RADP_N W_Amendment__01_-_for_FBO.pdf

SOL#306-13-000034, Amendment #01 Page 2

Amendment #01 to USAID Solicitation #306-13-000034

Regional Agricultural Development Program (RADP), North & West

Continued from SF-30, page 1.

This amendment publishes answers to questions received by USAID regarding Solicitation #306-13-

000034 and effects amendments to the RFP as described and detailed below.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Question 1. Section B.7, page 13, includes payment of fee language that is in line with CPFF term-type contracts (payment of fee tied to provision of labor); however section I.5 describes payment of fee in accordance with FAR 52.216-8 and in line with a CPFF completion-type contract. As this is a CPFF completion contract where fee is paid upon completion of the scope of work and end product, would

USAID be amenable to replacing Section B.7 with the fee payment language of Section I.5?

Section B.2, page 9 indicates that RADP North is intended to be a Cost Plus Fixed Fee completion type contract. However in Section B.7 “Payment of Fixed Fee” on page 13, USAID states that fee shall be allocated based upon the proportion of the labor provided over the period covered by the invoice, which describes attributes of a Cost Plus Fixed Fee Term type of contract. Could USAID please revise section B.7 accordingly to reflect that this contract will be Cost Plus Fixed Fee Completion?

Section B.2 notes a Cost Plus Fixed Fee Completion type contract – although B.7 Payment of Fixed

Fee states it is based on Level of Effort which is Term – please confirm that this is a Cost Plus Fixed

Fee Completion type contract.

Answer 1. The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee – Completion type. A fixed-fee payment schedule will be negotiated, as appropriate, and included in any resulting contract(s). See the revised section

B.7.

Question 2. Section C.3.3, page 18, states that the contractor must work with at least 80,000 farmers over the life of the program for RADP-West to increase the productivity of wheat by 20 percent.

Section F.5, page 41, states that 20,000 farmers must increase productivity of wheat by 10 percent and

60,000 farmers must increase productivity of wheat by 20 percent. Could USAID please clarify this discrepancy?

Answer 2. The figures specified in Section F.5 are correct. RFP Section C.3.3, on page 19, is amended as follows: “The contractor must work with at least 60,000 farmers over the life of the program to increase the productivity of wheat by a minimum of 20 percent.”

Question 3. Section F.6, page 45, for budgeting purposes, can USAID please clarify if the six-day work week authorized under Section F.6 is for all staff, expatriate and local, or only for short-term staff, expatriate and local?

The RFP states that it is a 5-day work week. Please clarify that this applies only to CCNs and that

USN/TCNs may work a 6-day work week.

SOL#306-13-000034, Amendment #01 Page 3

Answer 3. A work week of up to six days is authorized for all staff working in-country. Also refer to

Section H.14 (g) of the RFP regarding determination of the work week in-country.

Question 4. Section F. 5, page 44, Deliverable 3.14 requires the contractor to build the capacity of at least one local organization so that it may have the capacity to pass a USAID pre-award assessment and receive a grant directly from USAID or other donors. Can these organizations be private-sector enterprises, as well as non-profit organizations?

Answer 4. Yes. For additional information refer to ADS 303sam, “Non-U.S. Organization Pre-Award

Survey Guidelines and Support.

Question 5. Section H.19, page 63, requires vetting for all non-US subcontractors. Please confirm

Offerors are required to submit “USAID Information Form” for subcontractors meeting the Vetting

Requirements at the time of award.

Answer 5. Submission of the vetting form is not required at the time of proposal submission.

Completion of the vetting form may be requested after receipt of proposals.

Question 6. Section I.6, page 75, incorporates FAR 52.216-24 (Limitation of Liability). FAR prescribes that this clause be included when a letter contract is contemplated. As prior sections of the

RFP describe a CPFF-type contract instead of a letter contract, would USAID consider removing this

FAR clause?

Answer 6. The FAR requirement that 52.216-24 be used when a letter contract is contemplated does not invalidate use of this language in other situations as appropriate. The government‘s intent is to establish a ceiling at the time of award that the contractor may not exceed, except at its own risk, without the prior approval of the contracting officer.

Question 7. Section L.7, page 124, asks Offerors to include SF-294s as Annex F in their technical proposals; however, the note beside Annex F - SF-294s says "BUSINESS PROPOSAL ONLY."

Would USAID please clarify whether SF-294s are to be included in the technical or cost/business proposal?

Section L.7 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal– Annex F states that SF 294

(Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts) should be included in the BUSINESS PROPOSAL

ONLY. Past Performance is usually evaluated as part of the Technical Proposal and it appears that the evaluation criteria are in line with that practice. Please confirm that all Past Performance information

(Annex F) is to be in the Business Proposal only.

While Section L.7 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal– Annex F requires that the Past Performance information be included in the Business Proposal only, may we include all other

Past Performance information (as described in section L.8 (B) Part 2 – Past Performance) in an annex to the technical proposal rather than the Business Proposal in order to be evaluated on our Past

Performance as noted in section M.3 V. Past Performance?

Section L.8, page 130, instructs Offerors to provide copies of SF 294 reports for the last three years.

Given the large volume of our SF 294 reports for the past three years, which total approximately four hundred pages, would USAID consider receiving a selection of 10 relevant SF 294 reports for

USAID’s review?

SOL#306-13-000034, Amendment #01 Page 4

Answer 7. Past Performance will be evaluated as part of the Technical Proposal. See revised Section

L.7. Past Performance Information and Summary SF-294 Report should be included in the Technical

Proposal as Annex F.

Question 8. Section B.4 CLINs (pages 9 -12) mirrors Section L (pages 131-132) cost elements with one exception, Section L does not include “Direct Facility Costs.” Please clarify.

Section B.4 CLINs (pages 9 – 12) sub line items are based on cost elements and by year. We understand the use of this for evaluation purposes but recommend USAID roll the cost elements up to higher levels for the contract as the current breakdown does not allow for flexibility in the budget.

Answer 8. See revised Section B.4.

Question 9. Clause H.14 notes that TCNs must be paid in local currency. Is a blanket waiver still in place to allow for payment of TCNs in US dollars and to provide them with differentials?

Answer 9. Yes.

Question 10. Can the source origin code be changed from 937 to 935?

Section H.3, page 55 indicates that the authorized geographic code for the procurement of goods and services under this contract is 937, which we believe will limit the implementer’s ability to quickly and efficiently source goods and services under the program. Because of the nature of working in

Afghanistan, where flexibility is key to success, we request that USAID consider changing the authorized geographic code to 935 to provide the successful implementer with a broader range of options for acquiring the resources it needs to effectively implement the project. If USAID will not change the code, will you consider source/nationality waivers for 935, particularly for Risk

Management Companies who the implementing partners have built a strong technical relationship with over the course of many years for their security profile?

Answer 10. 22 CFR 228 was updated in January 2012 to remove the concept of “origin” with respect to USAID-financed procurements of commodities and services. The revised regulation is reflected in agency policy found at ADS 310, Source and Nationality Requirements for Procurement of

Commodities and Services Financed by USAID. For the purposes of responding to this RFP, the

Source / Nationality Geographic Code is 937. If an Offeror wishes to propose a technical approach that is dependent on an award that specifies Geographic Code 935, the Offeror would also need to include in its technical approach an explanation of how the criteria for obtaining a 22 CFR 228 Subpart D

Waiver are satisfied. Waivers are considered on a case by case basis. There is no restriction that would prohibit an Offeror from requesting a waiver.

Question 11. Could USAID please confirm that impact evaluations will be conducted by a third party evaluator and the contractor is only responsible for the selection of treatment and control groups and baseline data collection from treatment and control groups?

Answer 11. USAID confirms this interpretation.

Question 12. Could USAID please provide their preferred methodology for calculating return on investment?

SOL#306-13-000034, Amendment #01 Page 5

Answer 12. USAID requests that Offerors present their own methodology and projected return on investment as part of their draft PMP, as stipulated in Section L.7 of the RFP.

Question 13. Is the plan for collection of baseline data due 45 days after contract award (p 35) or 90 days after contract award (p 127)?

Answer 13. The plan for collecting baseline data is due 45 days after contract award. Amend p. 127 as follows, “Plan for collecting baseline data is due within 45 days of contract award.”

Question 14. Given the need for final, approved indicators prior to the development of the baseline primary data collection methodology, would USAID consider changing the deadline for the baseline data collection plan to 30 days after approval of the final PMP?

Answer 14. The plan for collecting baseline data is due 45 days after contract award. USAID may consider the plan as tentative pending the final approved PMP, but this does not negate the need for the

Contractor to have a well-thought out plan in place.

Question 15. Can USAID please provide estimated total price ranges for RADP-North and RADP-

West, respectively?

Answer 15. USAID will not provide estimated total price ranges.

Question 16. USAID indicates that a minimum of 15 percent of the beneficiaries of program activities under each CLIN will be women. We believe there is a significant role that women can play in its activities, but believe that there will be particular value chains where women have a limited role and achieving the 15 percent goal could be unrealistic. There are however other value chains that women are more engaged in where we believe RADP can significantly exceed the 15% target. Would USAID be willing to revise its target to 15% of women beneficiaries across all CLINs combined, as opposed to measuring this on a value chain per value chain basis.

Answer 16. The intention of the 15% per CLIN target is to reach and empower as many women as possible, as a means to advancing agricultural development and achieving the overall program objective. Given that intention, and the need to allow greater space for creativity, the RFP is hereby amended to clarify that the requirement that 15% of the beneficiaries of program activities be women will be assessed by looking at activities carried out under all CLINs combined. It is no longer a per

CLIN target. However, Offerors should avoid approaches that would compromise central program objectives/principles related to improving the productivity and profitability of the agricultural sector, and maximizing cost-effectiveness and return on investment.

SOL#306-13-000034, Amendment #01 Page 6

Question 17. On the Milestones and Performance Standards table beginning on Page 36, please clarify that:

a. For item 1.11 that $2M should be $4M.

b. For item 1.12 that “25 community and commercial level value added enterprise activities” should say 20.

Answer 17

a. Correct. Item 1.11 is amended to read “Increase total sales within the wheat value chain by at least $4 million or amount proposed.”

b. Item 1.12 is correct as is. “Community or commercial level value-added enterprise activities” could include work with producer organizations, millers, private input suppliers, including seed enterprises, etc.

Question 18. Could USAID please attach the most recent version of its Local Compensation Plan as an attachment for our reference?

Answer 18. USAID does not maintain a compensation plan for locally employed staff separate from that of the Department of State. The Foreign Affairs Handbook 200 series dealing with Foreign Service

National Compensation contains information on how DOS develops the local compensation plan for the U.S. Mission.

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% of the Basic Rate, up to a dollar cap of $12,473.

Cooperating Country National (CCN) salaries within maximum rate specified above will not require

USAID approval. However, Offerors should include in the budget narrative an explanation of the how the rate of compensation was determined and provide supporting information sufficient to establish the reasonableness of the proposed rate for the position classification in question.

Question 19. In order to have flexibility of funding given the complexity of the RADP North program and managing USAID programs in Afghanistan, would USAID consider removing the CLIN budget requirement under section B.4? We suggest that instead Offerors should be required to present a

Development Focused Budget (DFB) which won’t limit funding by CLIN, but that still reflects the

Offeror’s estimated costs and budgeted resources by component area. Having the budget structured in this way will allow for funding allocated to particular components to be more easily shifted to other areas of the project if our evidence based approach indicates a higher return on investment in a particular component area. For example, if the total funding for a particular value chain was not expended in a given calendar year, we would like the flexibility to be able to re-allocate that funding to another value chain that could benefit from the additional funding. Additionally, events outside of the contractor’s control could influence our ability to expend the total amount of funding within each component. For example, flooding, drought, or other natural disasters could require the implementer to focus more resources on the wheat value chain because of the importance of food security during crisis situations.

SOL#306-13-000034, Amendment #01 Page 7

Alternatively, would USAID consider flexibility in the CLIN budgeting and reporting to mirror that of the RADP South proposal section B.4 (i.e., only the estimated cost, fixed fee, and subtotal be reported for the 4 CLINs).

Answer 19. The CLINS for the contract remain the same: Wheat Value Chain, High Value Crops, Livestock, and Enabling Environment. These CLINS are development focused and correspond generally to internal reporting and budget tracking requirements. Section B.4 requires the CLIN budget structure to be followed. There are no changes to that requirement. The sub-CLINS have been amended. See the revised Section B.4 included in this amendment.

Question 20. Could USAID please provide additional information on what it has designated as core economic growth zones on page 16 of the RFP, section C. 1?

Answer 20. By “economic growth zones,” USAID is referring, on page 16, to its geographical focus on areas that offer significant potential and opportunities for agricultural development, as the primary driver of economic growth in Afghanistan. The targeted provinces highlighted in the RFP are consistent with this focus. For more information on what constitutes an economic zone or corridor, Offerors may be inclined to review Attachments J.20 and J.21 of the reference materials listed on page

77 of the RFP.

Question 21. Section C.3.2, page 18 cites a Food Zone proposal of the Ministry of Counternarcotics for Badakshan and Farah that links law enforcement, public information and drug demand reduction.

Could USAID please provide these documents? The Ministry of Counternarcotics’ website seems to only provide a brief summary of this program.

Answer 21. Offerors may regard information provided on the MCN website as sufficient at this time.

As mentioned in Section J.1 of the RFP, a Food Zone initiative for Badakshan has not yet been formalized. The same is true for Farah province. Offerors must be prepared to coordinate with and capitalize on any current or future GIRoA initiatives in these provinces, but should not divert their attention from the principal objective of the program.

Question 22. Section H.15(b), page 60 indicates that all sub-grants documents must be submitted to the USAID COR and CO for approval and written approval must be obtained prior to actual award, for sub-grants exceeding $150,000. As currently written, this section indicates that we would need approval but not necessarily written approval for grants less than $150,000 and written approval for all grants over $150,000. Could USAID please clarify when approvals will be required?

Answer 22. Section H.15(b) is amended as follows:

b) USAID must be significantly involved in establishing selection criteria and must approve the actual selection of grant recipients. All grants under contract must be submitted to USAID for approval and written approval must be obtained prior to actual award of grants.

SOL#306-13-000034, Amendment #01 Page 8

Question 23. 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 2.

Answer 23. USAID will not consider changing the due date for select milestones at this time.

Question 24. Would USAID please confirm that the acronym list is not included in the 50-page limit?

Would USAID please confirm that the transmittal is not included in the 50-page limit?

Answer 24. Transmittal letter and the list of acronyms are not included in the 50-page limit.

Question 25. Section L.8.B part 1(a) instructs Offerors to provide with the business 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. It then instructs

Offerors after section (c) 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 past performance references required in section (a) are inclusive of those listed after section (c)?

Answer 25. Past performance will be evaluated as part of the Technical Proposal. See revised Section

L.7.

Question 26. Section L.7 (II) and Section L.8 (C) 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 business proposals?

Answer 26. Security Plan is to be submitted only with the Technical Proposal. See revised Section

L.7.

Question 27. Section L.8 (B) 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? Also, would USAID consider waiving the requirement to include the manufacturer for the proposal phase?

Answer 27. See revised Section L.8.(B).

Question 28. The draft RFP included evaluation criteria for the Draft Performance and Evaluation

Plan (Annex A), Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan (Annex E), and Security Plan

(Annex H), which has been removed from the final RFP. Can USAID please explain how the information requested in these annexes will be evaluated?

Can USAID please explain how the information requested in the Rapid Mobilization Plan (Annex E)

SOL#306-13-000034, Amendment #01 Page 9 will be evaluated?

Answer 28. The annexes will be evaluated as a part of the relevant portion of the Technical Proposal.

Question 29. In Section L, Sub-factor 4 – Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, the final bullet states “The respondent’s illustrative budget for implementing the environmental compliance activities. For the purposes of this solicitation, Offerors will reflect illustrative costs for environmental compliance implementation and monitoring in their cost proposal.” Can USAID please confirm that it does not want us to include cost information in the technical proposal and that the information requested in the bullet should only be included in the business proposal.

Answer 29. No cost information is to be included in the Technical Proposal.

Question 30. In reference to Section B.8, Page 14:

i. When and how will the cancellation cost will be determined, and may the successful Offeror provide input on these ceilings? Will the contract be flexible on these ceilings as the program progresses?

ii. Why is this clause necessary when USAID can effectively manage the risk of cancelling the contract through the obligated amount? We respectfully request that USAID remove this section as it is practically very difficult to manage this activity through the multiple ceilings imposed in the contract, namely: CLINs ceilings, budget elements within the CLIN, obligated amount and the cancellation ceilings.

Answer 30. Section B.8 is removed from the solicitation.

Question 31. Section H.14(d) on page 58 states that the annual salary increase is TBD. Does this mean the implementing partner may propose its own annual increases? If so, will this be considered in the evaluation?

Answer 31. Increases may or may not be proposed by Offerors depending on their management practices and policies governing personnel and compensation. Offeror’s proposed costs involving labor are expected to be consistent with their established personnel and compensation policies and practices.

This should be documented in the budget narrative. Proposed costs are evaluated as specified in the

RFP for reasonableness and realism.

Question 32. Page 136 requests that Offerors submit evidence that the Cognizant Audit Agency has performed an Accounting Systems Review and found the system to be acceptable. Can you please confirm whether this needs to be provided from subcontractors as well?

Answer 32. This requirement applies to major subcontractors as well.

Question 33. Section L.8 on page 129 states that the current maximum U.S. Mission Local

Compensation Plan Basic Rate is $49,893. Is this amount inclusive of the 25% danger pay of no more than $12,473?

Answer 33. The stated amount of $49,893 is exclusive of 25% danger pay.

Question 34. Would USAID provide Offerors with a currency exchange rate?

SOL#306-13-000034, Amendment #01 Page 10

Answer 34. Exchange rate is to be determined by the Offerors in accordance with their accounting/business policies.

Question 35. Per section C.5 (page 30), it is encouraged that 15% of the contract value, not including security, be allocated to local entities to develop capacity. Please confirm that the grant funding for local organizations is part of the 15% goal?

Answer 35. Grants under Contract (GUCs) are different than subcontracts. Section C.5 specifies, “The contractor is encouraged to subcontract at least 15 percent of activities through local entities to build local capacity” (emphasis added).

Question 36. Per section C.7 (page 30), Grants under Contract are to be $10 million over the five year program with $2.5 million allocated to years one through four. Does USAID have any preference or guidance on how the grant fund should be allocated across the CLINs in section B.4?

Answer 36. Offerors should include consideration of how grant funds would be used as part of their technical approach.

Question 37. Would USAID clarify the difference between the "Travel, Transportation, and Per Diem" under "Consultants, International and Local" and "Implementation Travel, Transportation and Per

Diem" under "Non Labor Costs" in section L.8.C (page 133)?

Answer 37. See revised section L.8.

Question 38. Can USAID please clarify what information it would like to see included in the plan for program implementation and monitoring the technical proposal versus in Annex A, draft performance monitoring and evaluation plan?

Answer 38. Annex A should consist of the draft Performance Management Plan (PMP), as indicated in

Section L.7 under Sub-factor 3, on p. 127. The List of Annexes in Section L.7 is hereby amended to read, “Annex A – Draft Performance Management Plan (must not exceed 10 pages)”. Note the change in page limit.

Question 39. To assist us in designing a program that meets USAID’s objectives, can USAID please explain why the required number of target Provinces and Districts was reduced in changes made to the final RADP-N RFP?

Answer 39. These are minimum targets, and Offerors are encouraged to propose activities in additional areas in accordance with the guidance provided in the RFP. As stated in the RFP, “Districts will be selected on the potential to capitalize and sustainably improve upon existing agricultural activities or practices, and to maximize cost-effectiveness and return on investment.” In this regard, USAID recognizes that some provinces and districts may offer greater opportunities than others, and that it may not make technical sense to focus efforts under all CLINs equally in each province or district. USAID therefore aims to be less prescriptive and provide more flexibility for Offerors to propose technically sound and creative approaches for achieving program objectives.

SOL#306-13-000034, Amendment #01 Page 11

Question 40. To assist us in designing a program that meets USAID’s objectives, can USAID please explain why the requirement of establishing grain silos and warehouses under CLIN 1 was removed in the final RADP-N RFP?

To assist us in designing a program that meets USAID’s objectives, can USAID please explain why the requirement of establishing at least 875 demonstration farms under CLIN 2 was removed in the final RADP-N RFP?

Answer 40. As emphasized throughout the RFP, creativity and originality are encouraged to achieve the goals and objectives of the program. USAID is interested in the higher-order results associated with increased productivity and profitability of the agriculture sector, and is not fixated on a particular course of action for achieving those results. As such, USAID aims to avoid an overly prescriptive approach that may lead to perverse incentives or place undue emphasis on certain low-level indicators and targets—targets that may or may not be the best means for achieving the higher-level results on which we should all be focused.

Question 41. Subsection C, page 131, includes “security” under “other costs” whereas page 134 lists

“security” under “non-labor costs.” As security is a “non-labor” cost, we respectfully request that this line item be placed under “non-labor costs.”

Page 133 lists “travel, transportation and per diem” for international consultants under both “labor costs” and “non-labor costs.” The main differing element is that the “non-labor costs” travel is for

“implementation travel.” Can USAID please clarify how costs should be allocated across these two line items? For example, what is the difference between “implementation travel” for consultants that is to be budgeted as a “non-labor” cost element and other types of travel costs for consultants that are be budgeted as a “labor” cost element?

The paragraph regarding “Fixed Fee” on page 135 references a “table below” in the final sentence, however no table is included. Can USAID please clarify what table is being referenced?

Answer 41. See revised Section L.8.

Question 42. Section L.8, page 135 of the RFP states that a separate Master Worksheet should be prepared for each Program Year. To ensure proper escalation of costs and the visibility to USAID of the out-year costs, we request that the Master Worksheet be organized by CLIN rather than by Year.

Answer 42. The Master Worksheet contains the details of every estimated item of cost that comprise the Major Elements of Cost for the entire contract period. The calculations in all other worksheets should be based on data contained in the Master Worksheet. The detailed budget must reflect these individual cost items, organized by Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) and, within each CLIN, following the structure of the Major Elements of Cost Outline described above. No separate Master

Worksheet is required for every Year. See the revised Section L.8.

SOL#306-13-000034, Amendment #01 Page 12

ADDITIONAL & CORRESPONDING AMENDMENTS

The amendments below correspond to answers provided above but may also contain additional amendments not specifically implicated in the answer to a question. A conforming RFP will be issued for reference. The changes in this amendment #01 are effective immediately.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Insert after the end of Section J and before Section K in the Table of Contents:

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS & INSTRUCTIONS

Insert the same heading in the body of the document after the end of Section J and prior to the commencement of Section K.

B.4 BUDGET ($) - THIS CONTRACT

The contents of Section B.4., Budget ($) – This Contract, is replaced in its entirety with the following:

The Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) budget structure must be broken out into five, one-year increments. CLINs are the same for both RADP-North and RADP-West:

CLIN 0001 WHEAT VALUE CHAIN

0001AA Labor $ TBD

0001AB Non-Labor Costs $ TBD

0001AC Indirect Costs $ TBD

0001AD Fixed Fee $ TBD

Subtotal CLIN 0001 $ TBD

CLIN 0002 HIGH VALUE CROPS

0002AA Labor $ TBD

0002AB Non-Labor Costs $ TBD

0002AC Indirect Costs $ TBD

0002AD Fixed Fee $ TBD

Subtotal CLIN 0002 $ TBD

CLIN 0003 LIVESTOCK

SOL#306-13-000034, Amendment #01 Page 13

0003AA Labor $ TBD

0003AB Non-Labor Costs $ TBD

0003AC Indirect Costs $ TBD

0003AD Fixed Fee $ TBD

Subtotal CLIN 0003 $ TBD

CLIN 0004 ENABLING ENVIRONMENT

0004AA Labor $ TBD

0004AB Non-Labor Costs $ TBD

0004AC Indirect Costs $ TBD

0004AD Fixed Fee $ TBD

Subtotal CLIN 0004 $ TBD

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST PLUS FIXED FEE: $ TBD

B.7 PAYMENT OF FIXED FEE

The contents of Section B.7., Payment of Fixed Fee, is deleted and replaced with the following:

RESERVED.

B.8 MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT

This section is deleted from the RFP.

H. SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

Section H, Special Contract Requirements, and all subsections contained therein are hereby moved in their entirety into Part I – Schedule in order to conform to the Uniform Contract Format specified in

FAR Part 15.204-1(b).

J. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

SOL#306-13-000034, Amendment #01 Page 14

Section J is amended to add Attachment J.22, Summary of SF 294 Reports, included with this amendment as a separate PDF file.

L.6 DELIVERY & ELECTRONIC FILE PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

With respect to Section L.6., Delivery Instructions, except for the following sentence

All questions and requests for clarification must be received by April 30, 2013 by 3:00

PM local time (KABUL). No questions will be accepted after this date.

the remainder of this section is deleted and replaced with the text below.

The deadline for submission of offeror proposals has been extended to June 12, 2013.

L.6.1 E-Mail Submission Requirement

Submission of questions regarding this RFP and submission of proposals via e-mail is required.

Only questions and proposals received by e-mail will be considered. Questions may be submitted in the body of the e-mail or in an attached file. Proposals must be submitted as attachments to the e-mail and conform to the instructions regarding the preparation of the electronic files that comprise the offeror proposal.

The e-mail address for submission of offeror questions and for submission of proposals is:

KabulAidOAAmailbox@usaid.gov.

Time of receipt of the email is the USAID email gateway time-stamp of the message header. The file size limit for e-mails with attachments is eight megabytes (8 MB). When necessary due to file size limits, the electronic files that comprise the offeror’s proposal should be segmented into parts and assigned a filename in accordance with the instructions for the preparation of electronic files.

L.6.2 E-Mail Subject Line

The subject line of the e-mail must contain the following information, separated by a space or a comma and a space:

SOLICITATION NUMBER

SHORT NAME OF RFP

IMPLEMENTATION REGION

OFFEROR NAME

PROPOSAL COMPONENT

E-MAIL PART

SOLICITATION NUMBER identifies the Solicitation to which the Offeror is responding, by number. The Solicitation number for this RFP is “SOL 306-13-000034”.

mailto:KabulAidOAAmailbox@usaid.gov

SOL#306-13-000034, Amendment #01 Page 15

SHORT NAME OF RFP identifies the name or title of the Solicitation by its short-name or acronym. The short-name of this RFP is “RADP”

IMPLEMENTATION REGION identifies the relevant RADP geographic region for the offeror’s proposal. The keyword to include in the subject line shall be either “North” or “West”.

OFFEROR NAME identifies the name of the organization submitting its proposal.

PROPOSAL COMPONENT identifies whether the file(s) attached to the e-mail comprise part of the offeror’s technical or business proposal. The keyword to include in the subject line shall be either “Technical” or “Business”.

E-MAIL PART supports document management in those situations where file size limits require the offeror submission to be transmitted via more than one e-mail. This information specifies the number of e-mails being transmitted by an offeror in order to effect submission of the indicated proposal component (cost or technical). This information also specifies, of the total number of emails being transmitted to effect submission, which number or part is being transmitted.

Example: “PART 1 of 3”

Below is an example of subject line contents that conforms to the above specifications.

SOL 306-13-000034, RADP, NORTH, OFFEROR, TECHNICAL, PART 1 of 3

L.6.3 E-Mail Body and Attachments

It is preferred that the body of the e-mail contain no text other than courtesy contact information.

Attachments must be in one of the file formats specified in Sections L.7 and L.8. Attachments may not be “zipped” or compressed.

L.6.4 Specifications for Electronic Files

File Size Limit

The USAID email gateway accepts messages whose total size with attachments is eight megabytes (8

MB).

Acceptable Electronic File Types

Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 (.doc) or Portable Document Format (.pdf). If PDF is used, the file must be text searchable.

Microsoft Office Excel 97 – 2003 (.xls)

SOL#306-13-000034, Amendment #01 Page 16

File Contents

Do not use a type smaller than 11 pitch.

Page size must be set to 8.5 inches by 11 inches.

Standard single spaced type.

Margins set to no less than 1 inch for all page sides.

Pages must be consecutively numbered using whole numbers (no sub-pages).

L.7 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Section L.7., is replaced with the language below to conform to answers to questions and to include other clarifying language and instructions.

Offerors must organize their technical proposal using section headings that mirror the technical evaluation criteria specified in Section M. Thus, for this RFP, the following are the required section headings for technical proposals. Associated page limits are listed in the right column.

Dividers are not included in the page limits.

Proposal Section Headings Page Limitations

I. Technical Approach Fifty (50) pages maximum, consecutively numbered, allocated across these two sections as deemed appropriate by the offeror. II. Key Personnel & Staffing Plan

III. Past Performance

Contractor Performance Information

(CPI) for up to five recent, relevant contracts. See instructions below for complete limitations and details.

Annex A – Draft Performance Management Plan (must not exceed 10 pages) Must not exceed 10 pages.

Annex B – Statements of Qualification for Key Personnel

(must not exceed 2 pages each) Must not exceed 2 pages.

Annex C – Letters of Commitment (Key Personnel) 1 page per letter.

Annex D – Staffing Plan (10 page limit) Must not exceed 10 pages.

Annex E – Rapid Mobilization Plan (3 pages maximum including timeline)

Must not exceed 3 pages, including timeline.

Annex F – Past Performance Information and Summary of SF 294 Reports See instructions, below.

Annex G – Branding Implementation Plan and Marking

Plan (Outlined in ADS 320) Must follow outline in ADS 320.

Annex H – Security Plan (must not exceed 8 pages) Must not exceed 8 pages.

USAID will not evaluate information submitted that exceeds the page, quantity, or timeframe limitations set forth above.

SOL#306-13-000034, Amendment #01 Page 17

Technical and Business Proposals must be kept separate from each other. Technical Proposals must not make reference to pricing data in order that the technical evaluation may be made strictly on the basis of technical merit.

Offerors should take extra care in making sure that proposals in response to RADP – North and RADP –

West are very clearly marked and separated. This is the responsibility of each offeror.

Offerors must discuss and address the performance of services described in Section C.

Additional instructions pertaining to each section appear below.

I. Technical Approach

Sub-factor 1 - Program design: The objective of RADP is to improve food and economic security for rural Afghans in target areas. The Offeror must review and elaborate on the methodology for the implementation of activities under each program component, proposed number of beneficiaries, geographic targeting and sustainability approaches. The Offeror is likewise instructed to clearly demonstrate how their technical approach to providing the required services will assist USAID to achieve measureable, sustainable results. Other components of a successful proposal will include:

Identifying the most cost effective and sustainable interventions with the greatest return.

Demonstrated understanding of the impact of previous investments in infrastructure, training and capacity building and how to build on them.

Positive impact on providing licit alternatives to poppy production through linkages with other initiatives promoted by GIRoA, including the Ministry of Counter Narcotics, and other donors.

Identifying, building, and monitoring the capacity of new and existing farmer organizations and strengthening market linkages of these organizations to markets.

Clear detailed plans to build value-added agribusiness for import substitution and domestic markets as well as export when feasible and appropriate.

Plans to improve the productivity and profitability of farmers.

Demonstration of how proposed activities will improve access of farmers to market information and improve efficiencies of getting products to market.

Strategies will be provided for improving the technical and managerial capacity of small, medium, and large agribusinesses, including how the Offeror must effectively link with the private sector.

Strong utilization of and commitment to strengthening local and international partners and service providers in implementing activities.

A focus on quality of impact vs. quantity in activity deliverables.

Offerors are expected to propose activities that will have significant and transformation impacts on targeted value chains that lead to improved farmer livelihoods. All activities must be adequately justified. The selection of value chains and target districts must be well justified and lay the foundation for high-impact, sustainable activities within the existing operating environment.

This contract will be managed by USAID based in Kabul. The Offeror must include in its management approach how it intends to effectively work with USAID at national and sub-national levels. The informational and coordinating relationship between the

SOL#306-13-000034, Amendment #01 Page 18 prime contractor, any sub-contractors, and USAID will be indicated in the proposed management structure.

Overall creative and innovative approach that utilizes, where appropriate, new and existing technologies to achieve program objectives, including the use of mobile money or electronic payment methods.

Note: The milestones and targets listed in Section C and F are minimum requirements set by

USAID. Offerors are encouraged to propose higher or more ambitious targets that exceed the minimum requirements. Proposed targets will be evaluated as part of the Technical Approach factor for relevant information that substantiates them as cost-effective, technically feasible, and consistent with other requirements of this RFP.

Offerors must propose districts where activities will be conducted. Justification, with clear criteria, must be included in the proposal. Offerors must also propose and provide justification for the value chains on which activities will focus, in accordance with the specifications outlined in Section C. In the discussion of each CLIN, Offerors must clearly specify the percentage of overall project investment that will be allocated to the respective CLIN.

Offerors must submit proposals with originality, creativity, and flexibility to achieve the critical program results of improving agricultural productivity and profitability through private sector agricultural development as well as partnership with MAIL and the DAILs. In discussing the methodology, Offerors must provide illustrative examples of how and where they will achieve their proposed program implementation.

The Offerors are required to submit capability information on how grants will be awarded and administered under this contract. Grants are expected to form a component of the RADP program. While a Grants Manual is not due as part of the proposal, Offerors must describe how they would use a grants component to achieve the program objectives. A Grants Manual will need to be submitted to USAID within 45 days of the effective date of the contract.

Partnership with USAID at every level is required.

Sub-factor 2 - Institutional Capacity: The Offerors must demonstrate capacity and willingness to partner with GIROA entities, other RADP contractors and coordinate with other donors, USAID programs, and local and international private sector actors. Offerors must clearly explain how these partnerships link to the Program Design and support the overall strategy. Offerors must also describe how the proposed partnerships will build on prior investments and leverage the work of other USAID programs, GIROA entities, and other donors to maximize cost-effectiveness and return on investment. The proposed approach and suggested partnerships must demonstrate efficiency and realism in terms of meeting project objectives, managing the contract, mobilizing in-country expertise, and involving Afghan institutions as well as other USG agencies/programs and donors. The proposed approach shall exceed the typical rhetoric associated with coordination.

Private Sector Engagement. Offerors must discuss how they plan to engage with private sector actors and create linkages with and among commercial enterprises. This includes plans to attract private sector investment, facilitate business to business relationships, and foster a continuous, self-reinforcing exchange of ideas and

SOL#306-13-000034, Amendment #01 Page 19 innovation. Offerors will be required to identify and tackle constraints at all levels of the value chain, from inputs to end-user, but must show particular attention and commitment to taking a demand-driven, “pull” approach to value chain development.

Coordination with and strengthening of local organizations and sub-awardees. The

Offeror must provide innovative and sound proposed methods for coordinating with, supporting, and building the capacity of Afghan organizations. This includes approaches that develop or strengthen the capacity of Afghan organizations and businesses to provide production input, training and business/market development services, so that they can continue to provide such support beyond the five years of the project. This may also include developing and strengthening member-based business/trade associations so that they can continue to provide services to members and can play a role in policy advocacy efforts with government. Proposed methodologies must discuss and be focused on how these local organizations will be partnered with and/or supported and strengthened to achieve program objectives.

Coordination with other donors and other USAID programs, including USAID

Agriculture projects in the North and West. Offerors must demonstrate how they will effectively coordinate with and leverage the work of other donor and USAID programs, such as the Irrigation and Watershed Management Program (IWMP) in the North.

Offerors must demonstrate how they will synergize efforts with IWMP, for example, to maximize development impact. Offerors must also demonstrate how they will effectively track and disaggregate impact from that which can be attributed to other programs (e.g., the impact on wheat productivity resulting from IWMP interventions to increase area under irrigation).

Offerors must discuss how they plan on developing a direct partnership with MAIL and other GIRoA stakeholders at the provincial and district levels. Discussion on mechanisms for coordination with other regional RADP contractors and coordination through the RADP Central component must also be included.

The Offeror must demonstrate how the proposed team of prime contractor/subcontractors/partners is best suited to successfully implement the proposed technical approach.

Sub-factor 3 - Plan for program implementation and monitoring: Offerors must discuss how they plan on developing a baseline tied directly to the contract objective, intermediate results and implementation region to determine if they have achieved success. Offerors must also provide a plan to ensure that activities empower women to the greatest extent possible.

Offerors are encouraged to review the requirements in ADS 203, Assessing and Learning, as they develop their responses.

As part of the submission, the Offeror is required to submit a draft PMP (Annex A) and that will include, at a minimum, the following elements and be capable of generating the following data and reports:

SOL#306-13-000034, Amendment #01 Page 20

Baseline data for conditions at the start of the project (Plan for collecting baseline due within 90 days of contract award).

Intermediate results and indicators along with targets for each fiscal year.

Reporting of deliverables against PMP targets and Data Quality Assessment (DQA).

Indicator data disaggregated by province and district with GPS coordinates.

Reporting on disadvantaged groups (women) with both PMP indicators and budget/project data.

Reporting on required, Mission level indicators.

An estimate of the overall projected return on investment, which may include, but is not limited to, factors such as total sales (aggregated across the three CLINS) that will be facilitated by the project, as well as the monetized value of the volume of increased production (resulting from the productivity gains under CLIN 1 wheat and CLIN 3 livestock) that is channeled to household consumption rather than sold as a marketable surplus.

The milestones and targets listed in Section C and F are minimum requirements set by USAID.

Offerors are encouraged to propose higher or more ambitious targets that exceed the minimum requirements. All targets must be accompanied by a credible strategy and rationale for achieving those targets.

Sub-factor 4 - Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan: USAID anticipates that environmental compliance and achieving optimal development outcomes for the proposed activities will require environmental mitigation expertise. Respondents to the RFP will therefore include as part of their proposal their approach to achieving environmental compliance and management, to include:

The respondent’s approach to developing and implementing the IEE.

The respondent’s approach to providing necessary environmental mitigation expertise, including examples of past experience of environmental mitigation of similar activities.

The respondent’s illustrative budget for implementing the environmental compliance activities. For the purposes of this solicitation, Offerors will reflect illustrative costs for environmental compliance implementation and monitoring in their cost proposal.

II. Key Personnel and Staffing Plan:

Sub-factor 1 - Key Personnel. Offers should explain how proposed personnel are responsive and meet the qualifications outlined in Sections F and L. The narrative will be supported by the Annexes that will be considered in evaluating offeror Key Personnel & Staffing Plan:

Annex B – Statements of Qualification for Key Personnel. Two (2) pages per candidate proposed for each position designated as Key Personnel. Offerors will provide a statement on how each of the proposed personnel meets qualification requirements of the position for which they are proposed and why the proposed person is likely to succeed in that position. Statements of Qualification may include resume details, such as education and experience.