Written_Answer_to_questions_received_before_August_6 _2013.pdf

P a g e | 1

Questions and Answers submitted to USAID prior to August 6, 2013 cut-off date

The following questions and answers are hereby included in the RFP:

Question 1: Under Component 1, 10 business/employment centers will be established. Must an offeror bid for the establishment and operation of all 10 of these centers, or can the offeror choose to bid for only some of them?

Answer 1: Please review the IQC evaluation criteria. Proposals will be selected based on the criteria listed in that section.

Question 2: Page 306, Task 2 states that the Contractor, with USAID, “will select 5 major population center venues where it will primarily deliver the range of training and support.” Given that USAID has stressed the need for adaptability and cultural effectiveness within PROMOTE in order to reach the target number of young women, can USAID please modify the number of training sites to state “at least one major venue per major population center, or more as culturally effective”?

Answer 2: Task Order 2 has been amended, please review. One training venue in each of the following is required: Mazar-i-Sharif, Herat, Jalalabad, Kandahar, and Kabul.

Question 3: Will a proposal for only parts of the SOW (i.e. training facilities, mobile technology, etc.) be considered?

Answer 3: Only complete proposals will be considered. USAID encourages partnerships or other arrangements when submitting a proposal.

Question 4: We have a project that fits very well into the expected outcome of PROMOTE, but does not align with the initial task orders. How do we propose for this, under this RFP?

Answer 4: Proposals will be evaluated consistent with the evaluation criteria in Section M of the IQC.

Question 5: On page-24(article-C.7.3): what is the main subject of the second paragraph?

Answer 5: Component 3: Women in Government will complement and coordinate with previous and ongoing USAID projects that have trained, placed and supported new women university graduates in internship positions in the Afghan government and in other public and private entities and assisted with obtaining employment following their internships.

Question 6: On page-39(article-C.9.7): PROMOTE will issue grants under contracts, except under Task Order 1, Needs short clarification especially for Grant proposal? And also how about other task order?

Answer 6: Please see Task Order 2, section C, and section H, for further information on Grants Under Contract.

Question 7: In Attachment J.15, Comments/Responses to Draft RFP, Answer 50 refers to Deliverable 25. Answer 46 refers to Deliverables 20, 22, 23, and 24. Answer 49 refers to

P a g e | 2

Deliverable 25. These deliverables are not listed in Section F.3 DELIVERABLES in the Task Order, nor is there a Section 10.4 or 10.5 in Section C. Can USAID please confirm that Offerors are required to submit Deliverables 1-17 as per Section F.3?

Answer 7: Attachment J.15 includes Comments/Responses to the draft RFP and was included only as background documentation. Potential offerors must refer to the final RFP and all amendments to the RFP issued for all guidance and requirements.

Question 8: Is the Draft Mobilization Plan/Work Plan the only item required to be submitted in Annex 3 of the Task Order?

Answer 8: Section L of Task Order 2 requires that Offerors include in Annex 3 a Draft Mobilization Plan. The RFP has been amended to reflect this requirement.

Question 9: Can USAID please clarify whether a PMP is a contract deliverable? (It is not listed as a deliverable under Section F.3)

Answer 9: A Performance Monitoring Plan is required under Task Order 2. The RFP has been amended to more clearly reflect this requirement.

Question 10: Can USAID please clarify whether the “qualitative and quantitative evaluations” required as part of the Final Report listed in Section F.3 (p.316) will be informed by the independent evaluation USAID conducts (per Section C.6 (p.300)) or should the contractor plan and budget for its own evaluation?

Answer 10: Performance evaluations of the technical task orders within the Promote RFP will be conducted by a USAID-funded Monitoring and Evaluation Services contract. The Final Report requirements have been amended to delete the “qualitative and quantitative evaluations” requirement.

Question 11: Page 301, last sentence of paragraph 2 states “The contractor must be prepared to follow up beyond the final year of implementation” --- what does this mean in practice since we can’t incur costs beyond the end date of the contract?

Answer 11: The RFP has been amended to delete this requirement.

Question 12(a): Page 307, Task 3, of Task Order #2, states that “The contractor will coordinate…this may include holding retreats where all stakeholders share experiences and difficulties, ensuring ongoing sharing of information…” This language is much broader than the language of Deliverable 15, the collaboration deliverable which ends on Day 20. Could USAID expand upon, and extend the timeframe of, Deliverable 15 to account for this broader coordination role?

Answer 12(a): The Deliverables under Task Order 2 have been renumbered. Deliverable 15 is now Deliverable 16. It is focused on a communications and messaging strategy and plan for Promote. Deliverable 16 has been modified to extend the submittal time to 40 days from award. Task 3 is captured in the modified Deliverable 16 and Deliverable 17.

P a g e | 3

Question 12(b): Kindly confirm whether the Task Order #2 budget should include funds aside for fellow implementing partners to attend these coordination events. Alternately, kindly conform whether each IQC holder should pay for these expenses out of their minimum order of $50,000.

Answer 12(b): The RFP has been amended to clarify this issue. Please see Sections L and B for further clarification.

Question 13: In the response to Question 46 on page 222, USAID writes that: “Offerors should refer to Section C.10.3 Provision of Training and Related Interventions, Deliverable 20; and Section C.10.4 Coordination with Other Entities, Deliverables 22, 23, and 24.” However, In Section C.10.3, there is no Deliverable 20, and there is no Section C.10.4 in the RFP. Will USAID please direct offerors to the relevant sections?

Answer 13: Please refer to the Answer 7.

Question 14(a): The requirements for the DCOP candidate in Task Order Two (Section F.2; page

311) specify 10 years of experience with donor-funded programs, but also specify the preference for an Afghan national. Given the fact that few donors were active in Afghanistan prior to 2002, this excludes many well-qualified candidates, especially women. Would USAID consider revising this requirement to 6 or 7 years of experience on donor-funded programs rather than 10?

Answer 14(a): The RFP has been modified to require 8 years of experience for the DCOP.

Please see amended RFP.

Question 14 (b): On page 311 of the RFP under Task Order 2, USAID seeks a CCN candidate for the Deputy Chief of Party position with 10 years of donor program financial experience.

Would USAID consider lowering the 10 year requirement to six years?

Answer 14 (b): Please see Answer 14(a).

Question 15: Is there a preference for Afghan candidates in the key personnel positions? For example, would USAID score an Afghan candidate for the Training Specialist Key Personnel position higher than an expatriate candidate if he/she had equal qualifications?

Answer 15: Please refer Section C, Key Personnel requirements detailed in the RFP, and to the relevant evaluation criteria in Section M to determine how USAID will evaluate proposals.

16. Question: The first page of the cover letter states that the "first task order expected to be issued under the IQC in this RFP is Women's Leadership Development (WLD) training for more than 25,000 Afghan women" and that "all participants of the PROMOTE program activities are expected to take part in the WLD training." It is our understanding that PROMOTE will directly benefit a minimum of 75,000 women within the target cohort (page 18). On page 304, the RFP states that the initial target for women trained is 20,000 for women and 8,000 for girls (total 28,000). What is the target number of women trained during the five years of the PROMOTE WLD program--25,000, 28,000, or 75,000?

P a g e | 4

Answer 16: The RFP has been amended, please review. The estimated target number of Afghan women during the five years of the PROMOTE WLD program is 25,000 women, of which 18,000 is the primary target group and 7,000 is the secondary target group.

Question 17: In order to allow for sufficient detail in the Five-Year Work Plan (Annex 1), would USAID allow offerors five pages for the Year 1 project activities and an additional five pages for Years 2 through 5?

Answer 17: There is no change to the page requirement, however, offerors are encouraged to provide greater detail in Year 1 in the Five-Year Work Plan (Annex 1) of Task Order 2.

Question 18: Section C.11.2, page 44, of the IQC RFP states that one of the technical outputs for Component 3, Women in Government, is to establish a Component 4 (WIG) alumni network.

Would USAID kindly confirm that the technical output is to establish a Component 3 (WIG) alumni network?

Answer 18: Confirmed. The RFP has been amended.

Question 19: Deliverable 14 under Task Order Two, (Section F.3, page 318), envisions training 20,000 beneficiaries in the primary target group and 8,000 in the secondary target group by the end of the five-year WLD contract period. However, the description of deliverables in Section C.12, p.46, states that PROMOTE will directly benefit at least 75,000 women among a “key target group” of more than 200,000 educated middle-class women and encourages contractors to go “above and beyond” in proposing ways to increase the number of direct beneficiaries. Given the wide range of targets mentioned, can USAID clarify its expectations for the number of women to be trained during the Task Order Two contract period?

Answer 19: Please see Answer 16.

Question 20: Section C.8.4, p.34, lists a number of NPP deliverables that PROMOTE Component 4 is expected to support. Is the Task Order Two contractor expected to ensure that the participants in WLD are drawn from these NPP target sub-groups. Specifically, should the contractor ensure that WLD reaches “Chancellors and other senior administrators, including departments” under NPP Deliverable 4.4 and to “1,000 health professionals” under NPP Deliverable 2.4?

Answer 20: Participants in WLD may also be drawn from NPP target sub-groups.

Question 21: Per the RFP, the Task Order Two contractor is expected to develop a Knowledge Management platform (cover letter, first page), strategy (Section C.9, p.303), and detailed plan (Deliverable 16, p.319) for the benefit of all PROMOTE implementers and stakeholders. In addition, RFP Section C.15, p.49, states that all contractors must develop a knowledge management strategy. Please clarify whether the offeror should describe a Knowledge Management platform, strategy, and plan as part of the IQC proposal, the Task Order Two proposal, or both.

P a g e | 5

Answer 21: The RFP has been amended to clarify this issue. Section C.15 has been removed. Task Order 2 Contractor is required to develop a Knowledge Management strategy and plan.

Question 22: The answer to Question 149, p.243, states that there are no IEE conditions to be met for IQC or Task Order implementation. Can USAID confirm that the offeror is not expected to discuss environmental compliance in either the IQC proposal or the Task Order Two proposal?

Answer 22: Please see Answer 7. Additionally, the IEE for this program has been added to the RFP. Compliance with environmental policy and regulations is required.

Question 23: In the RFP, USAID mentioned that there would be five locations for implementation of PROMOTE, but only Kandahar is named in the RFP and Kabul is named in Task Order. Please indicate where the other implementation areas are to be located.

Answer 23: The RFP has been amended to clarify this issue, please review.

Question 24: In the RFP USAID refers to regional economic zones. Could USAID indicate which locations it plans to have covered by the PROMOTE project?

Answer 24: Please see Answer 23.

Question 25: On page-19(article-C-5): What do you mean by cross cutting investment?

Answer 25: A fundamental PROMOTE premise is that this critical mass of women in mid-to upper-management levels in the economy, civil society and government take actions to improve the lives of girls and women at all levels, including those most in need in Afghanistan.

Question 26: RFP Cover Letter, paragraphs 3 and 4 states: PROMOTE will directly benefit a minimum of 75,000 women within the targeted cohort. The first task order expected to be issued under the IQC in this RFP is Women’s Leadership Development (WLD) Training for more than 25,000 Afghan women. All participants of the PROMOTE program activities are expected to take part in the WLD training, and responsibilities under this task order will also include coordination activities such as establishing alumni networks and a knowledge management platform.” Further, ATTACHMENT J.17, Section C.10.1 Planning and Development [pg. 304] (in relation to the number of participants served in Task Order #2) specifies, in part, “Although the initial estimate is 20,000 for women and 8,000 girls and young women…” Can USAID confirm the expected targets for the overall IQC versus the expected targets specific to Task Order 2?

Answer 26: The RFP has been amended to correctly refer to the Women’s Leadership Development as Task Order 2 in the cover page. The estimated target number of Afghan women during the five years of the PROMOTE WLD program--25,000 women, of which 18,000 is the primary target group and 7,000 is the secondary target group. The overall PROMOTE program will directly benefit a minimum of 75,000 women within the targeted cohorts

P a g e | 6

Question 27: ATTACHMENT J.16, Section C, Tasks – II Develop a performance baseline for activities in PROMOTE, paragraph 1 [pgs. 257-258]. This section does not state that Task Order holders, other than those who hold Task Order #1, will be able to provide input on survey content or to have certain information/questions included in the baseline survey. Can USAID please clarify that any/all Task Order holders will be able to provide input on content for the baseline survey?

Answer 27: Please review the RFP for Task Order 1 for information on how the baseline survey will be conducted. Task Order 1 findings will be incorporated in Task Order 2.

Question 28: RFP Language, Cover Page and p. 46 p. 318, The RFP cover page and p.46 state that Task Order #2 (TO2) will serve “more than 25,000 women” with Leadership Development Training, and that 25,000 women nationwide will be promoted to leadership positions and/or taking part in decision-making within their companies, agencies or organizations. Yet, on p.304, under Task 1, of Task Order One, “the initial estimate [of people served] is 20,000 for women and 8,000 girls and young women, the Contractor must have the flexibility to support and adjust the targets as the environment warrants.”

Answer 28: Please see Answer 26

Question 29: Can USAID please clarify the target number of women participants expected in the IQC and Task Order Two? Are there to be 25,000 or 28,000 women served in total, with 20,000 receiving Leadership Development Training?

Answer 29: Please see Answer 26.

Question 30: Cover page and p.46, On the cover and page 46 again, the RFP states that “PROMOTE will directly benefit a minimum of 75,000 women within the targeted cohort,” and that “All participants of the PROMOTE program activities are expected to take part in the WLD training” Meanwhile, p.318 indicates that “by the end of the project 20,000 women will be equipped with advanced skills, leadership acumen and self-confidence.” Kindly indicate whether USAID intends on issuing another WLD task order to serve the remaining 47,000 – 50,000 women.

Answer 31: Please see Answer 26.

Question 32: Page 24, under Component 3, Women in Government, the RFP states that “the interns will benefit from five days of on-the-job work experience plus one of training in government, business and work skills and ethics.” Does USAID intend for this to state “five days per week….”?

Answer 32: Yes. The RFP has been amended to clarify this issue.

Question 33: Page 45, Under Component 3: Women in Government, the illustrative indicator states that “30% of civil service positions across all government offices are held by women.”

P a g e | 7

Could USAID please qualify this deliverable to account for the contingency that insecurity and conservatism at the district and provincial levels may limit the ability of PROMOTE to complete this transformation within 5 years? Also with regard to critical mass, does USAID have an estimate for the “total number of government positions” against which the percentage of positions held by women will be calculated?

Answer 33: Section C.7.4 is a listing of Illustrative Deliverables, not required deliverables.

Question 34: Page 205, The RFP states among the technical evaluation criteria: “Development of other relationships, with other entities outlined in Section…C.10.4. of Task Order #2.” As there is no section C.10.4. Kindly confirm that it is Section C.10.3 (p.307) of Task Order #2 that was intended.

Answer 34: The RFP has been amended to reflect the correct sections to reference. The correct reference for Task Order 2 is C.10.3.

Question 35: Page 292, the age range for the “second target group” is cited as 15-24. Elsewhere in the RFP it is listed as 14-24 (p.26, p.339). Kindly confirm that the secondary group is 14-24 years of age.

Answer 35: The secondary target group is between the ages of 15 and 24. The RFP has been amended to clarify this issue.

Question 36: Page 303, The RFP states that “WLD messages should be conveyed in ways that are familiar to the audience…, but the messages themselves should not be changed.” Can USAID please clarify this statement to allow for the possibility that over the course of the project, there might be scenarios revealed in the program monitoring – whereby the messages might need to be modified. This could be as a result of progress, or as a result of unintended consequences.

Answer 36: Modifications should retain consistency with the overall purpose of PROMOTE and be made in consultation with Afghan, USG, PROMOTE IQC holders and other donor stakeholders. The RFP has been modified to clarify this issue.

Question 37: Page 316, The RFP States that Deliverable #1 “must utilize information from the concurrent Baseline TO that will be awarded with this IQC,” and that the deliverable “must be submitted to the TOCOR within 20 business days of award. “Would USAID kindly confirm that the Afghan Task Order #1 partners will have operating funds from USAID in time to meet that shared deadline? Or will the 20 days be counted from the day of the first transfer of funds to the TO#1 holder?

Answer 37: The reference to “concurrent Baseline TO” has been removed from the RFP.

Task Order 1 will begin before Task Order 2 and Task Order 2 Contractor will be provided with all necessary information to meet its delivery schedule.

P a g e | 8

Question 38: How can we ensure our name inclusion in the list of bidders and also for the pre-bid/award conference?

Answer 38: The pre-proposal conference notice with the details for registration was provided to all potential offerors on www.fbo.gov.

Question 39(a) : On July 18th there was a panel discussion about PROMOTE held at the US Institute for Peace (USIP) in Washington, DC, which was attended by XXXX and a number of other interested organizations. At this meeting, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah mentioned that there would be a meeting in Kabul on August 7th about the PROMOTE solicitation, in addition to the baseline-specific meeting planned for August 15th and mentioned in the solicitation. (a) Kindly confirm the nature of the August 7th meeting mentioned at the USIP panel discussion.

Answer 39(a): There was no meeting on August 7, 2013, in Kabul.

Question 39(b): Kindly confirm the timing of the meeting, as it may represent a conflict with the end of Ramadan and the beginning of Eid-al-Fitr.

Answer 39(b): The August 15 meeting was held as announced.

Question 40: Previous iterations of the PROMOTE IQC RFP incorporated a stand-alone monitoring and evaluation contract solely targeted on the PROMOTE program. In Section C.10 Monitoring and Evaluation of RFP SOL-306-13-000033 and responses to questions 53 and 69 state that the monitoring and evaluation functions for the PROMOTE program will be carried out through a separate M&E contract. However, the RFP for the stand-alone monitoring and evaluation contract - RFP SOL-306-13-000055 "PROMOTE Monitoring and Evaluation Services" - was recently cancelled.

(a)Please clarify whether USAID intends to issue a new RFP specifically to provide monitoring and evaluation to the PROMOTE program. As teams solidify around the response to RFP SOL- 306-13-000033, firms are making teaming decisions around whether or not the monitoring and evaluation services RFP will be issued. These teaming decisions could potentially impact the ability of the successful IQC implementers to deliver the strongest and most cost competitive product to USAID.

Answer 40(a): USAID intends to issue a Request for Proposals for a stand-alone Monitoring and Evaluation contract focused on the PROMOTE program.

Question 40(b): In addition, should the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) services RFP be released, please advise if organizations can serve as a subcontractor on both the implementation, and monitoring and evaluation services opportunities.

Answer 40(b): Please review FAR part 9.5 and section H of the RFP for specific guidance for this IQC.

Question 40(c): On page-24: what do you mean by M&E contract?

Answer 40(c): The acronym M&E stands for Monitoring and Evaluation.

P a g e | 9

Question 41: Can you please clarify that PROMOTE is a partial small business set aside.

Language on page 62 of the RFP indicates that there will be a small business prime contractor and that USAID reserves the right to place sole source awards of up to $20 million with the small business prime contractor.

Answer 41: USAID intends for one of the IQC holders to be a U.S. Women-owned small business. Section F.9 describes the Fair Opportunity exceptions associated with small or small disadvantaged businesses.

Question 42: Is it possible to bid for only one of the components of the project (specifically, component 4)? Can we propose only for one or two of the components instead of all four?

Answer 42: Only complete proposals will be accepted. Please review the evaluation criteria in sections C, L and M of the RFP for proposal requirements.

Question 43(a): Will USAID please confirm our understanding that Offerors are required to name personnel for Component 4 only, and that no personnel shall be named for Components 1- 3 in the IQC proposal?

If USAID intends for offerors to name personnel for Components 1-3 in the IQC proposal, will USAID please specify:

(b) What documentation is required for these named personnel?

(c) Designation of and minimum qualifications for each person, per component?

(d) Specification as to where in the technical proposal offerors should include this information?

Answer 43 (a)-(d): Please review F.3(c) and the associated Key Personnel sections in Task Order 1 and Task Order 2.

Question 44: Section F.2, p. 311 of the RFP states, “The Contractor must furnish the following five positions for long-term technical assistance based in Kabul for this Task Order 2, Women’s Leadership Development Services” and subsequently lists the five key personnel positions.

Section L (2)(i), p. 327 of the RFP states, “It is expected that these positions will be funded through indirect costs, except as they are assigned to and paid directly under specific Task Orders.” Given that there are no key personnel requirements for the Basic IQC, could USAID confirm that there will be no obligation on the part of the Contractor to furnish the Task Order 2 key personnel except as they are assigned to and paid directly under Task Order 2, and hence no expectation that these positions will have to be funded through indirect costs at any time during the validity of the IQC contract, outside of Task Order 2 implementation?

Answer 44: The solicitation has been amended to clarify this section. The sentence in question has been deleted.

Question 45(a): When does USAID anticipate the award and startup of the Women’s Leadership Development Task Order?

P a g e | 10

Question 45(b): What is the expected start date for Task Order #2?

Answer 45(a)-(b): USAID expects Task Order 2 to begin work a few months after award of the IQC contracts and after the award of Task Order 1.

Question 45(c): Since that task order is closely integrated with subsequent task orders for components 1, 2, and 3, when does the agency expect the task orders for those components to be awarded and started?

Answer 45(c): Timelines for any future task orders beyond task orders 1 and 2 will be determined at a later date.

Question 46: What are the task orders that will be issued subsequent to TO 1 and TO 2?

Answer 46: Please review the IQC SOW; any future task orders issued must describe work consistent with the IQC SOW.

Question 47: On page-3(article-B3): what is MINIMUM OBLIGATED AMOUNT $50,000?

Answer 47: That is the minimum amount obligated to each IQC contract upon award.

Question 48: On page-8(article-): What is minimum & maximum order?

Answer 48: Please review section B.10(c) and B.10(d) for IQC requirements for minimum and maximum orders.

Question 49: On page-4(article-B.5.3), what is (Fixed Fee Payment) when reached 85%?

Answer 49: Please review Federal Acquisition Regulation clause 52.216-8 for terms and conditions once total payment of fixed fee reaches 85% of the total fixed fee. Generally, the clause allows for a percentage withholding of a fixed fee in specific situations.

Question 50: On page-7(article-B-10), some short information for (TASK ORDER

LIMITATIONS)?

Answer 50: This section provides general limitations on Cost-plus-fixed-fee and Firm-fixed-price task orders as well as general rights and obligations pertaining to minimum orders, maximum orders, and organizational conflicts of interest.

Question 51(a): Are you saying that the ceiling is $416M AFTER international donations are factored in?

Answer 51(a): The IQC ceiling is $416 million. The total work performed under this IQC cannot exceed that amount. Please review section B.4.

Question 51(b): How likely are these international donations to occur?

P a g e | 11

Answer 51(b): Program implementation under the Promote IQC is subject to the availability of funds. USAID has created the IQC to meet the program goals detailed in the IQC SOW. The maximum aggregate dollar value of task orders awarded to all Contractors cannot exceed the contract ceiling.

Question 51(c): USAID describes the ceiling limit for the IQC as $416 million to allow for possible contributions of up to $200 million from other interested international donors. Please provide some indication of the likelihood and potential timing of the contributions from other international donors.

Answer 51(c): Please see Answer 51(b).

Question 51(d): Please clarify whether the contributions from other international donors will be channeled through USAID or independent of USAID and whether contractors will be subject to the differing procurement and fund management requirements of the individual international donors.

Answer 51(d): All Task Orders issued under the Promote IQC will be managed by USAID.

Question 52: Section B.2: Contract Type and Services. The RFP states “The Government intends to make maximum use of Firm Fixed Price or Firm Fixed Price task orders with cost reimbursable line items. – Can USAID please clarify this sentence? Is it USAID’s intent to issue TOs that are either FFP or FFP with cost reimbursable line items for those elements of the TO that cannot be reasonably estimated?

Answer 52: Where appropriate and to the maximum extent possible, USAID intends to use the contract type of either Firm-fixed-price, or Firm-fixed-price with cost reimbursable line items, when soliciting work under the Promote IQC.

Question 53: The RFP does not indicate the percentage to be used for security expenses. Could USAID provide guidance on an appropriate percentage?

Answer 53: It is the Offeror’s responsibility to choose what assessment methodology and type of guidelines it will follow in the development of its security plan. Please review the appropriate Task Order and Attachment J.12 for further instructions on Security Plans.

Question 54: The RFP does not indicate the structure for the proposal if a consortium is bidding on the IQC and one of the roof tops (RFTOP). Should the bidder prepare and submit two separate documents in the outlined format or one document?

Answer 54: ALL offerors must conform to the requirements and instructions in RFP to be considered by USAID. Consortiums are no different.

Question 55: (a) Can USAID please clarify the difference between a “technical approach” and a “technical proposal” as described on page 225, in the response to question 58? The response to the question indicates that offerors are to propose a budget based on the technical proposal of the

P a g e | 12

IQC, however, the technical proposal for the IQC only includes past performance and the development of technical relationships. Therefore, on what scope of work should offeror base their cost estimates?

Answer 55(a): Please see revised instructions and evaluation criteria for the IQC cost estimates.

Question 55(b): Additionally, how will these cost estimates be evaluated as reasonable or realistic?

Answer 55(b): Cost estimates will be evaluated as reasonable and realistic based on the Federal Acquisition Regulations.

Question 56(a): Please confirm that indirect cost ceiling rates apply only to CPFF task orders.

Question 56(b) Can USAID please confirm that ceilings on indirect cost rates as described in Section B.9, page 7, will only be applicable for Cost Plus Fixed Fee Task Orders and not for Firm Fixed Price Task Orders?

Answer 56(a)-(b): Yes

Question 56(c): We currently do not have a NICRA. Can this be done after award of a contract?

Answer 56(c): No.

Question 57: Section L.9 “Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal” for the IQC, and Section L “Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal” for Task Order 2 both state: “Offeror is to utilize the Budget Summary Spreadsheet: Dollar Cost, Budget Summary Spreadsheet: Level of Effort, and Budget Summary Spreadsheet: Subcontractor Dollar Cost, attached as Annex 8.” May offerors move or substitute certain major elements of cost from one overall cost category to another to better comply with their cost accounting standards?

Answer 57: Please review section L. This section has been amended.

Question 58: In the response to Question 46, USAID notes that "the Contractor must be prepared to follow-up beyond the final year of implementation." Will USAID give guidance on how to budget for such follow-up? For example, should Contractors include LOE and funding beyond the five year period of performance in the Task Order budget?

Answer 58: The RFP has been amended to delete this requirement.

Question 59: Can USAID please clarify the distinction of “Direct Long-Term Labor (Local)”, “Direct Short-Term Labor (Local)” and “Local Staff” cost line items as listed in Section L.9, page 194 and page 330? Are long-term personnel that are recruited and hired within Afghanistan to be considered Direct Long-Term Labor (Local) or Local Staff?

P a g e | 13

Answer 59: Please review the amended RFP.

Question 60: Can USAID please provide the MS-Excel version of Annex 8: Budget Summary Spreadsheets?

Answer 60: YES. The RFP has been amended to include the Excel versions.

Question 61: Can USAID please confirm that the illustrative budget for the IQC should total exactly the IQC ceiling of $416m and or should offerors proposed a total budget value that reflects the technical approach of the IQC task orders?

Answer 61: The budget requirements for the IQC have been amended. Please see the revised requirements in sections L and M. An illustrative IQC budget is no longer required.

Question 62: Can USAID please confirm that the $50,000 for development of other relationships as described in Section L.8 (d).2 to be included as a line item within the $416m IQC proposal budget?

Answer 62: See Answer 61.

Question 63: In Section L.9, USAID requests an “illustrative budget” for Components 1,2,3 and 4 of the IQC. Can USAID please clarify how offerors will be evaluated on realistic costs per section M.2 (b) “cost proposal must be (i) realistic and consistent with the technical proposal”, if the proposed budget is illustrative and based on an illustrative deliverable schedule for all task orders under the IQC? Given the potential for large variation of program assumptions from the illustrative deliverables for all task orders as outlined in Section C.12 and the unavailable information for the future situation in Afghanistan at the time of the procurement of each task order, it will be unlikely that USAID will be able to fairly assess realistic and reasonable cost proposals across bidders. We therefore respectfully request USAID consider using the proposed budget for Task Order 2 as the price evaluation model for the procurement of the IQC, thereby allowing the offeror to specify the appropriate mix of Labor, ODCs, indirect costs, grants and fee as responds to the specific scope of work of the Task Order.

Answer 63: See Answer 61

Question 64: In Section L.9, the instruction of the IQC cost proposal indicate that for ODC lines items such as non-expendable property, equipment and supplies, direct facilities costs and other direct costs, offeror must provide a level of detail that includes specific cost line items under these categories, unit cost, and number of units to be purchased. Since the IQC proposal is illustrative based on the illustrative future task orders, would USAID consider providing a plug figure for these categories or allow offerors to provide general estimates for each category based on the illustrative technical approach? If offerors must propose specific unit costs, layers of assumptions by the offeror must be made and therefore will make it difficult for USAID to evaluate each of the unit costs and amounts based on reasonableness and realism.

P a g e | 14

Answer 64: See Answer 61.

Question 65: Does total evaluated cost for the IQC play any factor in evaluation since USAID has specified (section L.9; page 193) that offerors budget to the $416,000,000 ceiling?

Answer 65: See Answer 61.

Question 66: Should the Illustrative Budget for the Basic IQC add up to $416M?

Answer 66: See Answer 61.

Question 67: Given the fact that section C of the IQC outlines broad objectives of PROMOTE rather than specific task order scopes of work for components 1, 2 and 3, how does USAID plan to evaluate the reasonableness of IQC cost proposals, as specified in section M.2(b) on page 205? How will USAID evaluate conduct a cost realism analysis as required by FAR 15.404- 1(d)?

Answer 67: See Answer 61.

Question 68: Should the $416,000,000 budget for the IQC be budgeted in the same proportion of components as the cover letter specifies, or should the $200,000,000 to be contributed by other donors be allocated in some other way?

Answer 68: See Answer 61.

Question 69: Section L.9 [page 193] states: “USAID will evaluate the business proposals submitted by the offerors to include an illustrative budget and narrative for Components 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the IQC, and the budget and supporting narrative for Task Orders 1 and 2, including any or all business required information. “ With the exception of Component 4: Women’s Leadership Development, offerors do not have specific scope information for the other three PROMOTE IQC components. Can USAID provide further guidance to offerors on how to budget for these three components in the absence of that information?

Are offerors required to prepare a separate budget for each of the four components, or could one budget include cost information for all four components?

Offerors are required to propose ceiling rates for all indirect costs and for fixed fee. Are offerors required to use these ceiling indirect rates in all the budgets (component and TO budgets), or should they use the existing NICRA rates in the budgets and propose ceiling rates as part of Section B only?

Answer 69: See Answer 61. Offerors are required to propose ceiling rates at the IQC level which cannot be exceeded at the task order level. If an organization has a NICRA it should inform your proposal on this issue.

P a g e | 15

Question 70: Do Administrative costs need to be budgeted separately? What if we are planning to hire Trainers as Projects Managers to minimize costs?

Answer 70: See Answer 61.

Question 71: In sections L of the basic IQC (page 198) and Task Order Two (page 333), the RFP states that “No fee is allowable as applied to Grants under Contracts. A fixed-fee is allowed under this contract, although fees will not be allowed for Grants under Contracts.” In most cases, contractors will have to incur bank interest to finance grants activities, which is an unallowable cost, therefore can only be recovered through charging a fee. A fee on grants is needed merely for cost recovery, before considering any appropriate compensation for effort and risk. This is why FAR 15.404-4 and ADS 302.3.6.9 stipulate that pre-negotiation fee objectives must be determined according to a structured approach that considers contractor effort, risk, and other special factors. Because grants require effort to administer and carry significant risks for contractors, we believe the restriction of no fee on grants is inconsistent with FAR 15.404-4 and ADS 302.3.6.9. Given this, we respectfully request that USAID reconsider its pre-negotiation fee objective of zero percent on grants, and allow offerors to charge a fee that is reasonable and consistent with federal regulations. We recommend that USAID/Afghanistan follow the approach used in most IQC RFPs, which allow offerors to propose two fixed fee ceilings for Grants under Contact: one ceiling for task orders that will issue a letter of credit and another for task orders that will not issue a letter of credit.

Answer 71: Costs should not be recovered through application of fee. The RFP has been amended to delete the restriction on fee as it relates to Grants under Contract. USAID expects all fee proposals to be consistent with FAR 15.404-4 and appropriate for the effort and risk associated with a particular contract. Fee must be described in detail in an offeror’s proposal.

Question 72: Will USAID consider providing a plug figure for grants under the IQC for evaluation purposes of the IQC illustrative budget in order to ensure parity across offerors’ budgets?

Answer 72: Please see Answer 61, and please review Task Order 2 requirements.

Question 73: IQC Section M.2 (e) (pg. 208). Cost/Price requirement appears to be applicable to the cost evaluations for both restricted and unrestricted proposals, is this correct?

Answer 73: Yes.

Question 74(a): Will USAID confirm our understanding that for the IQC budget, the line items in Annex 8 are the only line items required, and that no further detailed spreadsheets are needed to support each line item at this time?

Answer 74(a): See answer 61.

P a g e | 16

Question 74(b): If offerors are required to provide detailed spreadsheets for the IQC budget, (beyond the line items listed in Annex 8), will USAID provide plug figures and/or assumptions for Other Direct Costs?

Answer 74(b): See answer 61.

Question 75: Page 275, The RFP states that “Offeror cost proposals should be organized to mirror the budget structure that appears below.” And it then indicates “overhead, G&A, and other direct costs” in that order. Kindly indicate whether [XXXX] can move the G&A line beneath “Other direct costs.”

Answer 75: See Answer 57.

Question 76: Page 199, Section L.9 (c) Part 3 (2) - Indirect Cost Information/Business Systems on page 199 states that, "Offeror must provide the status of all Offeror and major subcontractor business systems. If Offeror business systems are approved or determined to be adequate by the Government, Offeror must provide a copy of approval letters from the cognizant Government approving authority….

Please clarify if offerors must provide similar letters for all its major subcontractors. For major subcontractors who do not have these letters, please clarify what proof of status is required?

Answer 76: All offerors and major subcontractors must provide the letters. For major subcontractors that do not have the letters, “At a minimum, Offeror must provide status on the following business systems: (i) Accounting system; (ii) Estimating system; (iii) Purchasing system.”

Question 77: Page 190 L.7 (e), Electronic Submission – Please confirm that applications .doc x and .x l sx are acceptable.

Answer 77: Please review the RFP which states: “Acceptable native file formats are Microsoft Office Suite applications (.doc, .xls, or Adobe Acrobat (.pdf).”

Question 78: Page 199 (c) (2) – would USAID please clarify what is meant by “…status on the following business systems…”?

Answer 78: Please see Answer 76.

Question 79: [W]e have a question regarding eligibility of applicants. Indeed, [XXXX] is an international NGO headquartered in [XXXX], but also has a country office in Afghanistan. We also have the PVO status. Could you kindly let us know whether we are eligible to apply for this call? Furthermore, we are not familiar with Indefinite Quantity Contracts (IQC) mechanism and wonder whether it is similar to a grant agreement

Answer 79: Please review section L.6, for details on what types of organizations USAID anticipates awarding to. No, this is not similar to a grant agreement.

P a g e | 17

Question 80: Section L, Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost Proposal (pages 335–336), lists requirements for the Task Order 2 proposal that duplicate information required for the IQC cost/business proposal submission:

a. (d) Part 4 - Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors

b. (e) Part 5 – Policies and Procedures

c. (f) Part 6 – Information Concerning Workday, Workweek and Paid Absences

d. (h) Part 8 – Joint Venture Information

e. (i) Part 9 – Evidence of Responsibility

As these documents will be submitted for the IQC proposal, are these sections also required to be submitted for the Task Order 2 proposal?

Answer 80: This section has been amended, please review.

Question 81: Can USAID please confirm that we are to submit one proposal for the IQC, and one proposal for the Task Order?

Answer 81: Yes.

Question 82: Is there any specific staffing limitations with regards to local and expat staff members?

Answer 82: Please review the Key Personnel sections for Task Orders 1 and 2 for detailed information on staff requirements. This section has been amended.

Question 83: Pg. 201, Section (j) regarding consent to subcontract refers the offeror to P. 86, H.28 (d)(iii) for required information even if consent is not requested in the proposal. Is the information required for total value of the work and the work to be self-performed by the subcontractor to be considered as a ceiling for a future subcontract or may it be an illustrative budget number?

Answer 83: The “Subcontracting Requirements” clause refers to additional information USAID requires pertaining to subcontractors. Paragraph (d)(iii) refers to information that must be included for subcontractor approval requests. If the information is inaccurate or changes over time, the Contractor must request approval again. Please review the entire RFP for Contractor requirements as they pertain to Subcontracts.

Question 84: Attachment J.15, Question 88 indicates that both the template in Attachment J.5 and the template in Annex 2 are to be used for past performance information. Can USAID please clarify in which instance we are to use each form?

P a g e | 18

Answer 84: Attachment J.15 includes Comments/Responses to the draft RFP and was included only as background documentation. Potential offerors must refer to the final RFP for all guidance and requirements. Additionally, the RFP has been amended to reflect the correct past performance form to be used. Attachment J.5 should be used for IQC past performance information, and Annex 2 for the appropriate task orders.

Question 85: Two similar annexes for Past Performance Information are included in the RFP:

Attachment J.5 on page 125, and Annex 2 on page 346. Question 88 in the Q&A states that both sets of past performance forms are to be used. Sections L and M of the IQC and task orders reference the use of Annex 2; however, there are no references in the RFP to Attachment J.5.

Can USAID please a) confirm that both annexes are to be used, and if so, b) clarify the use of Annex J.5?

Answer 85: Please see Answer 84.

Question 86: Can USAID please confirm that Fax Numbers are not required for Past Performance References?

Answer 86: Confirmed.

Question 87: Can USAID please clarify the difference between Contact Name and Reference Names on the template for Annex 2?

Answer 87: They are the same.

Question 88: Can USAID please clarify if it is requesting the value and percentage of all subcontracts in the template for Annex 2, or just those for small business subcontracts?

Answer 88: Please review sections L and M in both Task Orders 1 and 2 for instructions on completion of the Past Performance form attached in Annex 2.

Question 89: Section L.(4)a(iii) indicates that “Offerors must use L.4(a)(ii) format to provide subcontractor information for three (3) subcontracts, and also state the prime contract values for each.” Similar language is used in the IQC solicitation. Can USAID please clarify what is meant by “subcontractor information”? Should we use the template for projects where the Offeror was a prime contractor and engaged small business subcontractors? How would these requirements differ from Section L(4)(d)(3)(c) in the Task Order RFP?

Answer 89: The RFP has been amended to delete the duplicative requirement under L(4)(a)(iii).

Question 90: For the Afghan set-aside bidders, does Section 2.0 Development of Other Relationships need to be included in the Basic IQC?

Answer 90: Yes.

P a g e | 19

Question 91: Do Afghan bidders need to include a Subcontracting Plan (Attachment J.6) in the Basic IQC?

Answer 91: No.

Question 92: On page-191(article-L.8.d,part-a):(―Major is any business relationship to implement task order requirements that are projected to be valued at more than 20% of the anticipated contract value or performs a critical activity). Needs shortly clarification?

Answer 92: The statement references the definition of a “major subcontractor.”

Question 93: Please clarify if firms participating on the unrestricted awards are eligible to participate on proposals primed by a U.S. women-owned small business and/or Afghan firm.

Answer 93: To be considered for award, a proposal must meet all the requirements for the category under which the proposal is being submitted.

Question 94: On page -192(article-iii): What is the difference between Restricted & Un- Restricted, Why it is used for this project? And also for statement in the same section needs clarification: Those offerors applying under the unrestricted category must provide information demonstrating utilization of small businesses in past contracts

Answer 94: Restricted means Afghan-only firms. The definition of an Afghan firm can be found in the Acronym List. Please review the RFP for further guidance on demonstration of utilization of small business concerns.

Question 95: The answer to Question 88, p.231, states that two sets of past performance forms are to be used: Attachment J.5 on p.125 and Annex 2 on p.346. Does this instruction apply to both the IQC proposal and the Task Order Two proposal – that is, are both forms to be used for both the IQC proposal and the Task Order Two proposal?

Answer 95: Please see Answer 7. Additionally, the RFP has been amended to clarify this issue.

Question 96: On page-202, article-L.11: Short clarification for LATE SUBMISSION?

Answer 96: Please review Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.208(b)(1).

Question 97: RFP Section M.2 (a)(1)(4), p. 340, requires submission of an Illustrative WLD Results Framework and a Data Quality Assessment Plan for Task Order Two. Can USAID

P a g e | 20 confirm that these materials may be included in Annex 1(a) as part of the Draft Performance Management Plan required in Section L, p.325?

Answer 97: Yes; the RFP has been amended to clarify this requirement.

Question 98: Are the answers provided in Attachment J.15, Comments/Responses to Draft RFP, binding on the July 18 version of PROMOTE? Does the RFP take precedence over the responses provided?

(a) For example, Answer 48 indicates that the Communications Plan can be submitted as an annex to the technical proposal, however no communications plan is currently required at proposal stage according to the July 18 version of PROMOTE.

(b) Further, the Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan USAID referred to in

Attachment J.15, Answers 124 and 151 are not referenced elsewhere in the July 18 RFP. Is it still required?

Answer 98(a): Please see Answer 7.

Answer 98(b): Please see Answer 7.

Question 99: Confirm that the offerors and each major subcontractor are to present information on recent and relevant contracts in the Past Performance Annex for the IQC proposal using the format presented in Annex 2, Past Performance Reference Summary Table (page 346), and not the format presented in Attachment J.5 (page 125).

Answer 99: The RFP has been amended to clarify this requirement. Please use J.5 for IQC past performance and Annex 2 for Task Order past performance.

Ques…