Answers_to_Questions_-_LIFE.pdf

LIFE RFP No. SOL-268-16-000003

Questions and Responses:

1) Question: Sections H.8(a)(1) and H.8(d) of the RFP limit offerors to annual salary increases of no more than 2%. This restriction may preclude offerors from complying with AIDAR 752.7007, incorporated by reference in RFP Section H.7, which states that, “Direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract.” Specifying the annual salary increase offerors can provide their staff may result in offerors deviating from AIDAR 752.7007. We respectfully request that USAID revise the annual salary increase percentage to state “to be determined,” thereby allowing offerors to submit cost proposals in accordance with their established policies, procedures, and practices.

Response: The 2% is replaced with “to be determined” in the above referenced sections.

The RFP is modified accordingly.

2) Question: Section B.9(c) of the RFP sets forth the cancellation ceilings the contractor will be paid in the event that the government cancels requirements for services in subsequent program years. Given that the Lebanon Livelihoods and Inclusive Finance Expansion Project (LIFE) is a cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) completion-type contract, in which the successful offeror will be authorized to be reimbursed for all allowable, allocable, and reasonable costs in accordance with FAR 52.216-7, the contractor will not incur costs that need to be recovered through amortization. Therefore, cancellation ceiling rates are not applicable. Accordingly, we respectfully request that USAID delete Section B.9 in its entirety and replace it with the following standard clause used in most USAID RFPs: “This is a cost-reimbursement type contract where the contractor is authorized to be reimbursed for all costs which are allowable in accordance with FAR 52.216-7, Page 2 of 4 “Allowable Costs and Payment.” Therefore, the contractor will not incur any costs which would have been amortized over the life of the contract should the contract be cancelled in accordance with FAR 52.217-2. Therefore, the cancellation ceiling for each cancellation date is $0.”

Response: Section B.9 (c) and cancellation ceiling amounts remain as stated in the RFP.

3) Question: The RFP states that grants should be provided to individuals. However, per ADS 302.3.4.13, contractors are authorized “to execute grants with non-governmental organizations (non-profits or for-profits) and partner government entities” and not with individuals. Furthermore, individuals will not meet the pre-award requirements in ADS 303 and there is increased liability if an individual does not perform in accordance with a grant agreement. Given these constraints, can USAID confirm how they envision a contractor issuing grants to individuals?

Response: It is expected that this type of grant will be made and administered either by the contractor or by a sub-contractor and would target the individual or microenterprise level. The individual or microenterprise is not expected to be the direct grantee.

4) Question: In reference to grants under contract, page 148, Section L.13d2 Grants Under Contract states that no fees will be allowed for GUC. This appears to be inconsistent with FAR 15.404-4 and ADS 302.3.6.9, which state that pre-negotiation fee objectives must be determined according to a structured approach that considers contractor effort, risk, and other special factors. Grants require significant effort to administer and carry risks for the contractor. Additionally, the statutory underpinnings of fixed fee at 10 USC 2306(d) and 41 USC 254(b) discuss fee definitions and limitations in terms of total estimated cost, which would include grants in this case. Given this, we respectfully request that USAID reconsider its agency pre-negotiation fee objective of zero percent on grants, and allow offerors to charge a fee that considers grants under contract as a part of the total estimated cost.

Response: This section is removed from the RFP. The RFP section L.13(d)(2)(G) is modified to allow fee to the management of grants under contracts.

5) Question: Section H.39 states that grants should be in the form of in-kind grants. Section L.13d2G states “The contractor may propose creative ways to utilize grants such as fixed obligation grants, grants of equipment or supplies, subsidy to reduce risk of adopting new technologies, and micro-grants. Creativity is expected in the use of this fund to support the objective of the program.” To ensure maximum creativity and flexibility, can USAID confirm that the offeror may propose the use of all types of grants as appropriate to the grant activity objective and the grantee?

Response: Section L.13(d)(2)(G) permits any type of grant as appropriate to the grant activity objective for grants to individuals or microenterprises, provided it is not a cash grant. The contractor may also propose different types of grants, for different activities under the program.

6) Question: Section L.13(J)(4) Policies and Procedures states that the Offeror should submit a copy of its personnel policies. Personnel policy manuals are often lengthy documents. We are happy to share information with USAID on any personnel policies it deems relevant for consideration, but we would like to advise that our policy manual consists of 300 pages. Would USAID consider exempting an Offeror who has previous USAID contract experience, as USAID may already have knowledge of the Offeror’s policies?

Response: Section L.13(J)(4), first sentence is modified to state that if the Offeror does not have prior USAID contracting experience, the Offeror shall submit a copy of its personnel policies, especially regarding salary and wage scales determinations, fringe benefit, merit increases, promotions, leave, differentials, travel and per diem, procurement regulations etc. The RFP is amended accordingly.

7) Question: Section L.12(b) states that Offerors must include an Executive Summary summarizing the Offeror’s overarching methodology presented in the Technical Proposal. Can USAID confirm that the Executive Summary is not subject to the Technical Proposal’s page limit? Section L.12 (a) seems to indicate that the sections subject to the 20 page limit, include: the Technical Approach, Management Approach, Key Personnel Qualifications and Experience, and Past Performance.

Response: The Executive Summary is part of the Technical Approach and is therefore subject to the 20-page limit.

8) Question: Section L.12(5) states that the Key Personnel Qualifications and Experience must include Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) for all the proposed key personnel (3 pages per position) and technical experts (one page per position). Can USAID confirm that the SOQs are not included in the 20 page limit and that SOQs can be included as an annex?

Response: SOQs are not part of the 20-page limit and can be included as an annex. The RFP is amended accordingly.

9) Question: Section L.12(6)(1) refers to Contractor Performance Information. Please confirm that the annex of the three most recent and relevant contracts is not included in the 20 page limit of the Technical Proposal?

Response: Section L.12(b)(6)(a)(1) The annex of the most recent and relevant contracts/agreements is not included in the 20 page limit of the technical proposal. The

10) Question: Section L.13(E)(i) requests a procurement plan that specifies all equipment to be purchased including manufacturer information. We kindly request that USAID forego the manufacturer information requirement as we will confirm manufacturers when we compete the procurement and may not know the manufacturers at proposal stage.

Response: Section L.13(d)(2)(E)(i)The manufacturer information is removed. The RFP is amended accordingly.

11) Question: Section L.13(2)(F) of the RFP states that “Subcontracts - Information sufficient to determine the reasonableness of the cost/price of each specific subcontract and consultant expected to be hired must be included. Also make sure to include the rationale for the type of subcontract chosen. USAID highly encourages firm fixed price contracts wherever possible, or other types as appropriate in order to ensure maximum incentive for control of costs and performance based on deliverables. Time and Material contracts will not be allowed.” We request that USAID provide offerors with the flexibility of entering into Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) or Time and Materials (T&M) type subcontracts with organizations that do not have NICRAs when the following conditions are met:

• An organization can provide evidence that it has an accounting system capable of administering a CPFF or T&M type subcontract

• An organization is committed to undergoing annual audits of its indirect cost rates in accordance with the cost principles of FAR Part 31

• The prime contractor has the appropriate subcontract management systems in place to ensure a CPFF or T&M subcontract with a local organization is administered properly

• An organization has established indirect cost rates and the use of indirect cost rates is an integral part of its cost accounting standards

With strong prime contractor oversight and the requirement for organizations to undergo annual audits in accordance with the cost principles of FAR Part 31, these contracting mechanisms serve as a tool to build the capacity of local organizations so they can eventually have the financial and administrative capacity to receive direct funding from USAID. Furthermore, managing direct cost allocation subcontracts typically results in higher financial and administrative burden for prime contractors and reduces overall cost control due to monthly costs varying significantly depending on the services being provided by the subcontractor. Indirect cost rate ceilings (under CPFF subcontracts) and fixed multipliers (under T&M subcontracts) reduce the government’s cost risk of potential indirect cost rate increases and allow for a higher level of cost control and financial and administrative oversight by the prime contractor.

Response: The RFP is amended to remove the statement “Time and Material contracts will not be allowed.”

12) Question: Section M.3.2 on page 160 states that “The Offeror’s Management approach will be evaluated in accordance with the likelihood the proposed management approach in the draft Staffing Plan, including but not limited to a clear distribution of roles…" Would USAID please clarify the evaluation criteria for the Management Approach?

Response: The entire M.3.2 paragraph states the evaluation criteria for the management approach. Please do not ignore the portion that states, “…demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to effectively and efficiently mobilize, launch the contract and achieve the results presented in the technical approach.”

13) Question: Would USAID please provide the Local Compensation Plan for Lebanon?

Response: Attached to the RFP as attachment J.14 is Lebanon local compensation plan summary for reference. The RFP is amended accordingly in section L.13(d)(2).

14) Question: In Section B.4, Option 1 occurs after Year 2 and Option 2 after Year 3 and page 32 of the RFP states that “USAID/Lebanon may receive additional funding for the second and/or third year of the program.” In the event that additional funding is secured, will USAID distribute the additional funds at the beginning of Years 2 and 3? If not, when will USAID distribute the additional funds?

Response: In the event that additional funding is secured, the contractor will be notified if the Mission has interest to exercise the option.

15) Question: On page 38, under point #4 in the Gender Considerations section, the RFP references that: “The contractor will ensure that the National Financial Inclusion Strategy that will be developed under the program will have a gender component.” However, developing an NFIS is not explicitly mentioned in section C.4 – Statement of Work, other than stating that it would be of ‘critical importance.’ Does USAID want the LIFE implementing partner to lead, support, or coordinate with the development of the NFIS?

Response: Please see Section C.2.2.1 Challenge 7 and Section C.6.2, Result 1c. It is the role of the LMA to develop a national financial inclusion strategy, and given that the contractor is expected to deliver technical assistance to the LMA, as per result 1c), the contractor can therefore support the development of the NFIS as part of the technical assistance, but the LMA should lead the development of the NFIS. Please note the amendment to the RFP.

16) Question: Would USAID confirm that full-page graphics are excluded from the 20-page count?

Response: Full page graphics are excluded from the 20-page limit. The RFP is amended accordingly in section L.11(c)(2).

17) Question: Section L.12(b)(2): Would USAID consider excluding the executive summary from the 20-page limit?

Response: The Executive Summary is part of the Technical Approach and is therefore subject to the 20-page limit.

18) Question: Section L.12(b)(5): Please confirm that the statements of qualifications for all proposal key personnel should be included in an annex that is excluded from the 20-page limit.

Response: SOQs are not part of the 20-page limit and should be included as an annex. SOQs for all key personnel should be included in the annex. The RFP is amended accordingly.

19) Question: In F.6.1.11 Grants Manual (on page 52), the RFP states that "Grants under the program will target individuals and local microenterprises and will be in the form of in-kind grants.” Under (G) Grants Under Contract on page 152, the RFP states: "The contractor may propose creative ways to utilize grants such as fixed obligation grants, grants of equipment or supplies, subsidy to reduce risk of adopting new technologies, and micro-grants." Please confirm that the contractor is permitted to use a range of grant types, including in-kind grants, fixed obligation grants, etc.

Response: USAID confirms that the contractor may use any type of grant as appropriate to the grant activity objective, provided it is not a cash grant.

20) Question: Page 37 of the RFP states: “The following illustrative indicators are derived from the Logical Framework [LF1] (Check Section J for the relevant attachments / reading material)…” Would USAID please provide the referenced Logical Framework?

Response: The logical framework is now added is an attachment (attachment J.12). The

21) Question: Section L, p. 155, requires the offeror to provide a copy of its Policies and Procedures. This tends to be a lengthy document, particularly for firms with experience implementing US government contracts. May offerors submit a relevant extract of the policy?

Response: Please see response to question number six.

22) Question: Section L, p. 157, describes the inputs for the Marking and Branding plan. Should offerors include this annex in the Technical or the Cost proposal?

Response: This is a separate annex to the Technical Proposal. The RFP is amended in section L.13(d)(2)(J)(11) – Marking and Branding.

23) Question: Page 146 describes the Statement of Qualifications for proposed key personnel as part of the technical proposal, not to exceed three pages per position, and technical experts (not to exceed one page per position). Are these statements of qualifications (totaling nine pages for key personnel only) included in the 20 page limit, or may they be included in an annex to the technical proposal?

Response: SOQs are not part of the 20-page limit and should be included as an annex. SOQs for all key personnel should be included in the annex. Please see response to question number 8 above.

24) Question: Are CVs or resumes of key personnel and technical experts required? The RFP describes a request for statements of qualifications, but not CVs or resumes.

Response: No CVs or resumes should be submitted. SOQs are required for all key personnel.

25) Question: On page 33, for option 1 the RFP mentions a minimum of $1.5M of market linkage grants issued to women, youth, unemployed, and disadvantaged individuals with a minimum of $800,000 yearly. If option 1 starts in Y2, $800,000 multiplied by 4 years is a minimum of $3.2M. Is the total option for $1.5M or $3.2M?

Response: The total option is for $ 1.5 million. The minimum of $ 800,000 on a yearly basis has been specified to make sure that grants under the option will be distributed over a maximum two year period.

26) Question: Page 37 refers to a Logical Framework in Section J; however, Section J does not include a logical framework as an attachment. Could USAID please provide this logical framework?

Response: The logical framework is now added as attachment J.12.

27) Question: On page 30 of the RFP, under Component 3: Livelihoods, USAID refers to “existing commercial training modules” and “a series of focused thematic training totaling about 50 hours of training per individual administered over a series of weeks.”

Does USAID have a pre-identified, preferred specific local commercial training package in mind, or are these references to any local, existing commercial training modules deemed appropriate by the offeror?

Response: These are references to any local, existing commercial training modules deemed appropriate by the offeror.

28) Question: May Offerors provide past performance information for recent, relevant cooperative agreements, in addition to recent, relevant contracts? Many recent, relevant projects in Lebanon have been implemented under cooperative agreements.

Response: Yes. Please see amendment to the RFP in section L.12(b)(6)(a).

29) Question: Are graphics and charts, such as the organizational chart, included in the 20 page limit, or may they be included as an annex?

Response: The organizational chart can be included as an annex. Graphics and charts can be included in the annexes.

30) Question: Under Section L.13.(4): Would USAID please confirm, that if offerors have prior Federal contracting experience, they are not required to submit their personnel policies and may instead just submit the required salary ranges?

Response: Please see response to question number 6.

31) Question: Would USAID consider providing potential bidders with any gender analyses that have recently been performed by the Mission?

Response: No, due to their sensitive content. However, once the contract is signed, USAID will share the gender analyses conducted by the Mission.

32) Question: May additional annexes to the technical proposal be submitted?

Response: No annexes may be submitted in addition to those indicated in the RFP.

33) Question: Page 24 of the RFP indicates that the LIFE project is expected to have a special emphasis on areas labeled “host communities,” which are currently hosting a large number of refugees. USAID provided, in a footnote, information that the UNHCR is constantly updating a risk classification of areas in Lebanon based on the number of hosted registered refugees. Would USAID please provide a link to this UNHCR information, or provide a list of host communities with which USAID expects LIFE to work?

Response: The latest update by UNHCR for host communities sorting has been added as attachment J.13.

34) Question: On page 55, F.6.2.3.3 lists the expected increase in income of women and youth in year 5 as “*%.” Can USAID please clarify the expected result for this indicator?

Response: This is an 8% increase. It has been edited in the RFP.

35) Question: Section H.8 (d) of the RFP states, “Annual salary increases of not more than 2% cumulatively may be granted after the employee's completion of each twelve-month period of satisfactory services under the contract". In order for offerors to comply with AIDAR 752.7007(a), which requires contractors to follow their established policies, procedures, and practices for personnel compensation, we request that USAID remove this limitation and allow contractors to budget in compliance with the above-mentioned

AIDAR.

Response: Please see response to question number 1.

36) Question: Could USAID please clarify whether an offeror should prepare a logframe for the base funding, the base with both options, or separate log frames for the various funding scenarios?

Response: The offeror should prepare a logframe for the base funding, the base with option 1, the base with option 2 and the base with both options.

37) Question: Will USAID consider 25+ years of relevant experience as the equivalent of the Master’s Degree currently required for the COP?

Response: No.

38) Question: P. 21 states three policy reforms that would help remove major obstacles to growth of both the supply and demand-side providers of the microfinance and MSME segment of Lebanon’s financial landscape, noting that “it is realistic to assume… the program would focus on two of these institutional reforms. P. 26 notes four key policy/institutional changes as top priorities to expand financial inclusion, stating “it is realistic to assume that the last three changes above can be implemented under the LIFE program.” (The three noted differ from the three listed on p. 21.) Page 31 states that a target result of LIFE is “at least the three significant policy/institutional changes mentioned in the assessment report are achieved” but does not specify which three of the four policy/institutional changes cited earlier in the RFP (and in the underlying assessment) are to be completed. Would the Mission please clarify how many and which policy/institutional reforms are expected to be completed under LIFE?

Response: The RFP has been modified to be consistent.

39) Question: H. 39, Grants Under Subcontracts, page 92: USAID highlights there is up to US $7M in grants funding to achieve required results, and that “grants might be potentially offered under all three components of the program (p. 92).” However in section C.6.

Results, USAID lays out the outcomes that the $7M in grants ($4M in base plus $3M for two option years) will accomplish as exclusively falling under Component 3. If grants are proposed by offerors to be made under Components 1 and 2, would these grants resources need to come from the $7M grants total? Or would they be in addition to the minimum $7M grants specified in the RFP?

Response: No. Grants proposed under Components 1 and 2 do not come from the $7M identified in the RFP and form part of the Offeror’s negotiating position as to how they will budget for that.

40) Question: Component 2, ADS 219.3.5.2 is referenced on p. 28 of the RFP, and offerors are required to comply. The summary of this directive is that MFIs receiving assistance from the mission must provide a written commitment to attain full financial sustainability on financial service activities within 7 years of initial provision of USAID assistance. Is the Mission’s interpretation that the clock for 7 years of “initial provision of USAID assistance” starts with potential assistance to an MFI under LIFE, or did it start with the beginning of the predecessor project, LIM?

Response: The seven years provision is for any kind of USAID assistance and may have started under LIM. It is worth noting that some MFIs did not start receiving assistance under LIM at the beginning of that project, so their 7-year period started on the day they began to receive assistance form USAID and not on the day LIM began.

41) Question: Component 1, p. 27 states, “The LIFE project will provide technical assistance and support to the LMA and the Central Bank to work on these policy/institutional changes.” Further, p. 33 states that “The contractor must coordinate with the LMA and the Central Bank of Lebanon to bring about predetermined policy changes”. Does USAID have guidance from Congress and a bilateral agreement that allows USAID and its implementing partners to work directly with the Central Bank? If not, is this envisioned to occur during the time-frame of LIFE?

Response: Although there is no bilateral agreement for foreign assistance to Lebanon, the US maintains diplomatic relations, collaborates, and coordinates directly with the Government of Lebanon on foreign assistance issues.

42) Question: On p. 30 under Component 3: Livelihoods, USAID states, “The project will identify NGOs that cater to filling these (business training, mentoring, grants) needs and are exclusive to the MFI partners involved with the microfinance aspects of the project.” Is USAID suggesting that NGO partners providing training and grants assistance must only work with one MFI to support their clients access financial services.

Response: NGO partners can work with any MFI or multiple MFIs that are involved in the microfinance aspect of the project.

43) Question: Does USAID accept that NGO/MFIs may also potentially be recipients of Component 3 grants resources to expand business training, mentoring and grant-making to vulnerable populations?

Response: Yes.

44) Question: Section C.7.1. p. 38 states the need for the contractor to ensure that the National Financial Inclusion Strategy developed under the program will have a gender component. However, this is not specified in section C.6 (RESULTS) of F.6.2 Deliverables and Outcomes by Component. Please clarify whether this is an expected result and where it will be integrated.

Response: Please see Section C.2.2.1 Challenge 7 and Section C.6.2, Result 1c. It is the role of the LMA to develop a national financial inclusion strategy, and given that the contractor is expected to deliver technical assistance to the LMA, as per result 1c), the contractor can therefore support the development of the NFIS as part of the technical assistance, but the LMA should lead the development of the NFIS. It is up to the contractor to propose whether the NFIS development will be part of the technical assistance, and if so, the contractor needs to make sure the NFIS has a gender component.

45) Question: Section L.6.(b) (1) (2) and (3), page 138: There is no attached Partner Information Form or USAID form 500-13 to submit the questions on. What is the secure form of submission? When are the subcontractors subject to vetting?

Response: The form is added as attachment J.16. The secure form of submission prior to award will be via e-mail to the same e-mail addresses of the proposal submission.

Subcontractors are subject to vetting prior to sub-contracting.

46) Question: Section L.11. (3), page 144: The RFP says: “In addition, the Cost section of the proposal has no page limit, however, this section is to be strictly limited to the information requested in Section L.12 below”, however Section L.12 is the instructions for technical proposal. Could USAID please confirm the reference was meant to be Section L.13 instead of Section L.12?

Response: The RFP is amended to clarify that the reference is made to the Technical proposal.

47) Question: Section L.12.(3), page 145: Could USAID please clarify if the initial work plan means the first year of implementation?

Response: Yes the initial work plan covers the first year of implementation.

48) Question: Section L.12 (5), page 146 (Key Personnel Qualifications and Experience): The RFP refers to key personnel but also references SOQs for “technical experts” (not to exceed one page per position.” Could USAID please confirm the SOQs are required for both key personnel (3 pages) and long-term technical experts (1 page) but not for long-term non-technical personnel or for short-term technical experts? Would USAID please permit bidders to provide the SOQs in an annex, rather than in the 20-page technical proposal?

Response: SOQs are required for both key personnel (3 pages) and long-term technical experts (1 page). SOQs are not required for long-term non-technical personnel or for short-term technical experts and should not be submitted for such. SOQs are not part of the 20-page limit and should be included as an annex.

49) Question: Would USAID please confirm that it does not wish to receive CVs for key or non-key long-term personnel?

Response: USAID only requires SOQs for key personnel and long term technical experts and CVs should not be submitted.

50) Question: Section L.12 (6), past performance, page 146: The RFP says “List in an annex to the technical proposal up to three of the most recent….” Could USAID confirm that it requests three PPRs from the prime and from each major subcontractor?

Response: Please see amendment to sections L.12(b)(6) and M.3.4. Each major subcontractor is also included in the evaluation of past performance.

51) Question: Section L.12 (6), past performance, page 146: The RFP defines “relevancy” as “contracts for similar type of work and similar magnitude” specifying “(range of $15- $20M) in the past 10 years.” Would USAID please permit offerors to provide past performance information for a broader range of size projects (e.g. $8M-$35M) so long as those featured cover similar types of work to that of Lebanon LIFE?

52) Question: Section L.12 (6), past performance, page 146: Would USAID please confirm that these PPRs , as well as the Past Performance Using Small Business Concerns, are to excluded from the 20-page limit to the technical proposal?

Response: PPRs, as well as past performance using small business concerns are excluded from the 20-page limit.

53) Question: Section L.13.(E), page 156: LOCs are not listed on the page 147 – Section L.13 as a separate annex. Could USAID please confirm LOCs for subcontractors are part of the cost proposal as a separate annex.

Response: LOCs are part of the cost proposal as a separate annex.

54) Question: Component 2, page 27: the second paragraph discusses capitalizing MFIs and technical assistance as two separate activities that will continue on LIFE as they did under LIM, with the caveat that outreach strategies will differ to target more vulnerable clients. Specifically, does USAID envision that the contractor will set aside funds to make capitalization grants to MFIs under Lebanon LIFE as it did under LIM?

Response: USAID expects the contractor to examine several approaches to capitalize MFIs. One of these approaches might be granting (as under LIM). However, USAID expects the contractor to examine the use of difference approaches.

55) Question: Would the Mission please share a copy of the USAID Local Compensation Plan with offerors?

Response: Please see response to question number 13 above.

56) Question: Section B.7 p.14: Please clarify whether USAID is requesting offerors to provide ceiling indirect rates for this contract.

Response: As stated in section L.13(d)(2)(I) the offeror may propose ceiling indirect cost rates.

57) Question: Section H.8(f) p.69 specifies that the “Contractor must submit a salary scale which reflects its proposed staffing plan covering all planned non-US (CCN/TCN) positions together with the Contractor’s compensation policies. The compensation plan must cover all proposed initial salaries and salary ranges for all positions”. Could USAID please clarify where this should be included in the cost proposal?

Response: Please see amendment to this section. Salary ranges for positions and staffing plan can be part of the budget narrative of the cost proposal.

58) Question: Grants: p. 92 states that “Grants under the program will target individuals and local microenterprises and will be in the form of in-kind grants.” It further states that “individual grants will not exceed $500,000.” Section H.39’s heading is “GRANTS UNDER CONTRACT TO U.S. AND NON-U.S. NGOs.” Would USAID please clarify that grants will be made to NGOs targeting “individuals and local microenterprises” (not necessarily that grants will be made to individuals and local microenterprises directly)? Further, would USAID please define what is meant by “in- kind” grants in this context?

Response: Yes, grants will be made to NGOs targeting “individuals and local microenterprises”. An in-kind grant is any type of grant that is non-cash in nature.

59) Question: Grants: p. 30, in discussing Component 3, Livelihoods, states that LIFE “will strive to link individuals and microenterprises…providing them with market-linkage grants and basic business training.” Are individuals and microenterprises intended to be direct grantees? The same paragraph states, “The project will identify NGOs that cater to filling these needs and are exclusive to the MFI partners involved with the microfinance aspects of the project.” Is it intended that these NGOs will be providers of training or recipients of grants (or both)?

Response: Individuals and microenterprises are not intended to be direct grantees. The NGOs at issue will be providers of training , recipients of grants, or both.

60) Question: Grants: p. 32, stipulates Result 3.a) is a minimum of $4 million of market linkage grants issued to rural women, unemployed youth, and disadvantaged individuals.” Is it intended that these individuals be direct grantees? Similarly, subsequent results under Component 3 reference training to a minimum of 5,000 “market linkage grant recipients.” Is it intended that a minimum of 5,000 such individuals are direct recipients of market linkage grants or was it intended that these 5,000 be beneficiaries (but not necessarily direct recipients) of market linkages grants?

Response: It is not intended that individuals be direct grantees. The 5,000 noted in the question are beneficiaries, not direct grantees.

61) Question: Grants: p. 32 states that the assistance package under Component 3 may include…limited market linkage grants for investment capital to enable potential entrepreneurs and microenterprises to acquire small pieces of capital equipment.”

However, p. 92 stated that all grants were to be in the form of in-kind grants. Are grants for investment capital considered in-kind grants?

62) Question: Could USAID please clarify whether an offeror should name and budget for all specific grants the project will be issuing during the activity duration?

Response: Offerors should name and budget for all specific grants the project will be issuing during the duration of the activity.

63) Question: Could USAID please confirm grants should not be issued to MFIs under this activity?

Response: No. Grants may be issued to MFIs under this activity.

64) Question: Section H.8(d) Annual Salary Increases indicates that an “annual salary increase... of not more than 2% cumulatively may be granted after the employee’s completion of each twelve-month period of satisfactory services under the contract”. Would USAID consider allowing a 2% cap on total labor cost increases rather than individual salary increases, to allow the offer more flexibility in issuing salary increases and retaining high-quality staff?

Response: Please see response to question number 1.

65) Question: Section H.20(d)(Viii) page 77: “Written documentation confirming Contractor has vetted all proposed subcontractors and lower-tier subcontractors at the following website: http://www.sam.gov; http://treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN-http://www.sam.gov/ http://treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN-List/Pages/default.aspx

List/Pages/default.aspx; and http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/consolist.shtml.”

Does this vetting process apply to local companies? If yes, how should international companies apply for SAM.gov when they are sometimes unable to get a DUNS number?

Response: Yes the vetting process apply to local companies. Regarding how international companies can apply for SAM.gov, please use the help tab in the SAM web-site or contact D&B at 866-705-5711, or via e-mail to govt@dnb.com.

66) Question: Attachment J.1. Budget Template Format includes space to budget for each option which is equivalent to the space provided for a single budget year. Could USAID please clarify whether each option is expected to last the length of one year, or confirm that costs for more than a single year may be included in the space provided for each option?

Response: Costs for more than a single year may be included in the space provided for each option.

67) Question: The RFP indicates that the budget of up to $15M might be augmented by one or two options, each at $5M. The budget template provides for the submission of a budget that reflects base costs plus option 1 and option 2. Could USAID clarify whether option 2 might be exercised without option 1 being exercised? Could USAID clarify whether the supplemental funds (if one or both options is exercised) must be used in the single year following the exercise of the option? For example, if Option 2 is exercised, must the funds be fully expended in Year 3 or may some of those funds be used to support work in Years 4 and 5?

Response: Option 2 might be exercised without option 1 being exercised. The supplemental funds do not necessarily have to be expended during the single year.

68) Question: The RFP indicates that the budget of up to $15Mmight be augmented by one or two options, each at $5M. What assumption about the option(s) should be reflected in the technical approach? There are four scenarios: (1) base only; (2) base plus Option 1; (3) base plus Options 1 and 2; and (4) base plus Option 2 (but not option 1). Given limited proposal pages, would USAID please provide guidance to offerors to assume one of these scenarios and write their technical approaches and relevant annexes accordingly?

Response: USAID does not expect offerors to submit a fully detailed technical approach for each option. USAID expects one detailed technical approach describing the base contract and as much detail of the options as the offeror deems necessary to understand their approach should the options be exercised.

http://treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN-List/Pages/default.aspx http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/consolist.shtml mailto:govt@dnb.com