Sajhedari RFP-Amendment Two.docx

5 April 2011

To: All Prospective Offerors

Subject: Amendment Two (02) to the RFP entitled “Partnership for Local Development (Sajhedari)

Reference: RFP No. SOL-367-11-000003

The purpose of this amendment is to provide responses to the questions related to this solicitation. Further, it is to be noted that the proposed budget submitted by the Offerors are to be fair and reasonable to the current market value.

Section I. Extension of the Due Date for the Submission of the Proposals:

The due date for the submission of the proposals by the prospective Offerors in the Cover Page one (01) and two (02) has been extended from 12 April 2011 to 26 April 2011.

Section II. Common Questions/Responses

a) Missing Sections

· On page 12, Section C.4.2A , 4th paragraph down, the RFP refers to section “C.2.3.” Additionally, Page 21, Section C.4.4., third sentence refers to “the requirements specified in Section H.22, H.23 and H.24. Q: Please provide the missing sections, or identify the proper references to those sections

· In Section C.4.4 (page 21) and C.5.1 (page 23), USAID states that “All GUCs must be made in accordance the requirements specified in Section H.22, H23 and H.24.” However, these subsections do not appear in section H. Would USAID please provide these sections or communicate their locations?

· On page 11, paragraph 5, the RFP refers to section C.2.4, which is missing. Can the Mission clarify if section C.2.4 was omitted or if this is a typographical error?

· Section C.4.4, p. 21, refers to Sections H.22, H.23 and H.24 for guidance on GUC requirements. Such sections are not included in the RFP. Would USAID please provide Sections H.22, H.23 and H.24?

· On page 12 of the solicitation, you refer to Section C.2.3 for a list of the key drivers of conflict. There is no Section C.2.3 included in the solicitation. Can you please add?

RESPONSE

Sections C.2.2, C.2.3, C.2.4 and C.2.5 were moved to Annex 7, pages 120-123.

Sections H.22, H.23 and H.24 were deleted. Refer to Section I.8 52.222-50 Combating Trafficking in Persons (pages 68 and 69) for information about the United States Government zero tolerance policy regarding trafficking in persons.

b) Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) and the Impact Evaluation

· Section C.6.3.1.23.1 (page 33). Can USAID confirm that the independent impact evaluation and the evaluation team will be contracted or performed by USAID directly and are not to be budgeted (except for collaboration and data collection) within the Contractor’s cost proposal?

· On page 33 under section C.6.3.1.23.1 “Note on the Impact Evaluation Component,” it is noted that “an evaluation team will be retained as an independent sub-contractor to implement a scientifically based Impact Evaluation of the Sajhedari program.” Q: Please confirm that this refers to a contractor (who will be separate from the Sajhedari project) contracted directly by USAID/Nepal but with which project M&E and management staff will need to collaborate closely.

· On Page 32, Section C.6.3.1.23: Performance Based Management System, the RFP states “The Contractor must allocate at least five percent of the total estimated cost of the award towards monitoring and evaluation.” Q: Does the five percent include all cost associated with M&E, e.g. HQ support salary cost, travel, and the independent subcontractor required to implement the Impact Evaluation, as noted on page 33, Section C.6.3.1.23.1?

· Will the cost of the independent impact evaluation be covered by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) separately from this contract or within the total value of the award? Can the independent impact evaluation be carried out by the same organization that does the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) for the project, if measures are taken to segregate the activities?

· Section C6.3.1.23.1 states “the contractor, in close consultation with USAID staff and the evaluation team, will develop specific and objective performance and outcome measures”.

a. Will a “firewall” exist between the contractor and the evaluation team to reduce bias and conflict of interest? If so, please explain how the contractor and evaluation team must work together.

b. Please clarify that the “evaluation team” will be included in the contractor’s budget and is not funded separately by the client.

c. Section C6.3.1.23.1 states “In all, the impact evaluation is an additional component that is the responsibility of the evaluation team”. Does the mean that the “at least 5% of the total estimated cost of the award towards monitoring and evaluation. This five percent covers all four program objectives” as seen on page 22, section C 4.4 does not include the impact assessment?

· Section F.4 4. Annual Report, letter “a” mentions an M&E Plan, please specifies how this M&E Plan is different from the PMP and is integrated into the PBMS.

· We are not sure what USAID intends for inclusion in the line item for "Monitoring and Evaluation”, on page 7 under the B.4 Budget Schedule. Is this intended to fund an external project evaluation? If so, could you please clarify how offerors are meant to budget for this? Internal project monitoring would include all items of costs, including labor, travel and transportation, possibly subcontracts or service providers for surveys and/or data collection, ODCs, indirect costs, etc. and therefore seems like an awkward item in a line item cost budget. We therefore respectfully request that this item be deleted.

· Is the evaluation team mentioned on page 33 to be funded out of the program budget and managed by the contractor or will this be separate funding from USAID and managed by USAID?

· Will the Evaluation Team’s baseline survey mentioned on page 33 replace any baseline survey proposed by the contractor or be in addition to the one proposed by the Offeror? It seems that the Offeror will be expected to have a more robust baseline than what the Evaluation Team puts together

RESPONSE

The Impact Evaluation and the evaluation team are not to be included in the budget of this contract (Sajhedari). The Impact Evaluation and the evaluation team mentioned in this RFP refer to an independent impact evaluation that will be separately contracted by USAID (C.6.3.1.23.1, page 33).

To reduce bias and conflict of interest, the Impact Evaluation team will be identified and contracted by USAID through a competitive process separate from this RFP. USAID will ensure independence of the evaluation team.

The minimum five percent mentioned Section C.6.3.1.23, page 32-33, and shown in the Budget Schedule in B4 Section I. Operations Costs, page 7, does not include the Impact Evaluation.

USAID’s expectations for a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plan, as stated in Section 4.3, page 19, are that “The Contractor must develop a Performance Based Management System (PBMS) that includes a performance management plan (PMP), a results framework, a methodology for data collection and management, and an approach for reporting results.”

Details for M&E under this award are described under the Section C.6.2.1 page 24, Award Management; Section C.6.3.1.23, page 32-33, Performance Based Management System and section C.6.2.9 Geospatial Information System (GIS) Mapping, page 26. This monitoring and evaluation line item may include any costs associated with project monitoring and evaluation across all four objectives, including possible external evaluations, home office support, travel and transportation, salaries and wages, ODC and indirect costs. The monitoring and evaluation must be budgeted in accordance to B.4 page 7.

The impact evaluation does not replace the Contractor’s need for baseline surveys used for managing, monitoring and reporting. The Impact Evaluation baseline is in addition to that used by the Contractor.

c) Approval required for GUC and Subcontracts

· On Page 21, Section C.4.4., in the fourth subparagraph, the RFP states: "As with grants, the Contractor must obtain approval in advance in writing from the COTR. Additionally, Contracting Officer consent will be required." Q: While the offeror recognizes COTR approval for the technical aspects of a subcontract, FAR clause 52.244-2 allows a fixed price subcontract within stated parameters to be issued without CO consent. Please confirm that the contract clause will be implemented within the limitations established by that FAR clause.

· Section C.4.4 (page 21) states, “USAID/Nepal strongly encourages local partners, and authorizes GUCs to local, international and US NGOs up to $100,000.” However, sections B.4 (page 8) and C.5.1 (page 23) state that grants above $100,000 are authorized pending approval from the Contracting Officer. Would USAID please confirm that grants over $100,000 are authorized (with prior Contracting Officer approval)?

· On page 23 regarding COTR and CO approvals, can the Offeror assume that the US$100,000 limitation refers not just to GUCs but also to CUCs?

RESPONSE

The contract clause will be implemented in accordance with FAR clause 52.244-2.

Grants up to $100,000 can be approved by the COTR. Any grants over $100,000 must be approved in advance by the Contracting Officer.

The $100,000 limitation refers only to GUCs.

Also see Section B.4, page 8; Section C.4.4, page 21-22, Section C.5.1, page 23; C.6.2.1, page 24-25.

d) Budget Breakdown for GUC and subcontracts

· On Page 7, Section B.4, “Program Costs”, three lump sum values are provided in the Budget Format, including Grants under Contracts and Windows of Opportunity. No definitions of the costs which comprise these lump sums are provided, as was provided for the lump sum Travel and Transportation in Clause L.79.2. 3.d. Q: Are the costs for implementing the "Grants under Contracts" and "Windows of Opportunities" program activities included in the lump sum estimates provided Budget Schedule? If not, please provide a similar definition for these costs as provided for Travel and Transportation.

· Does the US$5 million that is allocated for subcontracts cover both international and local organizations? Are M&E costs, if incurred by either international or local subcontractors, included in the US$5 million allocation for subcontractors?

· In taking consideration that $15 million is supposed to be allocated for GUCs and subcontracts are bidders expected to split that $15 million the same way the Objectives are broken out in percentages (33%, 24%, 19%, 19%)? Does this also apply to the Window of Opportunity figure also?

· Page 8 states that $5 million is for subcontracts. Is this $5 million representing all subcontracting under the project or just local subcontracting to be identified later that is focused toward achieving the objectives?

· Is the $10M-$5M allocation for GUCs and subcontracts respectively firm or estimated? The RFP is not consistent and states “must” and “approximately” in various parts.

· Are the “micro-grants” going to be considered under the “Grants under Contract” (limit of USD 10M)?

RESPONSE

Costs for implementing the Grants under Contract and Windows of Opportunity are included in the lump sum estimates shown in the Budget Schedule, B.4 Section II. Program Costs page 7. The plug figure amount for Grants under Contract is $10M and the plug figure amount for Windows of Opportunity is $750,000. The cost for administering the Grants under Contract should be budgeted separately.

The Offeror is expected to divide the $15M budgeted for GUCs and subcontracts in the same way the Objectives are distributed in Section C. 4.4, page 22. The $5M for subcontracts includes both national and international organizations. The cost for administering the subcontracts should be budgeted separately in the cost proposal. The cost for subcontracts proposed to implement the program should be budgeted separately in the cost proposal. The Windows of Opportunity is intended to be a response to unanticipated opportunities (Section C.9.5, page 39).

The Offeror must describe criteria for selecting Windows of Opportunity, including details of a process of selection and approval by USAID/Nepal. An appropriate Windows of Opportunity approach will allow the program to be capable of responding to unanticipated opportunities that could directly contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the program (Section L.8.2 page 91). USAID does not expect the Offeror to split the figure for Windows of Opportunity across the objectives in the same way as is indicated for the budget in Section C.4.4 page 22.

The $10M-$5M allocation for GUCs and subcontracts respectively are firm.

The micro-grants are included in the approximately $10M that must be set aside for Grants under Contract.

e) Sub-contracts

· Section C.4.4 Partnerships and Local Service Providers (page 21). USAID states that “It must be understood that sub-contracts in the context of the Awards Program under this contract does not include administrative costs of the project or sub-contracting that would normally support the operations of the project” In comparing this statement to the Budget Schedule specified in section B.4 on page 7, shall Offerors also include a “subcontract line item” under “1 Operations Costs” for any proposed subcontractors for project operations?

· Section C.6.2.2 Technical Assistance (page 25). Can USAID clarify whether Contractor-provided “technical assistance required on an as-needed basis to support programmatic objectives” through STTA should be budgeted under “Operations Costs” or “Program Costs”?

· Section C.4.4, pp. 21-22, describes the roles of partnerships and local service providers as well as the criteria for determining whether a contract or a grant is the most appropriate instrument. Would USAID please verify that subcontractors will not be precluded from participation in the GUC program?

RESPONSE

The $5M plug figure amount in page 7 section B.4 is for programmatic purposes. Costs for administering should not be included in the plug figure amount of $5M. These costs should be budgeted separately. Other subcontracts that the Offeror need to implement the program also needs to be budgeted separately in the cost proposal.

Further, subcontractors will not be precluded from participation in the GUC program.

f) Electronic Submission

· Would USAID consider accepting electronic submissions by the deadline of March 29 (1600 Hours), with hard copies to follow shortly thereafter? Alternatively, would USAID consider extending the due date to allow additional time for proposal delivery?

· In the Cover Letter and page 87, Clause L.7.1 (a)(1) state: This clause requires proposal delivery including a CD ROM with electronic copies of both proposals plus five hard copies of the technical proposal and one hard copy of the cost proposal not later than 4 PM local time on March 29, 2011 to the Mission in Kathmandu. Q: Will USAID accept an emailed electronic submission as the formal submission, with the CD ROM and paper submissions a week or so AFTER the electronic submission?

· As per page 87 of the RFP, the proposal must be delivered in both hard and electronic copy (CD). Would the mission consider receipt of the electronic version via email by the stated due date and time (16:00 hours Kathmandu local time on March 29, 2011), with hard copies shipped by the same stated due date and time? The electronic version would then be used as the official version.

· Due to increasing issues with customs delays, we have found international courier services to be difficult to rely on for on-time proposal deliveries. Given this constraint, we respectfully request that USAID allow an electronic submission to count for on-time delivery with the hard copies arriving soon thereafter.

RESPONSE

The due date for submissions has been extended from 12 April 2011, 2011 to 26 April 2011. Faxed and/or emailed submissions will not be accepted. The written technical and cost proposals must be accompanied by a CD-ROM with electronic copies of both proposals. CD Rom and hard copies must be delivered by 1600 hours on 26 April 2011. See Section L.7.1(a), page 87 for additional detailed instructions.

g) Revised Expected Start Date

· Page 99, Section L.9.2 2 establishes a start date during March 2011.Q: Considering the complexity and due dates for these questions and the proposals, we respectfully request a later proposal start date.

· The RFP lists a start date on or around March 2011. Given that the proposal is due March 29, 2011, would USAID kindly confirm the anticipated start date of the project?

· On page 99, the period of performance is specified as beginning in March 2011. Given that the RFP is due on March 29, 2011, can the Mission specify a new anticipated start date?

· On page 99 under L.9.2.2, the RFP states that the period of performance is from on/about March 2011 to on/about February 2016. Due to the fact proposals are not due until March 29th; should there be a different period of performance?

· Section L.9.2.2, p. 99, states that the period of performance will be “from on/about March 2011.” Given the March 29, 2011 deadline for proposal submission, would USAID please revise the expected start and end dates for period of performance?

· On page 84 of the RFP, under #3, (i) indicates that the time for receipt of the proposal is 4:30pm, and in the cover letter of the RFP, it is indicated that the proposal is due at 1600 hours Kathmandu time. Can USAID please clarify what time the proposal is due

RESPONSE

Based on the extended deadline for proposal submission of 26 April 2011, the expected start date for this project is now September 2011.

The receipt of the proposal in page 84 of the RFP under #3 is revised to read 1600 hours Kathmandu local time

h) Community Contribution

· On Objective B, the proposal suggests the contractor can submit micro-grants (not to exceed $5,000). The proposal also suggests there is a limited number, can you be more specific on the limit of micro-grants? Can you give us your preferences on what you would like to see for a community match?

· Under Objective B, the RFP states that “the contractor must provide micro-grants (max USD 5,000 each) directly to the communities to fund small community projects.” It also states a requirement for a mandatory community contribution to the total cost of each project. Does USAID have a specific community contribution percentage that USAID is targeting regarding the overall cost of a small community project?

RESPONSE

The purpose of limited micro grants for small projects is to promote stability and build community capacity for creating and implementing strategic community plans. The Contractor is expected to develop a balanced strategy for implementing micro-grants as a tool rather than as the goal.

The Contractor must require a mandatory community contribution to the total cost of the project; however, USAID does not have a specific community contribution percentage. USAID recognizes that community contributions in local development play an important role in participation, ownership and decision-making. USAID also recognizes that the ability of communities to contribute, whether cash or in-kind, vary widely. Consequently, the Contractor is encouraged to establish guidelines with incentives for community contribution. The Contractor must be familiar with and align standards for community contribution with established government guidelines. Section C.4.2 Objective B, page 14.

i) Geographic Focus

· Section C.4.5 Geographic Focus (page 22). Given the fluid nature of the operating environment in Nepal, USAID states that they intend to reevaluate Sajhedari’s geographic focus requirement of “at least six Districts and at least 50% of VDCs within those target districts.” Can USAID clarify that the amount of “Program Costs” specified in the RFP on page 7 (section B.4) will remain the same regardless of the number of Districts selected? Does USAID envision that the maximum number of districts at any one time period is six or that additional districts (eg, greater than six districts during any time period) may be added as USAID “reevaluates its focus” geographically over the period of performance?

· Page 22 of the RFP states “This activity will cover at least six Districts, and must focus on at least 50% of VDCs within those target Districts. USAID has determined that the geographic focus of this activity will be determined based upon a set of criteria. Within the geographic areas that satisfy the selection criteria and that are priority areas, a number of sub-municipal communities will be randomly selected as the treatment group?” Is the project expected to work only in VDCs or also in municipalities in the 6 target districts?

· The RFP does not distinguish between program activities in municipalities and non-municipalities. Please clarify if USAID expects the Offeror to work with municipalities in the designated geographic area?

· The RFP states that the program must focus on 50% of the VDCs in the targeted Districts. Can USAID clarify the level of effort and activities as per the four objectives that USAID expects to achieve in each of the 50% of the VDCs? For example, the RFP requires control VDCs as part of the M&E mechanism. Will control VDCs that do not benefit from any direct services from the project, but are included in the M&E mechanism, be considered as part of the 50%. Does USAID expect the same level of activities in all targeted VDCs or different?

· The project mentions the VDC's in the six districts but not the municipalities. Can you confirm that the municipalities are exempt from the RFP or in fact, should they be included within the RFP?

RESPONSE

USAID expects the activity to cover at least 50% of the VDCs in the specified six districts. Re-evaluation of the target area will involve close coordination between USAID/Nepal and the Contractor; however the final determination of target districts will be made by USAID/Nepal. USAID does not expect the number of districts at any one time period to be greater than six.

USAID expects the Contractor to remain flexible should the circumstances require geographic change, either in which districts are targeted or in the number of districts targeted. As stated in Section C.4.5, page 22, due to the fluid nature of the operating environment, it may be necessary to re-evaluate the geographic focus. Cost implications will be considered for any additional districts.

The RFP notes that some sub-municipality communities will be included in the target area and some sub-municipality communities will be included in the control areas. Entire municipalities will not be selected as target areas (Section C.4.5 page 22).

“Within the geographic areas that satisfy the selection criteria and that are priority areas, a number of sub-municipal communities will be randomly selected as the treatment group, where the Sajhedari program components will be implemented, and a number of control communities, which are communities that satisfy the selection criteria but where no components of the Sajhedari program will be executed, will be identified for purpose of an Impact Evaluation.”

The selection of target and control VDCs and sub-municipality communities will be done in coordination with USAID and the Impact Evaluation team.

While level of effort for VDCs may vary due to different needs and resources, USAID expects the Offeror to plan an equitable distribution of level of effort and activities across all targeted VDCs (Section C.4.2 page 16). The LOE for distribution across the four objectives corresponds to that designated for the distribution of the budget (Section C.4.4 page 22).

Target VDCs do not include control VDCs. Target VDCs are VDCs which benefit from project activities; control VDCs are VDCs where project activities are not implemented. Control VDCs are part of the external impact evaluation and are not considered part of the 50%VDCs that must be included in the project’s target area.

i) Page Limits

· Section L.8.1.c (page 88). USAID lists several items that are excluded from the page limit. Is the title page mentioned on page 85 also excluded from the page count?

· On page 88, Section L.8., Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, the list of allowable items that will not be counted towards the 30-page limit does not include an acronym list. Q: Please clarify whether an acronym will count towards the 30-page limit.

· Will a cover letter and an acronym list count against the 30-page limit?

RESPONSE

The title page, acronym list and cover letter do not count against the 30 page limit.

j) Marginalized Groups

· Section C.6.3.1 (page 27), includes a statement that “Contractor must include women and marginalized groups in all levels of planning, decision-making, and implementation. It must endeavor to have its staff include women and members of marginalized groups – no less than 33% of the professional staff must be women and of marginalized groups.” Would USAID please confirm that 33 percent of the professional staff must be women and/or marginalized groups rather than women of marginalized groups?

· The RFP uses the term “marginalized groups” in a number of places and sets a requirement for filling staff positions from marginalized groups. However, the RFP does not define the term, and it is subject to differing interpretations, especially in different districts in the target region. Can USAID provide an operational definition of the term that will help offerors interpret this requirement correctly?

RESPONSE

At least 33% of the professional staff must be women and/or marginalized groups.

In this RFP, the term “marginalized groups” refers broadly to groups who have been unable to participate freely in public processes and who have not had access to common resources or services due to economic, social, geographic, and/or physical discrimination. Refer to the Attachment 7 (page 120-123) for more information about USAID’s description of social exclusion. Analysis of marginalized and disadvantaged groups is one of the early tasks of this contract. (Section C.6.3.1.18 page 31).

k) Past Performance Annex

· Section L.8.2.4 (page 94). USAID requests bidders to include up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts for similar efforts. Would it also be acceptable to include recent and relevant cooperative agreements?

· If an Offeror or major subcontractor does not have recent and relevant contracts to include in the past performance annex, may recent and relevant grants or cooperative agreements be included instead?

· On page 94, Section L.8.2 (4): Under Contractor Past Performance Information, The RFP asks for “5 PPRs for its major contractors (who exceed 20 % of the prime’s total proposed cost). Q: Please clarify whether this is 5 PPRs for the prime offeror and 5 total for subcontractors exceeding 20 % of the prime’s total cost, or whether this means 5 PPRs for the prime offeror plus 5 PPRs for each major subcontractor.

RESPONSE

Five most recent and relevant grants and cooperative agreements for similar effort will be considered for the prime Offeror in regard to the PPRs under the condition that the Offeror does not have relevant contracts. Further, section L.8.2 (4) (1) on subcontracts is revised from “…five (5) for its major subcontractors (subcontractors whose cost exceed 20% of the prime’s total proposed cost)…” to “…three (3) for its major subcontractors (subcontractors whose cost exceed 20% of the prime’s total proposed cost.”

m) Waiver for Third Country Nationals:

· On page 57, Section H.21, the clause precludes a waiver for Third Country Nationals (TCNs) compensation, differentials, and allowances above USAID/Nepal local compensation plan rates. (Q) It is a standard USAID practice to allow the contractor to propose highly qualified TCNs in senior technical positions and to request a waiver of local compensation limitations to recognize the technical quality and international nature of such TCNs? Limiting TCNs’ rights to equal compensation to their peers who are U.S. citizens can restrict the quality of personnel available for such a complex scope of work. The offeror requests that the clause be modified to allow the contractor to submit a request for waiver for a TCN hired outside of Nepal.

· Please confirm whether we may include TCNs as proposed personnel.

RESPONSE

· Section L.8.2 (4)(5)(b)(ii) of the RFP (page 95) requires Offerors to submit “a copy of the five most recent SF 294 ‘Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts’ for each contract against which you were required to report for the past 5 years.” Our SF 294 report submissions for the past five years constitute more than 800 pages. May we submit 10 of the most recent and relevant SF 294 reports? Alternatively, may we provide the SF 294 reports for the past five years in the CD-ROM copy of our technical proposal only?

· Section L.8.2.4.5, p. 95, specifically requests “a copy of the five most recent SF 294 Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts” for each contract against which you were required to report for the past 5 years.” We suspect this would be a massive amount of information that would be dozens of pages long. Would USAID allow the offerer to choose 10 to 25 of the most recent SF 294 “Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts” to accompany the annexed Small Business narrative? If not, would USAID allow our organization to provide this information on a separate CD?

RESPONSE

A copy of ten relevant SF 294 will suffice.

o) Level of Effort:

· The Request for Proposals (RFP) provides a breakdown of level of effort (LOE) by various categories. Does this breakdown of LOE include all labor provided, including the subcontracts and grants line item?

· On page 45 the table below is listed at the level of effort required for this project. Does home office LOE factor in any of the limits? Are sub-international partner LOEs counted under this category?

· In regard to section F.5, Level of Effort, can offerors propose a different allocation of LOE between the categories if the total provided is not exceeded?

· Section F.5, p.45 allocates level of effort for the project. Would USAID please verify that these level of effort requirements apply to the prime contractor only and that level of effort to be provided to local and/or international subcontractors are not included in this allocation?

· Section F.5, p.45 allocates level of effort for the project. Would USAID please verify that level of effort required for adequate prime contractor home office support is not included in the allocation of Short Term Technical Assistance?

· There are a few mentions of TCN throughout the RFP, but on the LOE requirements table on page 97, there is no mention of TCNs and workdays. Are TCNs rolled up into Expatriates would USAID prefer not to have TCNs in bidders’ proposals?

RESPONSE

The LOE in section F.5 page 45 and in section L.9.1 page 97 is applicable to the prime and subcontractors implementing the program but will not count against the plug figure amount for Subcontracts and Grants under Contracts in section B.4 (page 7). Offerors must not propose a different allocation of LOE between the categories. It must be in accordance to the information in the format as provided in section F.5 page 44 and in section L.9.1 page 97.

LOE for TCNs may be included but must be within the USAID/Nepal local compensation plan. See section F.5 page 45 and section L.9.1 page 97 under the categories “Long Term Technical Assistance (Expatriate) 3,250 (workdays) and Short Term Technical Assistance (Expats/CCNs) 1,950 (workdays)”.There is no waiver in place for TCNs that authorizes benefits and allowances above USAID/Nepal local compensation plan (Section H.21, page 57).

The LOE in section F.5 page 45 and in section L.9.1 page 97 applies to the prime and to subcontractors implementing the program and includes home office support. The LOE will not count against the Subcontracts and GUC plug figures.

p) Total Estimated Cost:

· Page 7, Section B.3 (a) states, “For the contract period (5 years), the estimated cost for the performance of the work required hereunder, exclusive of fixed fee, is TBD.” Q: Can USAID provide the estimated cost for the entire project less fixed fee?

RESPONSE

The government estimate for this procurement is not being released. Per ADS 302.3.5.7, Contracting Officers may not include the government cost estimate in RFPs for cost reimbursement term (LOE) contracts.

Section III. Individual Questions/Responses

1. On page 7, Section B.4, “Budget Schedule,” the budget format provided for bidding in this clause does not include several line items that comprise Operations Costs, including items for which approval via the award is required by regulation, such as Participant Support Costs (Training) and/or Implementing Subcontractors.

Q: Will USAID accept a budget line item format with Operations distinctly identified from Program Costs, while allowing flexibility in the individually listed cost line items?

RESPONSE

USAID will only accept the budget in the format as stated in section B.4 of the RFP.

2. On page 97 under L.9.1. (b).ii in Note 1, it is stated that “Long-Term Technical Assistance (CCN) does not include non-professional support staff (e.g., office managers, administrative assistants, or drivers.”

Q: Can USAID please clarify what additional positions and what grades it considers non-professional (for example, bookkeepers, logistics coordinators, training assistant, etc.)?

RESPONSE

Please see page 97 under section L.9.1 (b) ii Note 2 which illustrates the different salary rates for different professional and non-professional categories.

3. On page 8, under section B.6, the RFP incorporates a ceiling on indirect cost rates.

Q: The purpose of the annual audit and approval of the Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement is to ensure allowable, reasonable, and allocable costs in the indirect cost pool and to ensure that a consistent rate is applied across all direct cost objectives in an organization. This clause undermines the purpose of the NICRA and of the Overhead, Special Cost and Closeout Branch of the Cost, Audit and Support Division of the Office of Acquisition and Assistance. Therefore, the offeror respectfully requests that the ceiling on indirect rates is removed and the annual audit remains the basis of the billable indirect cost rate.

RESPONSE

Given the five year period for this contract, USAID is requesting proposed ceiling indirect cost rates.

4. On Page 22, Section C.4.4., sixth subparagraph, the RFP establishes a percentage of total costs for each Objective. Furthermore, clause L.9.1 (b) i establishes that the format for the proposal budget must be presented using the layout of the budget format in section B.4.

Q: Please provide guidance on the method USAID will use to assess the percentage of budget proposed for each objective and how it will be evaluated.

RESPONSE

Offerors must also submit a cost proposal by individual objectives (Section B.4 page 8, third paragraph). The percentage of budget proposed for each objective as illustrated in section C.4.4 page 22 must discussed in the technical proposal.

5. On page 113, attachment 4, the license expires in February 28, 2011.

Q: A) Is USAID going to have this license renewed?

Q: B)The license applies to USAID and "U.S. persons who are grantees or contractors" of USAID. Will U.S. subgrantees and subcontractors need to obtain their own licenses from OFAC to engage in transactions covered by this license?

RESPONSE

a. The updated OFAC License no. SDGT-760e is attached to this amendment one (01). USAID’s OFAC license was renewed February 14, 2011 and now expires February 29, 2012.

b. It is the responsibility of the prime contractor to provide the current OFAC license to its subgrantees/subcontractors.

6. On page 114, attachment 4, the license allows USAID contractors and grantees to engage in transactions with CPN-(M) so long as those transactions are "necessary for the entry into and execution of USAID grants or contracts for the provision of assistance or economic support in Nepal.

Q: By "execution," does OFAC mean the "performance" or "implementation" of USAID grants and contracts?

RESPONSE

Execution means performance, implementation, administration and closeout of USAID grants and contracts.

7. On page 88, section L.8.1 of the RFP states that technical proposals must be “single spaced (with no greater than six lines per inch).” Does this mean that a paragraph or block of text cannot contain more than six lines of text per inch? Please further clarify this point.

RESPONSE

Yes. Refer to Section L.8.1 page 88. The font used for this proposal must be no smaller than Times New Roman 11-point. A single-spaced paragraph of block text in Times New Roman 11-point has no greater than six lines per inch.

8. Given the stated detail for year 1, how much work plan detail and budget detail is your preference for years 2 through 5? Do we need to present contracts in total or do you need to see the detail on how the contracts will be executed both objectively and financially by year?

RESPONSE

See Section L.8.2 page 89 and Section C.6.3.1.28 page 34 for a description of the work plan detail expected. Offerors will not be required to submit a five-year work plan as part of the proposal. Offerors must provide a draft Year One work plan detailing illustrative strategic approaches toward meeting the goals of the program as outlined in this RFP.

9. Given that the Offerror has a presence in Kathmandu. Can our field office(s) be part of our grants under contracts/subcontracts, ie. use the offices of our NGO/CSO partners or must we provide our own? If these office(s) can be under contract, do we need to provide details of key personnel in the office(s)?

RESPONSE

Offices of NGO/CSO partners can be included as part of subcontracts, but not as part of Grants under Contracts. See Section C.4.4 Page 21 for information about partnerships and local service providers. Note that Grants Under Contracts will only begin after the completion and approval of a Grants Management Handbook and no grants can be approved until the Grants Management Handbook has been approved Section C.6.3.1.8, page 28. Section L.8.2. Section, page 91 describes information needed for key and non-key personnel.

10. In the report and evaluation section, do 'screenshots' mean we need to provide examples of our software?

RESPONSE

Examples of software are not necessary; “screenshots” on section L.8.2 page 89-90 is simply an image taken by the computer to record the visible items displayed on the monitor or another visual output device.

11. If necessary, may we submit additional questions?

RESPONSE

No.

12. Regarding the Performance Based Management System (PBMS), will this system be hosted on USAID servers?

RESPONSE

No.

13. On page 89, section L.8.1. (c), items that are not included in the page limit is the Project Cycle Flowchart. This is the only reference in the RFP to a Project Cycle Flowchart. Should this be the Grants Cycle Flowchart that is mentioned in numerous sections throughout the RFP?

RESPONSE

The Grant Cycle Flow Chart mentioned in C.6.3.1.16. page 30, is part of the Grant Management Handbook that is a deliverable. A Project Cycle Flowchart may be included in the proposal to illustrate the Offeror’s strategy for implementing the project, including GUCs and subcontracts. Such a Project Cycle Flowchart would not be included in the 30 page limit.

14. The RFP mentions that no less than one third of the professional staff must be women and marginalized groups. Are bidders to assume that this percentage is applied to local professional staff and not Key personnel?

RESPONSE

This percentage is inclusive of local and Key Personnel.

15. On page 99 under L.9.2.3.d., it reads: “Travel and Transportation” Includes travel within Nepal, visas, Medevac insurance, etc. What does “etc.” refer to?

RESPONSE

“etc.” refers to per diem and other similar types of travel expenses.

16. In referring to the plug figure of $815,950 for Travel and Transportation that includes everything listed under section L.9.2.3.d, it appears from section L.9.2.3.c that the offeror can propose per diem rates below standard government rates. Because per diem rates are be tied to in-country and out-of-country travel for both expats and locals how does this relate if we are using a plug figure for travel and transportation?

RESPONSE

Per diem rates can be proposed below the government standard rate in the preparation of the cost proposal. The breakdown for each individual trip and per diem does not need to be provided by the Offeror in the cost proposal. The plug figure amount of $815,950 has already been given in section B.4 (page 7) of the RFP.

17. Both the PBMS and the PMP are due the same day as the First Strategic and Activity Planning /Team Building Session(s), however, these two tools (PBMS and PMP) both heavily rely on the outputs and outcomes of these meetings. May the contractor submit the PMP and PBMS deliverables two weeks after the First Strategic and Activity Planning /Team Building Session to better integrate and incorporate the recommendations from the meeting(s)?

RESPONSE

The Strategic Planning and Team Building Session must be held within 62 days from the Start-up Conference (C.6.3.1.24 page 34). The creation and establishment of the PBMS must be concurrent with the planning and implementation of the first Strategic Planning and Team Building Session so that both are completed within the first 90 days of the award. Note that Grant making cannot begin until the basic PBMS is in place, and therefore the contractor must first develop the administrative functions of the database, with programmatic functions quickly. Section C.6.3.1.23 page 32-33). The results framework is due ten days after the first strategic planning/team building session (C.6.3.1.25 page 34).

18. Would USAID allow information regarding partners, resource institutions and supporting organizations to be included in an Annex, including letters of support?

RESPONSE

Yes, these documents can be included in the Annex.

19. The STTA on page 97 indicate that the days must be evenly distributed throughout the life of the project. Due to the nature and the extent of the startup activities required, would USAID/Nepal consider allowing the contractor to front-load a portion of the STTA LOE days to ensure a rapid and robust startup?

RESPONSE

Yes

20. Page 91 of the RFP states “Offerors are requested to submit, if available, their most relevant existing Grants Handbook from a similar activity with their proposal. Offerors are instructed NOT to revise any existing Grants Handbooks to fit the Nepal context at this time.” The Grants Handbook is not included on page 88 and 89 of the RFP under the list of items outside of the page limitation. Please confirm that the Grants Handbook should be included as an Annex to the technical proposal which does not count against the page limit.

RESPONSE

Grants Handbook must be included in the Annex and is not considered within the 30 page limitation.

21. The personnel requirements for the Deputy Chief of Party/Operations Manager listed on page 36 and on page 92 of the RFP require that the individual have both technical and operational expertise, including experience and expertise in USAID regulations, grants management, budgeting, tracking, reporting, etc. However, it is usually the case that individuals have either specialized in technical or operational fields, filling positions with progressively more responsibility in either area. Given that the COP is expected to be a technical specialist, and will be bolstered by other technical staff and STTA, and given the large dollar volume of grants and subcontracts that are contemplated under this award, we respectfully request that the technical requirements for the position be deleted allowing offerors to propose strong managerial/operations candidates.

RESPONSE

The technical requirements for the position of the DCOP are critical. There is no change.

22. The level of effort listed on pages 45 and 97 of the RFP specifies LOE for expatriate and CCN LTTA and STTA. However, it could be more cost efficient for USAID if offerors were allowed to propose a different mix of individuals if for example, additional highly qualified CCNs were identified. We therefore respectfully request that USAID allow offerors to propose a different mix of LOE within the overall total identified by USAID.

RESPONSE

The LOE remains effective as to what is stated in page 45 and 97.

23. Under the B.4 Budget Schedule included on page 7 of the RFP the line item for travel and transportation includes an amount of $815,950. Is this intended to be a plug figure? If so, we respectfully request that this amount be deleted so that offerors can propose actual travel and transportation amounts in line with the proposed technical approach.

RESPONSE

The amount of $815,950 is plug figure for the line item travel and transportation and must be included in the offeror’s budget proposal.

24. I was just wondering if there was an incumbent contractor for this requirement? If there is, could you please provide the contractor name and the contract number that was awarded?

RESPONSE

There is no incumbent contractor.

25. On page 8 there is a requirement to provide cost proposal per objective in accordance with the provided budget framework. It states that this will flow down to subcontractors. Since GUC is also a possible agreement mechanism, can we assume that this requirement also flows down to GUC?

RESPONSE

The Offerors are also to submit a budget by individual objectives for GUC under the condition that it does not exceed the plug figure amount of $10M. Providing lump sum amount for each of the objective is adequate.

26. On page 14, in regards to community planning, the RFP states “this flexibility will support independence of community planning so that it is not limited to or reliant upon the local government planning process.” In other sections of the RFP it states the importance of linking with local government including mobilizing possible resources from the local government planning process. While these are not mutually exclusive considerations, can USAID explain more about its strategy and ideas regarding the links between the program and the Nepal fiscal planning period for local government and how much USAID expects community planning for micro-grants match the government planning processes, procedures and timeline?

RESPONSE

The RFP narrative (Section C.4.2, Objective B, page 14-15 and Attachment 7) discusses this topic at length. The Offeror should keep in mind the goal, objectives and outcomes described in the RFP and demonstrate strategies that work to achieve the stated goal and objectives.

USAID does not expect the community planning process for micro-grants to be constrained to the Nepal fiscal planning timeline. However, USAID expects the Contractor to be aware of developing laws, policies and guidelines that direct local government in its efforts to improve planning and implementation of local development plans (http://www.lgcdp.gov.np). During this transition period, USAID expects the Contractor to develop strategies that support communities in linking to local government processes without being limited by them. USAID expects the Contractor to fully understand the Government of Nepal’s current fiscal planning process and to keep informed as laws, policies, and guidelines continue to develop.

27. On page 20 under Objective B Expected Output #3, can the Offeror assume that the result should read, “Community-based organizations advocate for and receive need resources for financial, technical and commodity support” given that the outputs go beyond advocacy and mention communities receiving resources?

RESPONSE

Section C.4.3, page 18-21, identifies expected outcomes that are expected to demonstrate the three intended results listed in Section C.4.2, page 13.

28. On page 36, the RFP requires two positions for the Regional Program Manager. Does this means that USAID expects the contractor to have one or two regional offices in the designated geographic area or that the contractor should claim one regional program manager as key personnel in each of the two regional offices or two key personnel in one regional office with one of them being designated the Regional Program Manager and the other key position of choice to the contractor or are they Regional Program Managers of specific technical areas?

RESPONSE

USAID identifies the need for two senior-most field-based technical experts, for example Regional Program Managers. The Contractor may develop an organizational structure it thinks is most effective for effective contract performance.

See section C.7.1 page 36-37 and section l.8.2, page 91 for details.

29. Does the DCOP position fall outside of the “senior level manager (grades: 11-12)” position? If so, are there salary restrictions for CCN staff filling the role of DCOP?

RESPONSE

All proposed CCN positions must be in accordance to the USAID/Nepal local compensation plan as stated in section L.9.1 Note 2 (page 97). There is no waiver in place for CCNs in any position that authorizes benefits and allowances above USAID/Nepal local compensation plan (Section H.21, page 57).

30. If CCN staff have salary histories higher than the listed salary ranges, can they be used in this program?

RESPONSE

All the proposed salaries of CCNs must be within the local compensation plan as stated in section L.9.1 Note 2 (page 97). There is no waiver for CCNs in place that authorizes benefits and allowances above USAID/Nepal local compensation plan (Section H.21, page 57).

31. Please confirm…