the dollar value of this contract Not less than ten (10) percent of the dollar value of this contract shall be subcontracted to disadvantaged enterprises,” however, Contracts that will be performed entirely outside of the United States may be excepted from this threshold requirement in accordance with exception authorized by FAR 19.702(b)(3).

RFP text has been added to require that “An Offeror proposing HQ costs as direct costs shall provide a brief explanation why the Offeror would not be able to meet the 10% AIDAR requirement, 752.226-2, for the utilization of disadvantaged businesses.”

54. Section L7.(b).V.k, under the required Technical Approach Annexes requires a “Word Version of Section C of the Contract Schedule.” Section Section L7.(c).I.g provides details on what is to go into this revised Section C.

Please confirm whether USAID would like the revised Section C annex to include highlighted text to indicate changed text.

RFP has been updated to direct Offerors to “track changes.” The intent of this Annex is to standardize the format of elements of the proposal representing performance for the purposes of evaluation and to expedite final draft of Section C of the awarded Contract.

This includes capturing additional and attributable interim results, tasks, activities and indicators.

55. The first paragraph of Section L.7.(c).II.b on page 91 under the “Project Staffing and Management Approach” section states that “Offerors shall describe the composition and organizational structure of the professional team and home office support including descriptions of the role, technical expertise, and estimated amount of time to be devoted to the activity for each person.

Please confirm that the descriptions of technical expertise refers only to Key Personnel, per Section L7.(b).V.e on page 88, which requires CVs only from Key Personnel, and per Section L.7.(c).II, pages 90-91, which require details on Key Personnel only. Please confirm that Offerors are not required to present additional candidates for any positions other than Key Personnel.

Specific candidates are not required with the proposal for non-key positions, however, highlighting individual staff availability by name may be a method of demonstrating an Offeror’s capacity, among other things. CVs for non-key personnel are not required and will not be evaluated.

The professional team supporting the required LOE for the project will include other than key personnel. For this reason, descriptions of the role, technical expertise, and estimated amount of time to be devoted to the activity is required.

If not provided with the proposal, then during the course of implementation, biographical data is required for (1) All individuals to be sent outside of the United States, or (2) any employees designated as “key personnel,” in accordance with AIDAR 752.7001.

RFP text in Section L.7.(c).II.b has been edited for clarification

56. Items L.7.(c).II.a.7 and L.7.(c).II.a.8 on page 92, under the “Past Performance” section require information regarding performance, timeliness, quality, cost and other issues.

Please confirm that USAID will receive this information by contacting the references submitted for each project.

USAID will contact references. In addition, the RFP has been revised to require Offerors to provide copies of PPIRS reports for similar projects of comparable type, complexity and value.

57. The Illustrative Life of Project LOE table under Section F.10 on page 30 seems to represent only technical staff, because the numbers correspond to the technical staff tables provided in RFP section C for each component. The note below the table indicates that it includes mobilization and demobilization, which tends to include management, finance and other support staff.

Please confirm that the LOE represented in the table on page 30 includes technical staff only and that Offerors are expected to budget for administrative LOE above and beyond what is stated in this chart. Please also confirm that the LOE table required in the technical proposal (Attachment J.10) should include technical in addition to local and US home office program management, finance and other support staff.

Offerors shall use Attachment J.10 as a comprehensive representation of staff supporting the project. The Offeror must present LOE according to the division of staff categories indicated in the Attachment.

58. The Scope of Work includes working with the civil society community to achieve anticipated program results.

Please confirm whether USAID anticipates allowing grants under contract for the implementation of projects with civil society organizations.

No grants are anticipated.

59. No project evaluations or reports were provided in the attachments of the RFP.

Would USAID please provide or point Offerors to an online version the final evaluation from the previous local government project, mid-term evaluation and final evaluation from the current project, in addition to key reports such as semi-annuals and other reports. In addition, would USAID please provide or direct Offerors to online reports for the two MCC Threshold programs.

The following link was included in Attachment 9 of the RFP:

http://albania.usaid.gov/shfaqart/539/133/Planning_and_Local_Governance_Program_in_Albania.htm

The final report for the LGPA project can be found in the link. No evaluations were conducted for the project. The two MCC final reports are provided there.

60. I just noticed the solicitation released on FBO today for the Planning and Local Governance Project. I was interested to know whether or not this is a new requirement or a recompete. If there is an incumbent contractor could you provide the vendor name and contract number?

This is a new project.

61. Section C.2 calls for coordination with the USAID/EG program and refers to alternative financing mechanisms for local governments. Question: Will USAID provide more information on recent, current and anticipated EG programs as context for developing a coordinated, complementary approach to PLGP, and describe alternative financing mechanisms that have been developed?

Detailed program design for future USAID EG programs will begin shortly. PLGP will be expected to coordinate interventions with other USAID programs during work plan drafting and implementation.

62. Section F.11 contains a reference to “two key personnel,” in contrast to other sections which refer to four. Question: Please confirm the correct number of key personnel.

See Item #26.

63. Section M.2.II indicates that four key personnel will be evaluated. Section L.7.II (p91) indicates that offerors may propose one additional key personnel position. Question: If an additional key personnel (candidate) is proposed will that additional candidate be evaluated?

If an Offeror proposes a fifth key personnel, the additional key personnel will be evaluated according to Section M.2.II. (b)(i).

64. Section L.7 shows a branding and marking plan as one of the Annexes to the technical volume. Section L.9 calls for the plan to be annexed to the cost proposal. Question:

Please clarify where the branding and marking plan is to be located.

See answer to question # 17 above.

65. Section L.7 (p88) provides an outline of the proposal placing the draft LoPWP and detailed draft First Year Annual Work Plan in Section V (annexes “a” and “b”). On the following page in the RFP the same two elements are included as part of Section I.

Technical Approach (as subsection d of the Technical Approach). Question: Please clarify where the draft LoPWP and draft First Year Annual Work Plan should be placed the Technical Proposal.

The RFP has been edited to show what sections of the technical proposal are excluded from the Technical Proposal page limit and remove submissions with similar or duplicate content.

66. Section L.7 (p89, item 4) states that the Technical Approach shall include “a notional, clear, and feasible implementation plan for the life of the contract, showing key interventions, milestones, and timeframes.” Question: Please provide guidance on whether this is simply a summary of the LoPWP (we assume to be provided in Annex a), or is it a different plan? If it is different, please clarify the differences.

There is one life-of-project work plan required. The RFP has been corrected to delete duplication.

67. Section L.7 (p90) includes a reference to health reforms in the second paragraph.

Question: Please clarify whether the reference to health is correct, or whether it should read (for example) “decentralization reforms.”

Corrected to read “local governance/decentralization.” PLGP is not related to health reforms.

68. Section C.5.1. The qualifications listed for the COP include, among others, 7 years of demonstrated experience in municipal finance and decentralization reform in developing countries. The COP is called the Municipal Finance Expert in the illustrative level of effort breakdown for each component. However, this LOE breakdown shows that the Chief of Party is expected to spend most of his/her time on the decentralization component 1(520 days) , with equal amounts of time on all other components (260 days for each other component). Given that the main input from the COP is not municipal finance, will decentralization experience be given equal weight with municipal finance experience?

The required qualifications for the COP have been revised in Section C.5.1.

69. Would USAID provide a copy of the current Local Compensation Plan?

Added as Attachment 16 to the RFP

70. Section F.10, p. 30 presents the illustrative life of project LOE per Component. The line items presented in Section B.4, the cost elements in section L.8 (b) Part 2 Proposed Costs/Prices (3), and the cost matrix presented in Attachment 5, do not show a break down per component. Please clarify whether it is required that the budget be presented per Component.

The RFP does not require that the budget be presented by component.

71. Would USAID confirm that a six-day work-week for overseas employees on short-term TDY assignment is allowed under the contract, as long as it is within the established practice of the Contractor?

Confirmed. Refer to Section F.3 Authorized Workweek.

72. P. 96, L.8.(d) Part 4 – Policies and Procedures – Would USAID consider not requesting an offeror’s policies and procedures if they have prior USG contracting experience?

This solicitation does not differentiate submission requirements for Offerors with prior USG contracting experience from those without.

73. In reviewing the solicitation for a Planning and Local Governance Project on behalf of USAID Albania (number SOL-182-11-000003), I was wondering if there was an opportunity to submit a proposal for just one objective/component (specifically, objective /component II). It is my opinion that the expertise required for the performance, accountability, transparency and participation/collaboration objective is different enough from the others that it could be carved out for a company that specializes in open government.

USAID will not evaluate proposals for individual, separate components.

74. Does the 35-page limit on the technical approach include the 2-page executive summary?

Yes, the 35-page limit included the 2 page executive summary.

75. Would USAID provide its best estimate or expectation of the starting date for PLGP?

This would help us to answer questions such as the timing of fielding key personnel after award.

Our best estimate for the award effective date would be mid-November.