Amendment_0001 _RADP-South.pdf

SOL-306-13-000022, Regional Agricultural Development Program (RADP) – South Amendment 0001, Questions and Answers

Question 1

: Please clarify if the Government intends to award a CPFF term or CPFF completion type contract as defined at FAR Part 16.306 (d).

• Section B.7 Payment of Fixed Fee (p10) is language for a Cost Plus Fixed Fee Term type rather than Cost Plus Fixed Fee completion type.

Answer 1

: This is a CPFF completion type contract in accordance with FAR 16.306 (d)(1).

• Section B.7 of the solicitation is hereby replaced with the following language:

In accordance with FAR 52.216-8 – Fixed Fee, the Government shall pay the Contractor for performing this contract the fixed fee specified in the Schedule. Payment of the fixed fee shall be made as specified in the Schedule; provided that the Contracting Officer withholds a reserve not to exceed 15 percent of the total fixed fee or $100,000, whichever is less, to protect the Government’s interest. The Contracting Officer shall release 75 percent of all fee withholds under this contract after receipt of an adequate certified final indirect cost rate proposal covering the year of physical completion of this contract, provided the Contractor has satisfied all other contract terms and conditions, including the submission of the final patent and royalty reports, and is not delinquent in submitting final vouchers on prior years’ settlements. The Contracting Officer may release up to 90 percent of the fee withholds under this contract based on the Contractor’s past performance related to the submission and settlement of final indirect cost rate proposals.

Question 2

: If the contract contemplated to be awarded is a CPFF completion, are the offerors required to submit a fee schedule against milestones/deliverables in Section F.4, or will a fee schedule be negotiated separately upon award?

Answer 2

: The fee schedule will be negotiated separately upon award.

Question 3

: Please clarify the estimated ceiling of the proposed award including $10,000,000 GUC component.

This will allow offerors to determine if the contract will be CAS covered and to what extent for Disclosure Statement purposes.

Answer 3

: USAID will not provide the estimated ceiling for this project.

Question 4

: Does the Government contemplate award of a base period plus option years or a five year contract?

Answer 4

: The Government intends to award a contract with a period of performance of five years. There are no option years associated with this contract.

Question 5

: Does the new Vetting limitation of $25,000 issued by USAID on December 5, 2012 (Ref.#OAA-IP- 2012-27) apply to this contract? Section H.19 VETTING I. 4-14.001 includes the old threshold of $150,000.

Answer 5

: The vetting limitation of $25,000.00 applies to this contract.

Question 6

: Are the offerors required to submit “USAID Information Form” subcontractors meeting the Vetting Requirements (see Question 5 above) at the time of the bid or after the award?

Answer 6

: Forms are to be submitted for subcontractors’ vetting requirements after award.

Question 7

: H.19 VETTING II. 4-14.002 (b) requires checking individuals and entities against OFAC lists, which have been migrated to SAM. Please clarify if SAM is sufficient and should be the required vetting source.

Answer 7

: SAM is sufficient and will be a required vetting source.

Question 8

: Section I. 4 52.216-24 LIMITATION OF GOVERNMENT LIABILITY (APR 1984) – Is this clause included in error? If not, please clarify liability amounts listed.

Answer 8

: This clause is hereby removed from the solicitation.

Question 9

: Section L.8 INSTRUCTION FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE BUSINESS PROPOSAL. (B) PART 2 – PROPOSED COST/PRICES (2)(l) Grants Under Contract (GUCSs).

Please confirm that the LOC will be available for the GUC portion of this contract. The availability of LOC will have a direct effect on calculation of borrowing risks under the Fixed Fee component of the contract.

Answer 9

: A Letter of Credit will be available for the GUC portion of this contract.

Question10

: Section L.8 (B) (2)(l) Grants under Contract on page 109 states that no fee is allowable as applied to GUCs. 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 is reasonable and consistent with federal regulations.

Answer 10

: USAID acknowledges the questions received regarding the statement that, “No fee is allowable as applied to GUCs.” However, no change will be made to this term.

Question 11

: Will the Government consider providing an LOC to a non-profit offeror if this will reduce the risk factor for borrowing, used to calculate the Fixed Fee?

ADS 636.3.6.1 ADVANCES TO NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS FOR CONTRACTS, GRANTS, AND

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS states that “[t]he preferred method of financing contracts, grants or cooperative agreements for non-profit organizations is through Advance Payments (either LOC or Treasury check/ACH or EFT). The method of advance funding shall be specifically authorized in the contract, grant or cooperative agreement.”

Answer 11

: The Government will not consider a Letter of Credit to a non-profit offeror.

Question 12

: Will Certified Cost or Pricing Data be required under this Contract?

Answer 12

: Yes.

Question 13

: Section B.4, p. 9 notes that “there is no level of on-budget funding for this program as this is an off-budget program”. Please provide USAID’s definition for “on-budget funding” vs. “off budget”.

Answer 13

On-Budget Financing

Definition: USAID/Afghanistan’s On-Budget Assistance (OBA) to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA) includes: (a) direct delivery of USAID funds through partner country systems (also referred to as government-to-government [G2G] assistance), and (b) USAID contributions to a multi-donor trust fund administered by a Public International Organization (PIO).

On-Budget (or core budget): a method of financing of partner country’s budget through a transfer of resources from an external financing agency to the partner government’s national treasury. In the context of Afghanistan, the following criteria are applied:

• Legal agreement is signed between MoF and donor

• Assistance is managed and implemented by the GIRoA entity and funds are executed through the

Afghan PFM systems (budget, treasury, procurement and audit)

• Program/funds have been reflected in the national budget and approved by the parliament

For more details: See online GIRoA MoF On-Budget Financing Guidelines for DPs (1st Edition) December 2011

Off-Budget Financing

GIRoA currently has little control or accountability over off-budget financing. A consultation mechanism will allow government agencies to take part in review, appraisal, implementation and monitoring of such projects. By doing so, off-budget projects will be included in the budget statement improving visibility and recognition by the Afghan government, Parliament and civil society. GIRoA requires all donors to sign Financing Agreements (FAs)1 with MoF for all projects excluding philanthropic activities according to the Section 9/9 and 10/1 definition of public assets in the PFM law, all public assets, in this case grants provided to the government, shall be reflected in a written agreement with MoF. In the context of Afghanistan, the following criteria are applied:

• DPs shall consult GIRoA (both MoF and line ministries) in the formulation and implementation of off budget programs in with NPPs. This will involve holding a Peer Review before project implementation.

• Within the limits of the legislation that governs their aid programs, DPs shall agree to sign Financiing Agreements with the MoF for all projects to enable GIRoA to lead, facilitate and monitor all development investments.

Question 14

: Section B.5, p. 10 instructs all primes to identify major subcontractors “in the cover letter of their proposals”. Please confirm that identifying any major subcontractors in the title page of the proposal meet this requirement.

Answer 14

: Identifying any major subcontractors in the title page of the offeror’s proposal will meet this requirement.

Question 15

: Section B.1 lists Helmand, Kandahar, and Zabul as the target areas for RADP-South, while Section C lists Uruzgan as a fourth target province. Please clarify in which provinces RADP should implement planned activities.

Answer 15

: Yes, Uruzgan should be included as one of the four (4) targeted provinces per Section C. In other words, the offer should include the following provinces: 1) Zabul, 2) Uruzgan, 3) Kandahar, and 4) Helmand.

Question 16

: On p. 16, the RFP states that “USAID will approve three high value crops under which all program activities will be conducted under [CLIN 2], while section J.1, 2.2, on p. 60 references crops such as “fruit trees, vine crops.. and some vegetables” Please clarify whether USAID intends to target a minimum of three crops or to limit all program interventions to three single crops, given that such limitation would also limit the program’s ability to tailor activities and would minimize the opportunity to engage women “into all program components and activities”, while reaching other outlined milestones for the program.

1 The term “Financing Agreement” refers to the documents that provide financing and sponsor support for a project or program. This term covers all types of financing instruments including grants and loans.

Answer 16

: USAID intends to target three single high value crops. USAID may be prepared to make an exception to include additional high value crops on a case-by-case basis.

Question 17

: p. 19 of the RFP, Section C.3, the RFP notes that “the overall level of effort referred to is an approximation of the allocation of resources necessary to complete the project”. Please clarify what the overall level of effort is, as there is no such reference in the RFP.

Answer 17

: Offerors are responsible for determining the level of effort necessary to complete this project.

Question 18

: Section C.5, p. 22 notes that “the contractor is encouraged to subcontract at least 15 percent of activities through local entities.” Please provide USAID’s definition for local entities.

Answer 18

: In this instance, USAID is defining local entities to mean any locally owned organization (both for profits and non-profits) that is registered as an Afghan firm.

Question 19

: The RFP on pg. 22 states that the COR will be supported by OSMs or third party monitors. Would USAID consider having ongoing third party monitoring conducted by an external firm?

Answer 19

Question 20

: Please define “rolling out” policies. Does rolling out require obtaining buy-in from the government?

Please provide USAID’s definition for “implemented” as noted for the indicator listed on pg. 20 of the RFP “Number of agricultural policies, laws, regulations and administrative procedures implemented”.

Answer 20

Roll out in this instance is meant to describe how the contractor is expected to aid the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, and Livestock (MAIL) in adopting and successfully implementing new policy and regulatory procedures aimed at improving the effectiveness and efficiency of business transactions in Afghanistan.

Implemented in this case is meant to describe the successful execution and accomplishment of supporting activities that facilitate an effective enabling environment, in accordance with the other deliverables listed under

CLIN 4.

Question 21

: Would USAID consider revising the due date for milestones 1.6, 2.5, 2.9. 2.12, 3.5, and 3.11 to within 3 years of award rather than within 2.5 years of award? The majority of the outcome indicators such as farmers increase productivity in wheat by 10% will be collected through a baseline, mid-term, and end line. The baseline will be conducted at the start of the program and ideally the mid-term at the midpoint. However, to report on the milestones mentioned previously we would have to conduct the mid-term prematurely-towards the end of year 1.

Answer 21

: USAID will not consider changing the due date for select milestones at this time. However, offerors are permitted to provide compelling evidence as to why these dates are unrealistic.

Question 22

: Please confirm that offerors are to provide the required PPRs information for themselves and any major subcontractors as an annex to the Technical Proposal, using the provided template in Section J.4.

Answer 22

: Offerors are to provide the required PPRs information for themselves and any major subcontractors as an annex to the Technical Proposal, using the provided template in Section J.4.

Question 23: RFP Page 104, Section L.7. III. Past Performance states, “Provide with the Technical Proposal a list of no less than five (5) of the most relevant contracts in terms of size, scope and complexity, for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal performed over the past three (3) years.” Further in the same section, the RFP requires that Offerors provide a list of at least three (3) subcontractors utilized on the most relevant contracts in terms of size, scope and complexity, for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal over the past three (3) years. However, page 116, Section M.3.III. Past Performance states, “USAID will evaluate the quality of an offeror’s and its major subcontractor’s past performance based on feedback from references submitted by the offeror for relevant past performance over the last five years.” Please clarify whether Offerors should include in their past performance information on projects performed over the last three years or over the last five years.

Answer 23

: Offerors are to include past performance information on projects performed over the last FIVE years.

Question 24

: The requirement included in RFP Page 105, Section L.7. III. Past Performance, item b) states, “Provide a list of at least three (3) subcontractors utilized on the most relevant contracts in terms of size, scope and complexity, for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal over the past three (3) years. For each proposed subcontractor, the subcontractor must have had 20 percent or more of the contract value.” We interpret the first sentence to refer to subcontractors utilized on previous contracts; however, the second sentence contains the clause “proposed subcontractors”, which seems to indicate that USAID is referring to subcontractors proposed on this proposal. The subcontractors utilized in the past may not be the same as those proposed to be engaged on this proposal. Please clarify what offerors should submit in response to point (b).

Answer 24

: USAID is referring to the subcontractors proposed for this proposal. The list of subcontractors proposed must have relevant experience for the efforts similar to the work in this solicitation.

Question 25

: RFP Page 104, Section L.7. III. Past Performance, 1), requires that the Offeror provide performance information for itself and each major subcontractor in accordance with items a) through d) below. We understand that item c) relates to the list of projects to be included under item a) for both the Prime and all major subcontractors, whereas item d) specifically indicates that additional performance references refer to the prime’s performance only. Please confirm.

Answer 25

: Yes, item d) refers to the prime’s performance only.

Question 26

: In addition, please clarify whether the requirement to submit the list of subcontractors utilized on the most relevant contracts performed in the last three years only refers to the prime, or if the proposed major subcontractors also need to submit the same information for subcontractors on their most relevant contracts.

Answer 26

: The requirement to submit the list of subcontractors utilized on the most relevant contracts only refers to the prime.

Question 27

: Section L.7, II.5, p. 103, under Other Qualifications for a Compliance Officer, states that a “relevant certification from internationally recognized compliance or auditing organization is highly required.” Please clarify whether USAID deems such a qualification a requirement or a highly desirable, additional qualification that is not required but preferred.

Answer 27

: The statement should read, “…is required.”

Question 28

: The list of major cost elements on page 110 does not match with the list of major cost elements outlined on page 107-109; the missing item is the Direct Contract Expenditures cost. Should the Direct Contract Expenditures item be considered a major line item?

Answer 28

: Yes, it is considered a major line item.

Question 29: The RFP states that “the current maximum U.S. Mission Local Compensation Plan Basic Rate is $49,893.00 per annum based on a 40-hour work week. The rate includes the equivalent of a 13th month bonus.

Local employees are also provided danger pay which calculated at 25% ($12,473.00) of the Basic Rate.” Please clarify what the maximum compensation amount allowed is, after accounting for six-day work week, danger pay, 13th month bonus, or any other allowances.

Answer 29

: Offerors are required to calculate the compensation amount according to their company policy.

Question 30

: Section M.3, p. 115, states that “sub-factors under Technical Approach are all of equal importance.”

Please confirm that USAID intends to place as much emphasis on Sub-Factor 1 Program Design, and all elements required thereunder, as on Sub-Factor 4 Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation when evaluating offerors’ proposals.

Answer 30

: Sub-factors 1 through 4 under Technical Approach are of equal importance.

Question 31

: In order to develop the draft PMP, it would be helpful to access the Mission’s data used to prepare the RFP to better understand the RFP targets and to see current production data for wheat, livestock and high-value crops in the Northern Region.

Answer 31

: USAID has posted an illustrative sampling of the source documents on the USAID/Afghanistan mission website used for the drafting of this RFP as indicated in Section J.

Question 32

: How will the implementing partners for the RADP projects work together? Will USAID or MAIL provide the coordination?

Answer 32

: USAID’s Office of Agriculture (OAG) will provide the initial coordination in conjunction with MAIL until RADP-Central has become operational and still to a lesser degree subsequent to the mobilization of RADP- Central.

Question 33

: On page 18 the RFP states that at least 30 obstacles must be identified and analyzed through five page reports. Later on in the RFP reference is made to policy obstacles. Would the mission provide an example of what constitutes an obstacle?

Answer 33

: Example - the lack of experienced export and trade compliance professionals with an in-depth knowledge and understanding of export control regulations (International Phytosanitary Standards for Fruits and Nuts) precludes Afghanistan from accessing global markets. In this example, the obstacle is a dearth of skilled professionals to develop and/or enforce certain regulations, but in other cases, the obstacle may have to do with the regulation (or policy) itself.

Question 34

: On page 22 the RFP footnote 6 refers to on-budget funding that will be available to MAIL through “independent program” When will this funding be available and what parameters will MAIL be instructed to use it, e.g., will it be used for such things as setting up demonstration plots, procuring needed equipment, etc., or must contractors budget for providing DAIL logistical and materiel support?

Answer 34

: The contractor will not be expected to provide logistical and material support to the DAILs as it pertains to the referenced footnote 6 on page 22.

Question 35

: The RFP states that RADP-S contractor will work closely with DAIL personnel especially for extension. Will DAIL personnel have their own means of transportation or should the contractor be responsible for providing it?

Answer 35

: The contractor will not be responsible for providing transportation for DAIL personnel.

Question 36

: How will USAID coordinate the three RADP programs from Kabul before and after the contractor for RADP Central gets mobilized?

Answer 36

: USAID will coordinate the three RADP programs much the same way as it is currently managing and coordinating other programs in the Agency’s portfolio.

Question 37

: Section M 1. Technical Approach, Sub-factor 4 is confusing. As the fourth most important part of the Technical Approach, USAID is requiring the contractor to present the EMMP in the proposal and yet elsewhere in the RFP, e.g., F. 4 Deliverables on page 28, the “EMMP is submitted 90 calendar days of the effective date of the contract”. In section H 16. Environmental compliance, page 45 the contractor is to prepare a EMMP or an M&M plan and “integrate it into the initial work plan”. Please clarify- when is the contractor to prepare the EMMP for the proposal?

Answer 37

: USAID is not asking for a detailed EMMP at the proposal stage. USAID is asking to demonstrate the approach offerors plan to take in this regard. USAID request offerors to demonstrate the approach and will be evaluating only the approach. The detailed plan will be submitted as requested – within 90 days of the effective day of the contract.

Question 38

: Given the projected withdrawals of ISAF troops, what implications will that have on security in the South? Will the USAID COR and other USG personnel be permitted to visit project sites?

Answer 38

: USAID is contemplating using a third party monitoring system to verify progress in the event that U.S. Chief of Mission staff are not permitted to conduct project site-visits.

Question 39

: L.11 p113 – Are grants included in the 70% of subcontracts requirement?

Answer 39

: Yes, grants are included in this requirement.

Question 40

: Would USAID please confirm that RADP-South includes activities in Uruzgan? On P.8, in B.1 Purpose, the RFP lists Helmand, Kandahar, and Zabul provinces only; however, on P. 11, C.1 Purpose and Scope, the RFP states that “The RADP-South program will focus on Helmand, Kandahar, Zabul, and Uruzgan.”

Answer 40

: Yes, Uruzgan should be included as one of the four (4) provinces covered under RADP-S.

Question 41

: Would USAID please confirm that the RFP emphasizes “Farmer Productivity and Profitability” rather than “Farmer Productivity and Production,” as in the previous version of the RFP? On P. 13, in C.3.2.

Program Themes, the first theme is titled “Farmer Productivity and Production”; however, the corresponding Outcome (P. 20, Outcome 1) has been changed to “Increased agricultural sector productivity and profitability in target regions.” In addition, the production-oriented deliverable for CLIN 1 in the previous version has been removed.

Answer 41

: Yes, the Agency would like for the contractor to emphasize “Farmer Productivity and Profitability,” not Farmer Productivity and Production.” USAID suggests the offerers focus their attention on the instructions in the current RFP and disregard the original version of the RFP.

Question 42

: On P. 18 (CLIN 3, fourth bullet point) the RFP includes the following deliverable: “The contractor must improve market linkages between farmers and agribusinesses and between agribusinesses and final consumers in order to increase total sales by at least $5 million over the life of the program.” Would USAID confirm that this target is for the livestock value chain only?

Answer 42

: Yes, USAID hereby confirms that the $5 million increase in total sales over the life of the program only applies to the livestock value chain.

Question 43

: In selecting High Value Crops for CLIN 2, does USAID expect the Offeror to narrowly identify a specific fruit or vegetable (e.g., potatoes) or would it be acceptable to select a category (e.g., root vegetables)?

Answer 43

: USAID expects the offeror to select on a relative scale from those categories of well known “High Value Crops” from within the Afghan context. If one can demonstrate how potatoes qualify as a “High Value” crop relative to other alternative crops in Afghanistan, then perhaps they can be considered.

Question 44

: On P. 30 (CLIN 3, third bullet point), the RFP states that “USAID will invest in one livestock value chain for which all program activities will be conducted under this CLIN.” Would USAID consider allowing the project to select more than one livestock value chain so that RADP can focus on the livestock value chain that best meets the selection criteria in each economic/geographic zone?

Answer 44

Question 45

: On P. 22 (top of the page), the RFP states that “USAID intends to conduct complementary programmatic evaluations through its Support II contract. The contractor must budget for at least one evaluation to come from the project budget to be implemented by a third party evaluation firm. Use of firms already working in Afghanistan is encouraged.”

Would USAID please confirm our understanding of the anticipated M&E requirements for the project:

1. The following M&E activities must be budgeted for out of the RADP budget:

a. RADP project M&E

b. Third-party evaluation

2. Separately, USAID will conduct programmatic evaluations that will not be funded out of the RADP budget.

Answer 45

: Offerors need to budget for M&E, but not a third-party evaluation. The Support II contract will cover the cost of an external, third-party evaluation of RADP-South.

Question 46

: Given the instructions on P. 22 (please see question 7), would USAID please provide additional information about the expected scope of the third-party evaluation in order to allow bidders to properly budget?

For example, does USAID expect the contractor to budget for a mid-term program evaluation? An end-of-project evaluation? Or a third-party baseline, mid-term, and final evaluation?

Answer 46

: USAID expects the contractor to budget for a baseline. The baseline may be conducted by the contractor, a subcontractor, or third party, as proposed by the offeror. External, third-party evaluations – including a mid-term and final evaluation – will be covered by the Support II contract.

Question 47

: Would USAID please clarify how it would like the past performance information presented?

A. The instructions on PP. 104 – 106 requires that the Offeror should include:

1. a list of relevant projects

2. a list of at least three major subcontractors used on relevant projects

3. information about each of the projects listed in a and b

4. references for additional projects to validate the prime’s performance in various areas

Our understanding is that we should present our past performance information in two places in the technical proposal. Is this correct?

1. As narrative text in Section III of the technical proposal

2. As part of Annex F using the standard Contractor Performance Reports – Short Form included in the

RFP as J. 4 (P. 71) in addition to the required SF-294s.

Answer 47A

: This is correct.

B. Would USAID consider allowing the Offeror to present CPRs for work performed over the last five years? This would allow bidders to provide a more comprehensive picture of their performance.

Answer 47B

: Per the answer to question 23, offerors are to include past performance information on projects performed over the last FIVE years.

C. Would USAID confirm that Past Performance requirement b (P. 105) requests that the Offeror provide CPRs showing how the Offeror has used large subcontractors (at least three) effectively in the past on similar projects?

Answer 47C

: Yes, offerors are to provide CPRs showing how they used large subcontractors on similar projects.

D. Would USAID confirm that that Past Performance requirement b (P. 105) applies only to the Prime?

Answer 47D

: Yes, the past performance requirement b. (p. 105) applies only to the prime contractor.

E. Would USAID please clarify if it would like SF-294s for the past five or past three years? On P. 105, point 5, the RFP states that “USAID will evaluate the extent that the Offerors used and promoted the use of small business concerns under current and prior contracts over the past five (5) years.” However, on P.

106, point b, the RFP requires SF-294s for the past three years.

Answer 47E

: Per the answer to questions 23 and 47B, offerors are to include SF-294s for the last FIVE years.

Question 48

: Would USAID please confirm that 11-point fonts are acceptable? The RFP requires that the Offeror “not use a type smaller than 11 pitch” (P. 97, L.7).

Answer 48

: 11-point fonts are acceptable.

Question 49

: Would USAID please confirm that the acronym list is not subject to the 50-page limitation?

Answer 49

: An acronym list will not be subject to the 50 page limit.

Question 50

: Would USAID confirm that the reference to grants as a component of the RADP program (P. 99, first paragraph) is intended to mean that the grants are an element of the program and not a separate program component like the Wheat Value Chain or Enabling Environment?

Answer 50

: Yes, grants are expected to be an element of the program and not a separate program component.

Question 51

: Would USAID consider removing the requirement that the Offeror provide annual targets for each proposed indicator with the proposal (P.99, Sub-factor 2) and allow the Offeror to indicate “TBD” for those targets for which there is not yet baseline data? Setting targets after baseline data is collected will permit more accurate targeting and improve the PMP as a monitoring and management mechanism for the project.

Answer 51

: USAID will not remove this requirement.

Question 52

: Would USAID please confirm that Offerors should address their plans to procure, hire, and use local Afghan organizations and enterprises in Sub-factor 3 in the Technical Approach (P. 99, Sub-factor 3, third bullet point) and not in Past Performance (as directed in the last sentence of point a on P. 106)?

Answer 52: Correct. Offerors are to address their plans to coordinate with and support Afghan organizations in accordance with Technical Approach, Sub-factor 3 (p. 99), not under Past Performance.

Question 53

: Would USAID please confirm that the management plan should be discussed as part of II. Key Personnel, Sub-factor 2 – Staffing Plan?

Answer 53

: Yes, management plan will be discussed as part of Key Personnel, Sub-factor 2 – Staffing Plan.

Question 54

: Would USAID please confirm that the two-page Branding Implementation and Marking Plans will not be evaluated as part of the technical proposal, as stated on P. 112, second paragraph under L.9?

Answer 54

: The branding and marking plan will not be part of the technical evaluation; however, offerors are required to submit a preliminary branding and marking plan.

Question 55

: Would USAID consider allowing an administrative handling charge on the grants fund for organizations that do not charge other indirects on grants?

Answer 55

: USAID will consider allowing an administrative handling charge on the grants fund ONLY for organizations that do not charge other indirects on grants.

Question 56

: Would USAID please clarify what items should be included in the “Direct Contract Expenditures” line in the list of standard cost elements on P. 110?

Answer 56

: This is the total of all direct program costs inclusive of security expenses, indirect costs and fees.

Question 57

: Would USAID confirm that the Prime is required to submit the Certification of Current Cost or Pricing Data as part of the cost submission (P. 72, J.5)?

Answer 57

: Yes, the prime is required to submit.

Question 58

: Would USAID please confirm that the RFP does not call for option years to be included in the budget? Option years are referenced in the cost evaluation criteria at the bottom of P. 117 and at the top of P. 118.

Answer 58

: There are no option years associated with this contract.

Question 59

: Section C.3 (3), page 18 states that the contractor should strengthen the managerial capacity of at least two local organizations involved in livestock activities. Subsequently, Section F.4, Milestone 3.14, page 31 requires that at least three local organizations have managerial and technical capacity strengthened. Could USAID please clarify whether the offeror should strengthen managerial capacity of two or three local organizations under

CLIN 3?

Answer 59

: The offeror is to strengthen the managerial capacity of at least three (3) local organizations.

Question 60

: Section C.4, page 21 states that the PMP will be supported by a work plan for the contractor that will include specific implementation and budgeting for the initial and subsequent 12 months. Can USAID please clarify if a provisional first year work plan is requested for inclusion in the proposal, and if so, confirm that it should be included as an additional annex and not subject to the 50 page limit for the technical proposal?

Answer 60

: Offerors are permitted to submit the work plan a separate annex not to exceed ten (10) pages.

Question 61

: Section F.5: For costing purposes, can USAID please clarify if the six day work week authorized under Section F.7 is for all staff or only for short-term staff?

Answer 61

: The six-day work week is authorized for all staff.

Question 62

: Section F.5 states that sixth day pay will not be at premium pay. Our practice is to pay local national staff a premium of 50% for additional hours worked beyond 40 hours per week, with a total not exceeding 50 hours per week. Our understanding is that this practice is in compliance with Afghan labor law. Would USAID waive this requirement in the RFP?

Answer 62

: USAID will not waive this requirement.

Question 63

: Section H.3 includes 937 as the authorized geographic code. In order to preserve the maximum flexibility for project implementation would USAID consider changing this to Code 935? Authorizing geographic code 935 would encourage the greatest degree of competition from eligible, responsible and qualified suppliers and ensure RADP has access and can receive the support of the largest and most diverse pool of ideas, services and commodities.

Answer 63

: We cannot change the geographic code.

Question 64

: Section I.8 includes COMMUNICATION PRODUCTS (OCT 1994). This clause requires approval by the CO for communications products in excess of $25,000. It is our understanding that Contract Information Bulletin 94-20, which set this threshold, was rescinded in 2007. Could USAID remove this language from Section I.8 accordingly?

Answer 64

: This clause will be removed.

Question 65

: Section L.7 (III)(6)(b) instructs offerors to provide copies of SF-294 reports for the last 3 years.

Given the large volume of our SF 294s for the past three years, which total hundreds of pages, may we instead submit 10 of the most recent and relevant SF294s?

Answer 65

: Yes, this is acceptable.

Question 66

: Section L.7 instructs that Table of Contents, dividers and charts are not subject to a page limitation.

Would USAID please confirm that a cover letter, charts and other graphics included in the Technical Proposal are not subject to the 50 page limit for the technical proposal?

Answer 66

: A cover letter is not subject to the 50 page limit. However, charts and other graphics are subject to the 50 page limitation.

Question 67

: Section L.7 (III)(1)(a) instructs offerors to provide with the Technical Proposal a list of no less than five (5) of the most relevant contracts in terms of size, scope and complexity, for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal performed over the past three years. Section L.7 (III)(1)(d): Instructs offerors to provide additional performance references from projects to validate the prime’s performance in the areas of grants management; performance and management of key personnel; and use, management and development of local companies and partners. Can USAID please clarify if the offeror must submit the past performance references listed in section (d) in addition to those required in section (a), or are the past performance references required in section (a) inclusive of those listed in section (d)?

Answer 67

: The past performance information required in section (a) can be inclusive of those listed in section (d). Please so indicate in the proposal.

Question 68: Section L.7 (III)(1) instructs offerors to submit performance information for itself and each major subcontractor. Can USAID please clarify if references for our subcontractor are included in or in addition to the five most relevant contracts in terms of size, scope and complexity requested in part (a)? Similarly, can USAID please clarify if references for our subcontractor are included in or in addition to the five additional performance references requested in the areas of grants management; performance and management of key personnel; and use, management and development of local companies and partners?

Answer 68

: The references for the subcontractors are in addition to the five most relevant contracts in part (a).

The additional performance references requested in part (d) are for the prime only.

Question 69

: Section L.7 (III)(6)(a) instructs offerors to describe how they will procure, hire, and use local Afghan organizations and enterprises. Would USAID allow this description to be included within Sub-factor 3 of the Technical Approach?

Answer 69

: Yes. See response to question 52.

Question 70

: Section L.7 (IV) and Section L.8 (B)(k) both require security plans to be included. Can USAID please confirm the offeror should submit the 8-page security plan in both the technical and cost volumes?

Answer 70

: The 8-page security plan is to be submitted in the technical volume only; however, the security cost will be submitted in the cost volume.

Question 71

: Section L.8 (B)(2)(d) requires the contractor’s list of NXP to include manufacturer, unit price and expected geographic source. Would USAID allow offeror to include this level of information only for NXP with unit prices in excess of USD $25,000?

Answer 71

Question 72

: Does USAID have a preferred format for the statements of qualification for key personnel? May offerors simply submit a CV prefaced by a paragraph expressing why the proposed person is likely to succeed in the position?

Answer 72

: Offerors are to submit statements of qualification for each key personnel in accordance with section L.7. A CV prefaced by a paragraph will not be sufficient.

Question 73

: May offerors include as a separate annex not subject to the page limitation tables summarizing qualifications of other non-key technical advisors proposed in accordance with pp. 103-104 of the RFP?

Answer 73

: USAID does not require the submittal of qualifications of non-key technical advisors with the proposal as this is not an evaluation factor. Hence, a separate annex inclusive of this information will not be evaluated.