The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
December 2, 2015 Subject:
Request for Proposal (RFP) No. SOL-278-16-000001
Syria Essential Services II (SES II)
Amendment #1
The purpose of this Amendment is to amend the RFP, provide a transcript of the Pre-Bid Conference, share the pre-bid conference questions and answers, provide a list of Pre-Bid Conference attendees and respond to questions received from various offerors through emails.
A. The RFP is amended as follows:
1. Page 27, F.4 Authorized Work Week, delete in its entirety and replace with the following:
“The Contractor is authorized up to a 5 day workweek for long-term staff in the field and 6 day workweek for short-term advisors in the field with no premium pay. This contract does not allow work in excess of 5 days per week without prior written approval by USAID’s Contracting Office and no overtime is authorized under this contract.
2. Page 49, Section H.11 (f) Replacement Staff, delete in its entirety and replace with the following:
“Replacement Staff. With the exception of key personnel, initial salaries of new staff replacing those previously approved in the contractor’s final proposal revision do not require prior approval by the Contracting Officer, provided that the following conditions are met: the position has been authorized in the contract; and the initial salary shall not exceed the individual’s recent long-term salary, as evidenced in USAID Form “Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet” (AID 1420-17 – Attachment J1), or the approved salary for the particular position in the final proposal revision, whichever is less. The contractor must obtain COR approval of the individual’s technical appropriateness to work on program activities.”
3. Page 51, H.11 (i) STTA and Consultants, delete in its entirety and replace with the following:
“International Consultants: No compensation for consultants will be reimbursed unless their use under the contract has advance written approval of the Contracting Officer. If such provision has been made or approval given, compensation shall not exceed: (1) the highest daily rate paid for similar work during the last three years or (2) the USAID SES established rate (AWCPAS), whichever is less. Requests for waiver to this compensation guidance must be fully justified and shall require the approval of the Contracting Officer.
4. Add the following at the end of Section H.
“H.48 Exclusivity
Letters of commitments are not required given the short number of qualified local partners.”
5. Page 109, Section L.8.3, delete “All copies of the Technical and Cost proposals, respectively must be separately placed in sealed envelopes clearly marked on the outside with the following information.
B. Pre-Bid Conference Presentations: See Attachment A
C. Pre-Bid Conference Questions and Answers: See Attachment B D. Pre-Bid Conference Attendees: See Attachment C
E. Control of Terrain in Syria – September 14, 2015: See Attachment D
F. Answers to Question received from various offerors via email:
| Question No. 1: |
| I had tried to locate the contracts that were referenced in the Presolicitation Notice; however, was not able to find them on FPDS. Can you provide me with the following Contract information of what was referenced in the notice? |
| Answer No. 1: |
| Essential Services North (ESN) Contract |
Incumbent: Chemonics
Task Order No. AID-OAA-M-12-00008
Syria Essential Services (SES) Contract
Incumbent: Chemonics
Contract #: AID-278-C-15-00008
Essential Services South (ESS) Cooperative Agreement
Incumbent: International Relief and Development (IRD)
Grant Award#: AID-OAA-A-13-00082
| Question No. 2: |
| We respectfully request that USAID release any available quarterly, annual, and evaluation reports done on phase I of the project as well as any research or relevant target area data. |
| Answer No. 2: |
| Two community assessments were added as attachments to the RFP. |
| Question No. 3: |
| Can you please provide the estimated funding for this opportunity? |
| Answer No. 3: |
| Because of the contract type and in accordance with ADS 302.3.5.7, we are unable to provide the total dollar amount for this activity however we provided the term (Level of Effort) estimate in the RFP. The Business Forecast estimate for this activity was between $25 and $50 Million. |
| Question No. 4: |
| On page 13 of the RFP– Section C Statement of Work – b. Grants Under Contract states: “This contract authorizes the issuance of grants under contract (GUCs) in support of the contractor’s activities. GUCs may be used for community interventions, provision of technical assistance to Syrian communities, or in relation to capacity building for Syrian partner organizations.” We have the following related questions: |
a. Can you please provide a plug figure for grants for CLIN 2 and CLIN 3?
b. Can you please provide any guidance on how these set asides funds should be allocated between CLIN 2 and CLIN 3?
| Answer No. 4: |
| a. Check Answers No. 8 and 33 of the Pre-Bid Conference Q&As. |
b. Check Answer No. 8 of the Pre-Bid Conference Q&As.
| Question No. 5: |
| On page 17–Rapid reaction interventions– the description of Deliverable 2.1 states: “The contractor must develop a package of equipment and commodities designed to provide immediate relief to vetted civilian actors, ideally members of local councils, for the purpose of consolidating moderate opposition support”. We have the following related questions: |
a. Are these packages expected to be delivered through grant funds?
b. If not through grant funds, would USAID please provide a plug figure for these packages?
c. Can you please provide an example of what items have been included in the past on prior programs?
| Answer No. 5: |
| a. The packages are delivered through the Syrian logistical support Subcontract. |
b. We will not provide a plug-figure for rapid reaction intervention packages however items have typically included generators, transformers, and submersible pumps.
c. See b.
| Question No. 6: |
| On pages 20 and 21 of the RFP – the description of Deliverable 3.3 includes a discussion of the provision of equipment and/or material support, and Deliverable 3.6 discusses delivery of material, office space, office equipment, etc. to local organizations. We have the following related questions: |
a. Is the expectation that these items will be delivered through grant funds?
b. If not, can you please provide a plug figure that Offerors should set aside for this assistance?
| Answer No. 6: |
| a. See Answer No. 8 of the Pre-Bid Conference Q&As. |
b. See Answer No. 33 of the Pre-Bid Conference Q&As.
| Question No. 7: |
| For orientation and planning purposes, does USAID have any further information about the expectation or extent that project operations will or may be conducted outside of the primary areas of focus in the southern governorates listed in the RFP? |
| Answer No. 7: |
| The primary focus will be Dara’a, Quneitra, and Rif Damascus, however the situation in Syria remains fluid and unpredictable. Offerors should demonstrate an ability to respond to newly liberated areas and communities under siege throughout all of Syria. |
| Question No. 8: |
| Given the limited number of highly qualified local partners and the essential nature of such partners to the performance of this contract, we are concerned that exclusive institutional arrangements with local organizations at the proposal stage could critically and unnecessarily impede USAID’s access to quality services during contract implementation. Additionally, taking the most qualified local organizations “off the market” at the proposal stage would seem contrary to USAID Forward’s overarching goal of prioritizing local capacity development. |
We have seen USAID Missions worldwide including language in RFPs prohibiting exclusive arrangements with local organizations in order to ensure that the awarded contractor will have the ability to work with any qualified local contractor during implementation. We respectfully request that USAID consider stating that exclusive teaming arrangements with local organizations are not authorized for this proposal.
| Answer No. 8: |
| Section H is hereby amended to include the exclusivity language. |
| Question No. 9: |
| Thank you for providing a timeline for the deadline for questions, the pre-bid conference and anticipated response/amendment. Given the changes to proposals that can be necessary based on responses to questions, and in order to incorporate any potential substantive responses into the proposal, we would like to request that you extend the time between the Anticipated response to questions on December 2nd and the Deadline of Receipt of Proposals on December 11th. |
| Answer No. 9: |
| The deadline of Receipt of Proposals will be extended to December 18th COB EST. |
| Question No. 10: |
| On page 14–Community Assessments 1.a–Deliverable 1.1 states: “Detailed up-to-date community assessments that provide background on the demographic, political, economic, and cultural data on individual communities.” Can you please indicate the format of the existing data that should be incorporated into the database and how much of it there is? |
| Answer No. 10: |
| Please reference the attached examples of community assessments to view the range of different data fields. Currently, there are approximately 113 community assessments in our files. The information is a combination of narrative and data fields (similar to excel). Additionally, we have GIS data to capture essential service infrastructure throughout Southern Syria in the previously noted governates. |
| Question No. 11: |
| Under Past Performance on page 114, the RFP states that the Offeror needs to provide “Performance in Using Small Business (SB) Concerns (as defined in FAR 19.001). This information may be provided in a separate annex “Small Business Concern Performance” if applicable (this annex is not included in the page limitation for Annexes).” We have the following related questions. |
a. Can you please confirm that there is no overall page limitation for Annexes?
b. Can you further confirm that the “page limitation for Annexes” is referring to the ten (10) page limit specific to the past performance matrix annex only (mentioned on page 113 of the RFP) and that SB concerns will be a separate annex from this matrix annex?
| Answer No. 11: |
| a. This is to confirm that there is no overall page limitation for Annexes, other than Past Performance. |
b. This is to confirm that the ten (10) page limit is specific to the past performance matrix annex only. SB concerns will be a separate annex from this matrix annex.
| Question No. 12: |
| For Task 4 (Monitoring and Evaluation) of Syria Essential Services II, does USAID have preferred methods for distinguishing program implementation in Syria Essential Services II and their impact from previous interventions in the targeted communities? |
| Answer No. 12: |
| No, USAID does not have a preferred method. USAID will provide feedback and final approval on indicators and means of measurement for SES II. |
| Question No. 13: |
| Can USAID please provide an estimate for the size of the cash and in-kind grants anticipated under this contract? |
| Answer No. 13: |
| The size of cash grants and in-kind grants is determined based on several factors including the security situation and our relationship/knowledge of the recipient partner entity. Our approach is to start small ($500-$2000) and based on outcomes we ramped up our support. To-date the largest grant has been approximately $200,000. |
| Question No. 14: |
| Can USAID please provide an estimate of the number of targeted Local Councils and NGOs in each governorate? |
| Answer No. 14: |
| No, we do not have a targeted number. |
| Question No. 15: |
| Can USAID please provide the size and nature of the livelihood/economic empowerment projects that it anticipates in this project? |
| Answer No. 15: |
| Livelihood/economic empowerment projects will be community driven and designed in consultation with Local Councils and community leaders. The size and nature will be determined by security, capacity, and past performance by the Local Council. Project concepts should be designed to be scalable based on impact and results. |
| Question No. 16: |
| Is the contractor expected to conduct vetting of the suppliers in Jordan? |
| Answer No. 16: |
| Offerors need to follow FAR Provision 52.225-13 Restriction on Certain Foreign Purchases where they check the following link |
http://www.treasury.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/sdn/t11sdn.pd and also check the following websites:
1. www.SAM.gov;
2. http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/consolist.shtml
| Question No. 17: |
| For orientation and planning purposes, does USAID have any further information about the expectation or extent that project operations will or may be conducted outside of the primary areas of focus in the southern governorates listed in the RFP? |
| Answer No. 17: |
| Please see Answer No. 7. |
| Question No. 18: |
| The Labor categories included on page 10, Section B.8, in the Level of Effort Chart in this section are referred to as “Professional Staff Expatriate and Local.” At the Pre-Bid Conference, it was stated that only “Technical” staff should be considered for the Level of Effort provided in the RFP. Can you please clarify what USAID considers to be “Technical” and/or “Professional” staff? |
| Answer No. 18: |
| Technical and professional staff are the same for the purpose of the 27,270 person-days LOE provided in the RFP. |
| Question No. 19: |
| Page 109, Section L.8.3 of the RFP states “Format for the technical proposal must be in Microsoft Word 2010, Times New Roman font size 12, text accessible. There is no specified font for graphics and charts.” Please confirm that Offerors can use a font size smaller than 12, but still legible, for tables, figures and graphs. |
| Answer No. 19: |
| No objection. |
| Question No. 20: |
| Page 109, Section L.8.3 states that “all copies of the technical and cost proposals must be separately placed in sealed envelopes;” however, the RFP only gives instructions for electronic delivery. Will USAID please confirm that only an electronic delivery is required? |
| Answer No. 20: |
| This is to confirm that only an electronic delivery is required. The language is deleted from the RFP through this amendment. |
| Question No. 21: |
| Page 111, Section L.9 states that “the following may be presented as annexes not subject to the page limitations”: |
• Cover Letter/Title Page;
• Executive Summary
• Table of Contents;
• Dividers;
• Resumes and reference for proposed candidates
• Contractor/Sub-Contractor Past Performance Listing;
• Charts, such as Management Structure Organizational Chart(s), etc.
• Subcontracting Plan
• Level of Effort Chart
We have the following related questions:
a. Will USAID allow an acronym list to be included in the technical proposal (not subject to the page limitations) and not necessarily in a subsequent annex?
b. Will USAID confirm that the Title Page, Cover Letter, Executive Summary and Table of Contents can be placed before the technical approach rather than in the annexes following it?
c. Can USAID please confirm that three (3) referees (with email and phone contact information) per Key Personnel candidate are sufficient?
d. A Subcontracting Plan is listed in the allowed annexes of the technical proposal. Will USAID allow the subcontracting plan to be placed in the cost proposal as it contains cost information?
| Answer No. 21: |
| a. An acronym list is allowed and will not be subject to the page limitations. |
b. This is to confirm that the Title Page, Cover Letter, Executive Summary and Table of Contents can be placed before the technical approach.
c. Three (3) referees (with email and phone contact information) per Key Personnel candidate are sufficient.
d. The subcontracting plan that must be part of the technical proposal must not include cost information.
| Question No. 22: |
| Page 113, Section L states “List in an annex ‘Past Performance Matrix’ to the technical proposal up to three (3) of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal for the prime contractor and any major subcontractor.” We have the following related questions: |
a. Please confirm that the proposal must include up to three past performance references for the contractor and major subcontractors combined.
b. Please confirm that the “Past Performance Matrix” referenced on page 113 is the same as the “Contractor/Sub-Contractor Past Performance Listing” referenced on page 111, Section L.9 of the RFP.
c. Please confirm that the 2000 character limit of the “Description of Program” in Attachment J3, page 135, only includes the “scope of work or complexity/diversity of tasks” listed on page 113, Section L.9.6.a, and does not include “primary location(s) of work; terms of performance; skills/expertise required; dollar value; and contract type.”
| Answer No. 22: |
| a. Three (3) past performance references are needed for each, 3 for the prime and 3 for the subcontractor. |
b. This is to confirm that it is the same.
c. Please note that the 2000 character limit is for the description of program, the form has other fields to enter the dollar value and contract type. You may include the primary location of work, terms of performance and sills/expertise under the “Other” field.
| Question No. 23: |
| We understand that best value will form the basis for determining the award. However, given that the grants function will be based on needs during implementation, it is difficult for Offerors to tell how the grants component will be evaluated. For example, how will USAID assess a proposal with a lower line price compared with a proposal that has a higher price, but with the grants amount (and therefore providing greater services to the beneficiaries)? |
We respectfully request that USAID reconsider providing a plug figure for grants in order to ensure a like-to-like comparison among all Offerors.
| Answer No. 23: |
| See Answer 33 of the Pre-Bid Conference Q&As. |
| Question No. 24: |
| Section L.8.3 (page 109) specifies the technical proposal “must be in Microsoft Word 2010.” We have found that larger Microsoft Word documents, especially those that contain graphics and charts, are prone to formatting errors and stability issues. For the sake of stability and file size, can the offeror provide a PDF of the entire technical volume along with a copy of the 30-page technical approach document in Microsoft Word? |
| Question No. 25: |
| The list of technical volume sections excluded from the page limitation in Section L.9 (page 111) does not include a list of acronyms used. If provided, would a list of acronyms used be counted against the page limitation? |
| Answer No. 25: |
| List of acronyms will not be counted against the page limitation. |
| Question No. 26: |
| Section L.9.6 (page 114) instructs offerors to provide “a list of the recent three (3) contracts for which you submitted subcontract reports to eSRS… and a copy of any similarly recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS.” Our recent hardcopy subcontracting reports (SF-294s) for projects not registered in the eSRS total more than 800 pages and constitute more than 40 MB. Instead of submitting our entire catalogue of recent SF-294s, which will require multiple additional e-mail attachments and significantly increase the size of the technical volume, may we submit only three additional relevant SF-294 forms that are not duplicated on the eSRS? |
| Answer No. 26: |
| No objection to submitting three additional relevant SF-294 forms. |
| Question No. 27: |
| Section L.10(2)(a) states that “…Attachment J.8 is a representative format of the expected Offeror’s presentation and must be submitted for each proposed CLIN.” Attachment J.8 includes line items such as grants, other direct costs, indirect costs, and fixed fee. This Attachment appears to conflict with the summary format for CLINs 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Section L.10(2)(a), which indicates a total cost for each CLIN, as well as total costs for grants, other direct costs, indirect costs, and fixed fee. Can USAID please confirm that offerors should incorporate grants, other direct costs, indirect costs, and fixed fee as part of each CLIN, per Attachment J.8? |
| Answer No. 27: |
| Please note that offerors need to submit one detailed budget as per Attachment J.8 which does not have the breakdown of CLINS. |
Additionally, offerors need to provide us with a summarized cost data as per the template in Section B.4.
| Question No. 28: |
| Section H.46 of the RFP, LIABILITY WAIVER FOR OPERATING IN SYRIA, raises serious concerns. The language holds the Contractor responsible for “all risks”, including injury and harm that have nothing to do with the Contractor’s own actions. It is a non-standard provision that is not contained in the FAR or AIDAR, and including non-standard clauses is discouraged by 41 USC 425. Any proposed new clause that alters the balance among existing regulations, such as the changes that this clause contains, requires formal review through a rulemaking procedure per 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5. The proposed clause conflicts with specific, established regulations and statutes, which include the FAR, the Federal Torts Claims Act, and the Contract Disputes Act. We request that H.46 be modified to meet these concerns. |
| Answer No. 28: |
| We will address this issue under another amendment prior to December 18, 2015. |
| Question No. 29: |
| Page 10, Section B.8, Level of Effort. Can USAID please clarify if the 27,270 person days includes LOE for all staff and consultants including programmatic staff and operational support staff and STTA? Or if the 27,270 person days only includes programmatic staff LOE without operational support staff and STTA? |
| Answer No. 29: |
| The estimated 27,270 person days includes LOE for programmatic LOE and STTA without operational support staff. |
| Question No. 30: |
| Page 23, Section C, Scope of Work, Deliverable 4.4, the italics states that the annual evaluation includes “assessment and third-party analysis of the impact of activities”; however the narrative below states that “the contractor must undertake an annual assessment internally or engage an independent organization to undertake the assessment…” These instructions appear to be in conflict. Can USAID clarify if third party evaluations required annually? May the contractor do internal annual evaluations and hire a third-party to do a final evaluation? |
| Answer No. 30: |
| The Section C language is correct, a third party contractor may be used, but is not required. |
| Question No. 31: |
| Page 28, Section F.5, Key personnel, it states that “approved expatriate staff, if any, should arrive in country within 20 working days of the award date”. Considering the complexities of the program and how long it takes to field an expatriate new hire, would USAID consider extending this timeline? |
| Answer No. 31: |
| Rapid mobilization is required under this contract. USAID does not intend to provide an extension of the mobilization period, including the fielding of key personnel. |
| Question No. 32: |
| Page 49, Section H.11(c) states that “…no individual salary or wage may exceed the employee’s current salary or wage, or the highest rate of annual salary or wage received during any full year of the immediately preceding three (3) years without the approval of the Contracting Officer.” However, Section H.11(f) on page 50 states that for replacement staff, “initial salaries of new staff replacing those previously approved in the contractor’s final proposal revision do not require prior approval by the Contracting Officer, provided that the following conditions are met: the position has been authorized in the contract; and the initial salary shall not exceed either the individual’s recent long-term salary by 5%, as evidenced in USAID Form “Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet” (AID 1420-17 – Attachment J1), or the approved salary for the particular position in the final proposal revision, whichever is less.” For the purposes of hiring replacement personnel, please clarify which section of H.11 has precedence. |
| Answer No. 32: |
| Please note that Section H.11(f) language is modified as per above. |
| Question No. 33: |
| Page 52, Section H.11(1)(3), Work Week, states that “Any six-day workweek proposed for STTAs requires prior written approval by the Contracting Officer.” However, Section F.4, page 27, states that “This contract does not allow work in excess of 5 days per week without prior written approval by USAID’s Contracting Office Representative (COR)”. Please clarify which section has precedence. |
| Answer No. 33: |
| Section F.4 is revised to read Contracting Officer as per above. |
| Question No. 34: |
| Page 109, Section L.8.3, Format and Presentation, it states that the technical proposal must be in “Microsoft Word 2010” and “text accessible”. Would USAID consider revising this requirement to accept technical proposals in PDF, as long as they are text accessible? |
| Answer No. 34: |
| No objections |
| Question No. 35: |
| Page 109, Section L.8.3, Format and Presentation, it states “All copies of the Technical and Cost proposals, respectively, must be separately placed in sealed envelopes…”, however under section L.8.2, at the top of page 109, it states that the “Offeror shall submit the proposal electronically”. Can USAID confirm that hard copies are not required? |
| Answer No. 35: |
| See Answer No. 20. |
| Question No. 36: |
| Page 113, Section L.9.6, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, states that the Offeror should “list in an annex ‘Past Performance Matrix’”, which is not included in the list of annexes not included in the page limit under Section L.9 on page 111. Can USAID confirm that the Past Performance Matrix does not count against the page limitation? |
| Answer No. 36: |
| Please note that the Past Performance Matrix has a page limit of 10 pages but does not count against the technical proposal page limitation. |
| Question No. 37: |
| Page 113, under L.9.6.1, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, it states that the Offeror is required to provide “up to three (3) of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal for the prime contractor and any major subcontractor”. Can USAID confirm that this requirement is for three (3) references each for the Prime and any major subcontractor? |
| Answer No. 37: |
| See Answer No. 22. |
| Question No. 38: |
| Page 114, under L.9.6.3, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, Performance in Using Small Business Concerns, it states that “(this annex is not included in the page limitation for Annexes)”. Can USAID confirm that there is no page limitation for the Annexes? |
| Answer No. 38: |
| This is to confirm that there is no limitation for Annexes other than Past Performance which has a limit of 10 pages. |
| Question No. 39: |
| With regard to AIDAR 722.170, can USAID please clarify whether Syrian staff and consultants will be considered CCNs or TCNs considering the project will be based in Jordan? |
| Answer No. 39: |
| Syrian staff and consultants are considered CCNs. |
| Question No. 40: |
| With regard to. Attachment J.6 “List of Equipment to be transferred to the Winner Offeror”, can USAID confirm that offerors are expected to NOT budget for the listed items? |
| Answer No. 40: |
| The list of equipment will be disposed to the winner offeror. Offerors are free to budget for more if deemed necessary. |
| Question No. 41: |
| Considering the complexity of the project, will USAID provide an extension to the submission deadline? |
| Answer No. 41: |
| Yes, see Answer No. 9. |
| Question No. 42: |
| Section H.27, page 59, Grants Under Contract states: “This Contract provides in Section C that the contractor may be required to execute grants on behalf of USAID.” And that “The total value of any individual grant to any U.S. organization shall not exceed $100,000.” |
a) Please provide a total figure for the Grants Under Contract. This guidance will allow offerors to propose a successful grants management plan with adequate staffing, directly impacting the total LOE proposed under this CPFF term-type contract. The amount will also assist the offerors in determining the risk factors related to the implementation for the purpose of setting a fee.
b) Please clarify whether the stated $100,000 limitation is going to apply given the new 2CFR200 and ADS 303 that does not allow any above $150,000.
c) Is there an estimated number for grants to be awarded or a suggested amount for each?
d) Should the offeror consider awarding the grants to mainly local organizations as the solicitation suggested?
e) Should the proposed GUC budget be distributed over Year 1 and 2 only (i.e. exclude Year 3)?
f) Is there a suggested amount or a percentage for training to local governance institutions? Can the offeror consider providing the provisions for equipment and related material through GUC or this should be budgeted in addition to GUC?
| Answer No. 42: |
| a) Check Answer No. 33 of the Pre-Bid Conference Q&As. |
b) ADS 302 states “The total value of an individual grant to a U.S. NGO must not exceed $100,000. This limitation does not apply to grant awards to non-U.S. NGOs.”
c) There is no specific number of grants required. Under past awards, 60-90 grants were provided to communities, however this may vary based on need and the approach taken and mechanisms used by the offeror.
d) USAID considers GUCs as an additional tool available to the offeror to enable the most effective use of resource and maximum impact in communities. The allocation to local organizations may vary based on a particular offeror’s approach.
e) While this may vary based on the approach of individual offerors, if GUCs are utilized, a consistent approach should be taken across each year of the contract.
f) There is no specific percentage required for training to local governance institutions. GUCs may be used by each individual offeror as appropriate to their approach. If GUCs would be considered an effective means of delivering material or technical assistance to local governance bodies, USAID will consider the approach.
| Question No. 43: |
| Please confirm that “The authorized geographic code of procurement of goods and services under this contract is“935”” (as stated on RFP page 48). |
Syria is not included in 935 or 937. If either of these codes is used, contractors will not be able to procure anything within Syria. Please confirm that this is USAID’s intent.
| Answer No. 43: |
| Code 935 is any area or country including the recipient country, but excluding any country that is a prohibited source. Therefore both Syria and Jordan are being treated as recipient country. |
| Question No. 44: |
| Section H.11.(i), page 51, states: “…No compensation for consultants will be reimbursed unless their use under the contract has advance written approval of the Contracting Officer. If such provision has been made or approval given, compensation shall not exceed: (1) the highest rate of annual compensation received by the consultant during any full year of the immediately preceding three years or (2) the USAID SES established rate (AWCPAS), whichever is less.” |
Please confirm that the rate should not exceed the highest daily rate paid for similar work during the last three years. (Most Short Term Technical Assistance consultants (STTA) do not have annual rates because they work on daily rate basis.)
| Answer No. 44: |
| This is to confirm that the rate for STTA should not exceed the highest daily rate paid for similar work during the last three years. See Amendment above. |
| Question No. 45: |
| Section H.46, page 69, LIABILITY WAIVER FOR OPERATING IN SYRIA, states: “The Contractor, not USAID, will be responsible for and will assume all risks associated with the implementation of the activities under this Contract, including any injury, incarceration or other harm or inconvenience that may be caused by the Government of Syria or third parties to individuals travelling to and performing work in Syria or neighboring countries. USAID does not assume responsibility for any third party claims arising out of performance of work in Syria under this contract. Claims for damages of any nature whatsoever pursued under this Contract must be limited to direct damages only up to the aggregate amount of USAID funding disbursed as of the time the dispute arises. In no event will USAID be liable for any claims for consequential, punitive, special and incidental damages, claims for lost profits, or other indirect damages.” |
a. Does the Liability Waiver Clause supersede the FAR clauses FAR 52.228-7 Insurance Liability to Third Persons and 52.246-25 Limitation of Liability (services)? Will USAID consider revising this clause to reflect more closely the share of risk between the Contractor and the USG included in these FAR clauses?
b. Can USAID provide the public rule making approving this additional clause in accordance with OFPP Act (41 USC 1707)?
c. The clause limits reimbursement of costs above the limitations contained in the applicable cost principles, which would require a deviation from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Was such a deviation approved by OMB?
| Answer No. 45: |
| See Answer No. 28. |
| Question No. 46: |
| If the activity will be entirely implemented overseas, will the offeror be able to report subcontracting plans using the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS)? |
| Question No. 47: |
| Please elaborate on the applicability of Participant Training provision. Does USAID envision providing any training to host government officials? Please confirm the host government under this activity. |
| Answer No. 47: |
| USAID does not envision providing training to host government officials in Jordan or Syria. The focus of this activity is on nascent opposition governance bodies which are considered legitimate by their communities and constituents. |
| Question No. 48: |
| Section L.8.2, page 108-109, Delivery Instructions, states, “The Offeror shall submit the proposal electronically”… However, Section L.8.3, page 109, states that “All copies of the Technical and Cost proposals respectively must be separately placed in sealed envelopes clearly marked on the outside with the following information…” |
Please confirm that submission of the Technical and Cost Proposals is required by email only.
| Answer No. 48: |
| See Answer No. 20 |
| Question No. 49: |
| Section L.9.6.1, page 113, states “List in an annex “Past Performance Matrix” to the technical proposal up to three (3) of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the working the subject proposal for the prime contractor and any major subcontractor. |
a. Can USAID provide its definition of “recent” for contracts included as past performance (i.e. during the last 3 or 5 years)?
b. Can USAID confirm that the offeror should present the past performance information for the three contracts requested in Section L.9.6.1, using the template provided in Attachment J.3 (pg. 135) ?
| Answer No. 49: |
| a. Recent means during the last 3 years. |
b. Confirmed.
| Question No. 50: |
| Section L.9.6.3. (b).1, page 114, states, “Performance in Using Small Business (SB) Concerns (as defined in FAR 19.001)”. This information may be provided in a separate annex “Small Business Concern Performance” if applicable (this annex is not included in the page limitation for Annexes.) |
Please confirm that a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not required at proposal submission but only information on past utilization of small businesses as requested in the RFP section cited above?
| Answer No. 50: |
| Offerors must follow FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan which is part of Section I. |
| Question No. 51: |
| Section L.10 (3) Part 3 – Biographical Data Sheets, page 116, states that “Offerors must submit a completed and signed Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet for all key personnel and professional positions expected to perform on the contract” |
Since the staff for many professional positions may not be identified at the time of proposal submission, providing completed and signed biographical data sheets for all personnel would prove impossible. Please confirm that this requirement applies only to proposed key personnel.
| Answer No. 51: |
| This is to confirm that offerors must submit a completed and signed Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet for all Key personnel and professional positions expected to perform on the contract. Unidentified staff, if any, can be proposed as TBD. |
| Question No. 52: |
| L.10 (4) Part 4, Page 116, states: “The prime and all major subcontractors may propose lower overhead rates than their established Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) and sign the letter found in ADS 300, Mandatory Reference for Best Practices Guide for Indirect Costing. |
Will USAID follow principles in ADS 300 Best Practices Guide for Indirect Costing in evaluating indirect cost rates proposed under this solicitation?
| Answer No. 52: |
| Yes with consideration of the language provided in the RFP. |
| Question No. 53: |
| Can USAID confirm that a Security Plan is not required to be included with the proposal submission? |
| Answer No. 53: |
| This is to confirm that a Security Plan is not required to be included with the proposal submission. |
| Question No. 54: |
| Section M, pages 123-125: Can USAID provide the assigned score for each evaluation criteria/subcriteria listed in Section M of the RFP? |
| Answer No. 54: |
| The evaluation is adjectival and not numerical. |
| Question No. 55: |
| Section B.8 (page 10): The LOE under this contract is estimated in Section B.8 as 27,270 person-days total. Can USAID provide an LOE estimation for base Years 1 and 2? |
| Answer No. 55: |
| The LOE estimation for base Years 1 and 2 is 18,180 days. |
| Question No. 56: |
| Solicitation, Offer, Award Form SF33 (page 3): Form SF33 of the solicitation cover states that it is page 1 of 119; however, this does not match the total number of pages in the RFP. Please confirm that no pages are unintentionally included in this solicitation. |
| Answer No. 56: |
| This is a typo, total RFP pages are 143 including attachments except Attachment J.7. |
| Question No. 57: |
| Section H.2 (page 44): According to Section H.2, “the authorized source for procurement is Geographic Code 937 unless otherwise specified in the schedule of this contract.” However, the cover letter of the RFP and Section H.5 note that the authorized geographic code of procurement of goods and services under the contract is "935." Can USAID confirm that the authorized geographic code for procurement of goods and services under this contract is 935? |
| Answer No. 57: |
| The geographic code for this procurement is 935. H.2. is a standard provision that cannot be revised without a deviation. |
| Question No. 58: |
| May the offeror include a brief transmittal letter that does not count toward the page limit? |
| Question No. 59: |
| May the offeror include an acronym list that does not count toward the page limit? |
| Answer No. 59: |
| See Answer No. 21a. |
| Question No. 60: |
| Could USAID provide a plug figure for the grant fund so that all bidders can budget on an equal basis? |
| Answer No. 60: |
| See Answer No. 4 |
| Question No. 61: |
| The "Liability Waiver for Operating in Syria" (clause H.46) puts all the risk on the contractor and shields USAID -- the procuring agency -- from any risk in an inherently risky environment. Contractors will find it difficult to obtain insurance to shield them from this risk burden, too. Would USAID consider a sharing of risk or otherwise revisit this clause -- preferably before the due date for submission of proposals? |
| Answer No. 61: |
| See Answer No. 28 |
| Question No. 62: |
| Will USAID confirm that local partners are non-exclusive? |
| Answer No. 62: |
| This is to confirm that local partners are non-exclusive. |
| Question No. 63: |
| Will USAID please confirm that administrative staff LOE is not included in the professional level LOE? |
| Answer No. 63: |
| See Answer No. 18 |
| Question No. 64: |
| Will USAID please confirm that the exchange rate of $1.00 = JD 0.708, provided in the LCP scale (p. 138) of the proposal, should be used for the proposal budget? |
| Answer No. 64: |
| This is to confirm that the exchange rate of $1.00 = JD 0.708. |
| Question No. 65: |
| Pages 111 and 124 both mention that candidate references must be included. Can USAID please clarify whether there are requirements for references (e.g. number of references)? |
| Answer No. 65: |
| Three reference per key personnel. |
| Question No. 66: |
| Page 111 mentions that candidate resumes must be included in the annexes. Can USAID please clarify whether there are requirements for resumes (e.g. page limit)? |
| Answer No. 66: |
| A maximum of 10 page limit per each of Key Personnel. |
| Question No. 67: |
| Would USAID please clarify the statement that “contractor personnel are not currently permitted in Syria” (p. 11)? |
| Answer No. 67: |
| This contract requires the contractor to leverage Syrian partners to undertake work in the geographic focus area. The contract does not contemplate the type of security required for programming to be directly implemented by the contractor in an active conflict zone. Under the FAR, all foreign travel by contractor and subcontractor staff must be approved by the CO or COR, as delegated. At this time, and in consideration of the active conflict environment and limited security precautions, USAID would be highly unlikely to approve any contractor travel into Syria. |
| Question No. 68: |
| Are you able to advise if there is an incumbent contractor for this requirement? If so, could you please provide the incumbent contract number for this opportunity? If not, is this a new requirement? |
| Answer No. 68: |
| See Answer No. 1 |