Amendment One

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION / MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

June 22, 2012

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO

5. PROJECT NO.

(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

CODE

7. ADMINISTERED BY

Contracting Office USAID/Nepal US Embassy Maharajgunj, Kathmandu Nepal (If other than Item 6)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP code)

X

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

SOL-367-12-000004

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers x|_| is extended is not extended. Offerors must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods: (a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify Authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible)

The purpose of Amendment No. 1 to RFP No. SOL-367-12-000004 is to revise the sections of the RFP (Part I) and provide answers to questions received from the potential Offerors (Part II).

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16A NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

Craig D. Riegler, Regional Contracting Officer

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16C. DATE SIGNED

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE

30-105 Computer Generated

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Part I. Revisions to the RFP:

1. The “Closing Date” of the submission of proposal in the “Cover Letter and “Standard Form 33” is revised from “2 July 2012” to read as “9 July 2012”.

2. Section B.4 BUDGET SCHEDULE Note 2 is revised to read from “The Contractor must use the exchange rate of US$1=NRs.78 for budgeting purposes” to read as “The Contractor must use the exchange rate of US$1=NRs.80.”

3. USAID has re-ordered the list of indicators in annex 3 to ensure consistency with sections C.4 and C.4.7.1 in the RFP. The titles of the outputs below replace the titles of the outputs presented in Annex 3 of the RFP. Additionally, the term “agricultural” has been removed from Output 6 in section C.4 of the RFP to state: “Improved knowledge and behavior on nutrition, hygiene and sanitation practices.”

Output 1: Farmers receive improved and increased agriculture inputs

Output 2: Improved capacity of agriculture extension workers, service providers, farmers, health workers, caregivers, and health volunteers

Output 3: Improved and sustainable agriculture production and post-harvest technologies and practices adopted at the farm level

Output 4: Improved market efficiency

Output 5: Increased capacity of GON and Nepali organizations

Output 6: Improved knowledge and behavior on agricultural, nutrition, hygiene and sanitation practices

Output 7: Improved access to water and sanitation facilities

Output 8: Improved agricultural policy environment

Output 9: Increased resilience of vulnerable communities and households through skills development

4. Section C.4.7.1 Output 6 Area 4 under “Expected Results of Output 6 include” second bullet is revised from “60% of children 6-24 months of age receiving at least 3 food groups per day in addition to breastfeeding” to read as “60% of children 6-24 months of age receiving at least 4 food groups per day in addition to breastfeeding.”

5. Section C.4.7.1 Output 6 Area 4 under “Expected Results of Output 6 include” third bullet is revised from “50% of women in dietary diversity” to read as “50% of women have diverse diet”.

6. The Performance Management Plan refers to the Performance Monitoring Plan. The “Performance Management Plan” in section C.4.8.3 is revised to read as “Performance Monitoring Plan”. A Performance Monitoring Plan is developed for the indicators of projects to track project performance.

The M&E Plan is broader and is developed specifically by the implementing partner to guide the monitoring and evaluation of all project activities. The PMP is part of the M&E plan.

7. Section C.4.8.2, first paragraph, last sentence is revised from “The Contractor must develop a Performance Monitoring Plan, within 90 days of contract issuance, which must include the following:” to read “The Contractor must develop a Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP), within 60 days of contract issuance, which must include the following:”

8. “Monitoring and Evaluation Plan” and “Mobilization and Implementation Plan” are deleted from Section L.8 (c). These two plans do not need to be included in the offeror’s technical proposal.

9. Section L.10 (b) (Note 2), the annual salary range (based on local compensation plan) must be used for CCN & TCN staff hired to work under this contract is revised as follows, using the exchange rate of US$1 = NRs. 80:

From:

To:

10. Section L.7.1 (i), first sentence is revised from “Via regular mail, sending one (1) original and five (5) paper copies of a technical proposal and one (1) original and one (1) copy of a cost proposal…” to read “Via regular mail, sending one (1) original and five (5) paper copies of a technical proposal and one (1) original and two (2) copies of a cost proposal…”

11. Section L.10.6 (b) Note 7 is revised from “Exchange rate to be used in the Cost Proposal US$1=NRs.78 for budgeting purposes” to read as “Exchange rate to be used in the Cost Proposal US$1=NRs.80 for budgeting purposes.”

12. The following summary of the IEE is now included in “SECTION J –LIST OF ATTACHMENTS” as Attachment 6 to the RFP:

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT POTENTIAL

The following paragraphs discuss and evaluate the potential environmental impacts of activities under each outputs.

Output 1. Farmers receive improved and increased agricultural inputs Activities related to training of Agrovets and other local service providers, improving access to micro-credit, and provision of literacy classes will not have any adverse environmental impact.

Community based seed production, marketing of quality hybrids, regional commercialization of high-quality seed and use of well-adapted seed varieties will not promote the use of pesticides and fertilizers. Use of sustainable soil management practices such as, improved compost and Farm Yard Manure (FYM) will be promoted. Therefore, actions do not have an effect on the natural or physical environment. Hence this set of interventions would qualify for a Negative Determination with conditions. If any chemical pesticides are contemplated, the Mission will prepare a Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safe Use Action Plan (PERSUAP).

The small-scale irrigation technologies are not expected to have significant negative effects on the environment, if mitigation measures are adopted. Water from shallow tube wells may be susceptible to arsenic contamination. Previous studies have concluded that approximately 7.4% of all tube wells tested were higher than the Nepal standard of 50 ppb of arsenic concentration. However, 76.3% of tube wells are below the WHO Guideline of 10 ppb in the national database of 2003 which consists of 18,635 arsenic tested tube wells from 20 districts.

The use of mechanized equipment can negatively affect soil structure, by increasing the fossil energy use in agriculture.

Small scale infrastructure for fish ponds and small-storage facilities are not expected to have significant negative effects on the environment, if mitigation measures are adopted.

Output 2. Improved capacity of agriculture extension workers, service providers, farmers, health workers, care givers and health volunteers Enhancing farmers knowledge on various topics like high yielding and high nutrient crops, optimal fertilizer use, IPM, organic cultivation, composting, livestock production practices, conservation agriculture, nutrient management, is not expected to have any adverse impact on the environment. Similarly training provided to private sector providers and GON extension agents is not expected to have any adverse impact on the environment. Hence this set of interventions would qualify for a Negative Determination with conditions.

If references to pesticides will be made in training materials, and during training events, a PERSUAP will be prepared by the implementer before the training is provided.

Output 3: Improved and sustainable agriculture production and post-harvest technologies and practices adopted at the farm level Promotion of small scale irrigation technologies are not expected to have adverse impact on the environment if mitigation measures are adopted. Depending on the size and scale, irrigation structures like multi-purpose ponds, multi-use water systems or micro-dams may cause some soil erosion. Erosion can be checked if proper mitigation measures are adopted.

Soil management will be improved via conservation tillage practices, composting to increase soil organic matter.

For extension of the CSISA activity, FTF will note the environmental impacts, and incorporate mitigation measures identified in the approved IEE for the activity.

Similarly, for the extension of IPM CRSP, FTF will note the environmental impacts, and incorporate mitigation measures identified in the approved IEE for the activity.

The training on post-harvest losses is not expected have any adverse impact on environment. The establishment of small-scale post-harvest storage facilities is also expected if mitigation measures are applied.

Output 4. Improved Market Efficiency The interventions related to capacity building of farmers in marketing are not expected to have any adverse impacts on the environment. The investment on market collection centers are small scale construction which is not expected to have adverse impact on the environment if mitigation measures are applied.

Output 5. Improved Agricultural Policy Environment The policy interventions under this output are not expected to have any adverse impact on the environment.

Output 6. Increased capacity of GON and local organizations The interventions under this output consist of increasing GON and local organizations capacity through training and are not expected to have any adverse impact on the environment.

Output 7. Improved knowledge and behavior on agricultural, nutrition, hygiene and sanitation practices Interventions like improving health and nutrition behaviors, improving use of essential hygiene actions within households, increasing knowledge of the nutritional value of locally-available foods through information sharing, training will not have any adverse impact on the environment.

Interventions to increase consumption of diverse and nutritious foods (including animal source protein) consists of food production in Village Model Farm (VMF) serving as a demonstration site for community groups to learn how to improve gardening and production of poultry and other livestock. The Project will provide VMFs with improved breeds of chickens and training in poultry management (e.g. vaccinations and producing quality feed for the chickens). Beneficiaries will receive training for other small livestock such as goat and sheep, fish farming or multi-purpose ponds or multi-purpose micro-dams which include fish farming, irrigation, and off-season crop production. These activities will be implemented at a small household level farm generally covering an area of less than 0.6 hectares. Therefore, actions do not have an effect on the natural or physical environment. Hence this set of interventions would qualify for a Negative Determination with conditions. If any chemical pesticides are contemplated or reference to pesticide will be made in training, the Mission will prepare a Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safe Use Action Plan (PERSUAP).

Output 8. Improved access to water and sanitation facilities Mobilization of communication to work with GON, local governments to advocate for improved water and sanitation services will not have any adverse impact on the physical and natural environment. If the project supports small-scale construction of water infrastructure, water testing for quality of water must be done. Contaminated and polluted water may cause sickness. Improper construction of latrines may contaminate groundwater. Leakage of water on hill slopes may cause soil erosion. Since the activities are small scale, the adverse impacts can be mitigated if proper mitigation measures are applied.

Output 9. Increased resilience of vulnerable communities and households through skills development Interventions consist of training to improve literacy, numeracy, and life and business skills, income generating activities, business and marketing training, and improved access to savings and credit groups for vulnerable groups including women, ethnic minorities, lower castes and youth. Also includes training packages to diminish the negative impact of lean seasons, pandemic livestock disease, food price fluctuations, natural disasters (disaster risk reduction), and other shocks to which vulnerable groups are particularly exposed. These interventions consist of information sharing, training and will not have any adverse impact on the environment. ‘ Moreover, Development Credit Authority (DCA) has been envisioned to provide collateral incentives to improve the availability of financing to help achieve the feed the future program objectives, specifically, targeting to small producers, aggregators, processors and other actors in the value chain such as, input distributors and providers, seed producers, etc. Such DCA supported activities will be linked with one or more of the above-listed outputs. Such DCA facility in itself will have no adverse environmental impacts. . However, such DCA support is expected to build on the prior USAID experience in Nepal and other parts of the world.

RECOMMENDED DETERMINATIONS AND MITIGATION ACTIONS (INCLUDING MONITORING AND EVALUATION) Recommended IEE Determinations The table below provides the recommended determinations for interventions under each objective.

Output 1. Farmers receive improved and increased agricultural inputs

Mitigation Monitoring, and Evaluation Mitigation:

The implementer will apply following mitigation measures to ensure that environmental concerns are taken into account during both the design and implementation of the project activities.

The implementing partner shall follow environmental best practices for small scale activities, such as Environmental Guidelines for Small-Scale Activities in Africa, 2nd edition as provided at:

http://www.encapafrica.org/egssaa.htm; IFC Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines as provided at: http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/sustainability.nsf/Content/EnvironmentalGuidelines, and the World Bank 1999 Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook as provided at: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/main?pagePK=64193027&piPK=64187937&theSitePK=523679&menuPK=64187510&searchMenuPK=64187283&siteName=WDS&entityID=000094946_99040905052283 for designing and implementing activities under the following components:

The policy oriented analysis, dialogue and partnerships on issues related to both agricultural and non-agricultural products, such as Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS) and non-tariff barriers for agricultural products should ensure consistency with WTO SPS as outlined at:

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_e.htm (WTO SPS Measures,) http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp (Codex Alimentarius,) and https://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/default.jsp (FAO International Plant Protection Convention) Efforts will focus on making staple production more labor and resource-use efficient by reallocating capital, nature and human assets towards on and off farm income generating activities, including increasing production of high value agricultural products. Care will be taken in the non-agricultural areas to avoid harmful environmental impacts. The implementer and USAID environmental officer will ensure that each activity uses environmentally sound principles and also includes a manure management plan to help ensure that an operation has adequate manure storage to allow the manure to be properly managed and enough cropland to utilize the nutrients in the manure.

The Program will prepare a Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safe Use Action Plan (PERSUAP) before making any recommendations and use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

Due diligence investigation of potential GDA partner will be conducted as mandated by ADS 204.3.9(a) Mitigation activities will require the implementing organization to assess the safest procedures feasible for environmental sanitation and essential hygiene practices through hygiene education, safe disposal of faeces, water purification and safe storage. The program will ensure that only safe tube wells, hand pumps and dug-wells will be rehabilitated or constructed. Appropriate and low cost household filters shall be promoted to remove arsenic from contaminated water, if and when necessary. The following strategy will be adopted to address the anticipated environmental and health impacts of drinking water:

a. Classify the Village Development Committees/pockets in terms of arsenic contamination as follows: safe, moderately safe, and unsafe.

b. Introduce the program in the safe area.

c. During the activity implementation in the safe area, tests the water samples in the "moderate area" and assess the feasibility for expansion.

The Development Credit Authority (DCA) has been envisioned to provide collateral incentives to improve the availability of financing to help achieve the feed the future program objectives. The DCA supported activities that will be linked with output number 1: farmers receive improved and increased agricultural inputs. However, DCA supported activities may be linked with one or more of the FTF outputs. Hence, DCA in itself will have no adverse environmental impacts. However, the recipient will require to review and follow best practice references available at: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/economic_growth_and_trade/development_credit.

The Recipient will be required to submit to USAID/Nepal prior to beginning work an Environmental Screening Form, Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) and Water Safety Plan process that will assure compliance of all project activities with the WHO water and sanitation standards and guidelines. Recipients will be directed to Chapter 16 of the Environmental Guidelines for Small-Scale Activities in Africa at http://www.encapafrica.org/egssaa for guidance on assessment of existing practices, measures required to counter traditional practices, and best practices for small scale irrigation, water supply and sanitation.

The Recipient will be required to follow the WHO’s guidelines for safe disposal of human waste, environmental sanitation and safe water found at: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health. The Recipient will be required to submit prototype latrine and water supply and purification designs and any significant alterations, to USAID/Nepal for approval prior to construction of the prototype and adapted models. The Recipient shall include EMMP compliance and reporting language into each sub-implementation instrument, and ensure that appropriate resources (budget), staff, equipment, and reporting procedures are dedicated to this portion of the project. The Recipient will ensure that sub-implementing partners have sufficient capacity to complete the environmental screening process and to implement mitigation and monitoring measures.

All demonstration plots will be properly sited for sun, soil conditions and proper drainage so that produce will flourish and conditions for propagation of vector borne disease will not be increased. The pest reduction technology for the gardens will be to integrate naturally pest resistant plants along with garden vegetables. All gardens will be properly sited for easy receipt of kitchen gray water, and natural vegetative compost.

The implementing organization and any sub-contractors/local construction groups will show how they will monitor compliance including keeping photo records of typical community-built latrines and improved water storage methods within the home. Any sub-contractors/grantees will be required to conduct environmental screening and prepare site-specific plans for how the above guidelines will be followed and monitored. The implementing organization will be required to train the staff of NGOs and community organizations helping to implement these activities, and how to ensure that a system is in place to train new staff as they join the organizations.

Monitoring and Evaluation:

A performance monitoring plan will be prepared for this program in order to comply with the determination of this IEE. To ensure that interventions are designed in a sound and sustainable manner, the Mission Environmental Officer (MEO) and the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will work with the implementing partner to achieve compliance with these procedures. The implementing partner will have well defined responsibilities for implementing the mitigation measures, monitoring activities, and providing on a periodic basis activity performance reports. The COR will have as one of his/her main tasks the monitoring and reporting on the environmental implications of the activity. This includes soliciting and reviewing grantee reports on environmental mitigation and monitoring actions, and undertaking periodic examinations of the environmental impacts of activities and associated mitigation and monitoring activities.

The environmental status of the project will be prepared periodically during the implementation by means of routine site visits by USAID/Nepal staff. Any required correction in implementation will be made on the basis of these findings and in accordance with the environmental guidelines.

The GDO team will actively plan and monitor the program for compliance with approved IEE recommendations and ensure that the implementing partner has adequate time, staff, authority, and money to implement these responsibilities. Environmental impacts will also be reviewed as a specific part of evaluations.

The COR and the MEO will review and concur on a scope of work for environmental screening, Water Safety Plan format, Environmental Mitigation and Management Plan (EMMP), and prototype water and sanitation intervention designs to ensure that USAID-recognized WHO and other environmental guidelines are taken into account. The implementing organization will regularly use their EMMP for periodic monitoring and reporting of construction and maintenance processes, in order to comply with the determination of the IEE. The COR will periodically review processes in the field, with reference to the EMMP. The Mission Environmental Officer and the COR will work with the implementing organization to assure that they and any sub-contractors or sub-grantees have adequate time, staff, authority and funds to achieve compliance with the mitigation measure. Proper safe disposal methods will be reviewed as a specific part of evaluations Limitations of the IEE:

This assistance doesn’t cover activities involving:

i. Procurement, use and/or recommendation for use of any pesticides and invasive species.

ii. Assistance, procurement or use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will require preparation of biosafety assessment (review) in accordance with ADS 201.3.12.2(b) in an amendment to the IEE approved by Asia BEO.

iii. GDA programs.

iv. Procurement or use of Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) (i.e. piping, roofing, etc), Polychlorinated Biphenyl’s (PCB) or other toxic/hazardous materials prohibited by US EPA as provided at: http://www.epa.gov/asbestos and/or under international environmental agreements and conventions, e.g. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants as provided at: http://chm.pops.int

Part II. Questions and Answers for Feed the Future Components A and B

Component A/Agriculture Questions

Q1: On page 36, interventions under Output 5 (increased capacity of GON and local organizations) include improved research as well as development of hybrid seed production (including private—public partnerships). For the former, does USAID anticipate any subcontracts to government research institutions under this contract? For the later, does USAID anticipate co-funding by the project of PPPs?

Answer: Regarding the first question, USAID does not anticipate sub-contracts to government research institutions under this contract for improving research systems. As stated in the 3rd, 4th and 5th bullet points under Output 5 in Section C.4.5.3, the Contractor must collaborate with agriculture research institutions to enhance their capacity to disseminate innovations and their commercialization and support for improved research dissemination. Additionally, the Contractor must also collaborate with research institutions to enhance their capacity to increase use of new varieties. Regarding the second question, yes, USAID anticipates co-funding by the project of GDA/PPP. As stated in the second-to-last bullet point of Section C.4.3.4, the Contractor should leverage GDA/PPP to increase the private sector participation in agriculture and nutrition interventions.

Q2: On p. 36, under Output 5, the RFP lists do not list Expected Results. Could USAID kindly provide the expected results for this Output 5?

Answer: For Output 5, USAID would like to see the following expected result:

2-4 local organizations able to successfully compete for, plan, implement and manage large scale development projects. For other indicators, please refer to the OCAT Framework in Annex 2.

Q3: In Section C.4 (p. 12), Output 6 references “agriculture,” but there is no further reference to agriculture or agricultural activities. For example, on p. 36 there is no mention of agriculture. Can USAID confirm that agriculture is not related to Output 6?

Ref: C.4, Scope of Work, on page 15:

“The Contractor must achieve the following seven outputs to achieve the FTF purpose: 6. Improved knowledge and behavior on agricultural, nutrition, hygiene and sanitation practices”

· The sixth output on page 15 of the RFP differs from Output 6 on page 39 of the RFP. Would USAID clarify the sixth output that Offerors are required to achieve through Nepal FTF?

· The first output on page 15 of the RFP differs from Output 1 on page 35 of the RFP. Would USAID clarify the first output that Offerors are required to achieve through Nepal FTF?

· The indicators mentioned as illustrative in Section C4, Section C.4.7.1 and the indicators listed in Annex 3 are not the same. Which set of indicators is USAID suggesting for use?

· The Statement of Outputs is inconsistent throughout the RFP (on p.12, pp. 32-36 and pp. 66-72). Can USAID please clarify which statement takes precedence?

Answer: Please see Part I.3 above.

Q4: Under Output 8, can USAID confirm that USAID NEAT is responsible for seed policy with support from the Contractor for Components A&B?

Answer: Yes, USAID confirms that USAID NEAT is responsible for seed policy with support from the Contractor for Components A&B.

Q5: Under Output 8, can USAID confirm that fertilizer policy and other policy interventions will be led to IFPRI, with support from the Contractor for Components A&B?

Answer: Yes, USAID confirms that IFPRI will be working on agriculture capacity building of local organization in agriculture policies (seed, fertilizer and contract farming). The Contractor must coordinate with IFPRI but is not expected to assume responsibility for Output 8.

Q6: Output 2, as described on page 33 of the solicitation, mentions improved capacity of agriculture extension workers, service providers, farmers, health workers, care givers and health volunteers in the title and lists numbers of health and nutrition workers in the expected results and illustrative indicators. However, the description of activities for this output is entirely related to agricultural productivity. Is it USAID’s intention that Output 2 be cross-cutting between Components A and B or should there be a separate capacity building output for Component B?

Answer: No, Output 2 is not cross-cutting between Component A and B.

Component B/Health Questions

Q7: The RFP provides the same expected result for Output 6 and Output 7 “45% of households with soap and water at the washing place.” Please clarify whether USAID would like to count this result against each Output separately?

Answer: Yes, this indicator applies to both output 6 and output 7.

Q8: There appears to be discrepancy regarding target groups. For example, under Output 6 on page 39, the indicator refers to the percentage of children 6-24 months of age, while in Annex 3, the indicators refers to children 6-60 months of age. For growth monitoring, the focus is on children <3 years while for vitamin A and other health related indicators, the focus is on children <5. Can USAID provide clarification regarding age groups for all nutrition indicators?

Answer: As shown in Annex 3, the prevalence of stunting and wasting must be determined based on the proportion of children under five, consistent with global standards in measuring child nutritional status. Infant and young child feeding practices take into account the proportion of children who receive a minimum acceptable diet with respect to food diversity (i.e., at least four food groups) – identified as F indicator 3.1.9-2 in Annex 3. The title of this indicator specifies that data must be disaggregated by age group:

· “≤ 2” refers to children between 6 and 24 months of age, cited as an illustrative indicator for both Output 6 and 7 on page 39

· “2 – 5” refers to children between 24 and 60 months of age

Q9: High rates of infant and child diarrhea and high scores on the hunger index are included in C.4.5.1, but are not listed under C.4.5.3. Should these criteria be included in VDC Selection Criteria as well?

Answer: These criteria do not apply to the VDC selection.

Q10: In Category 2 districts, is the Contractor expected to train “change agents” for nutrition, or should the Contractor focus on the public awareness campaign alone?

Answer: As per Section C.4.1.1, the Contractor must train change agents on essential nutrition actions, essential hygiene actions, and behavior change communication.

Q11: On p. 31 in Section C.4.5.3 (VDC Selection), there are several criteria for VDC selection given. Several of these bullets are consistent with the criteria given earlier in C.4.5.1 (District Selection); however there are two new criteria: (1) Low literacy rate and (2) Potential for complementarities with activities implemented by other donors, GON and on-going USAID funded activities. Should these criteria be included in District Selection Criteria as well?

Answer: Yes, please include these criteria in selecting districts.

Q12: On page 28, USAID notes that “if possible, materials for disseminations of nutrition, hygiene and sanitation messages developed and lessons learned under Suaahara/INP will be shared with the Project to improve implementation.” As the development of such materials have significant budget implications, can USAID provide any guidance as to the likelihood that the existing materials will be shared and the degree to which the Contractor should budget for the development of such materials?

Answer: As per Section C.4.3.6, the Contractor must replicate and use the training packages and IEC material developed by the USAID-supported Suaahara program. Please note that Contractor must set aside funds for reproducing materials from the program.

Q13: Could USAID please clarify the description of output 2 activities and how they relate to “reaching 200,000 trainers/supervisors, health workers, volunteers, mothers, fathers, trained on nutrition..."?

Answer: Feed the Future is an integrated agriculture and health program. Both of these components complement each other to achieve reductions in poverty and under-nutrition. We expect capacity building activities reaching frontline workers, volunteers, existing mothers groups and family members are vital in the effort to reduce poverty and under-nutrition.

Please refer to expected Output 2, as per Section C.4.7.1.

Water Earmark Questions

Q14: P. 8: Since CLIN 005 is an earmark, can USAID provide the estimated funding amount for this earmark?

Answer: A small portion of Water Earmark funds will be provided through CLIN 005 which complements CLIN 002 to address both Essential Nutrition and Essential Hygiene Actions. It is up to the Offerors to come up with their best estimate.

Q15: Is there is a percentage or dollar fund amount for the water earmark (CLIN 5) or capacity development (CLIN 6)?

Answer: No, the Offeror is expected to suggest activities and appropriate budget for capacity development.

Q16: What types of activities would be considered to fall under CLIN 005 (water earmark)? Does this earmark specifically target those activities that support output #7 on page 12 (“improved access to water and sanitation facilities”)? Further discussion on Output 7 on page 39 seems to limit these activities to the household level; does improved access to “water facilities” include irrigation systems for farms, or is it limited to community-level or household-level water systems?

· On page 19, section C.4.2 the RFP states that “water supply will be improved where the need is greatest and the project is feasible and in cost-care with local government planning and financial support.” Is the project expected to fund water and sanitation infrastructure?

Answer: The primary platform for all WASH programming in FtF is community mobilization and promotion for household level behavior change in clean drinking water, sanitation and hygiene with both the child survival funds in CLIN 002 and the Water Earmark CLIN 005 funds. USAID best practice suggests that health outcomes are best where sanitation and hygiene improvements have adequate water supply available.

The CLIN 005 Water Earmark funding can be used to improve or construct water supply systems to the extent that they support household level clean drinking water, sanitation and hygiene. Infrastructure investments necessitate cost sharing, the bulk of which is not funded by USAID. CLIN 002 and 005 can both be used for promotion of latrine construction and use but latrine construction must be accomplished by households or communities themselves as per the Government of Nepal’s National Hygiene and Sanitation Master Plan guidelines.

In addition, a small portion of the Water Earmark CLIN 005 can also be applied to enabling environments (policy, regulations, utility and local water system governance) and multiple-use water services that address gardening and animal husbandry. Water Earmark CLIN 005 can address Output 6 Area 2 and Output 7. The CLIN 002 budget can address Output 6 Area 2 and non-construction aspects of Output 7. Neither CLIN 002 or CLIN 005 can be used for agricultural irrigation.

Q17: Does USAID have target ranges for water earmark and capacity building CLINs?

Answer: No, the Offeror is expected to suggest targets.

Questions about Component A & B Split + Component C

Q18: Are the ranges indicated for Components A & B fixed, or can there be variance, given that these numbers (even at the low end of each range) leave little room for the allotments for windows of opportunity, M&E, water earmark, and capacity building?

Answer: These ranges are fixed and should be used minus the allotments for other areas such as windows of opportunity and M&E.

Q19: How does USAID reconcile the 7 expected outputs with the two program components and various supporting, coordinating and cross-cutting activities? May it be assumed that Outputs 1-5 correspond to Component A and Outputs 6-7 correspond to Component B?

Answer: Yes, Outputs 1-5 correspond to Component A and Outputs 6-7 correspond to Component B.

Q20: Has USAID developed a time-frame for award and start-up of the project responsible for Component C?

Answer: The pre-solicitation notice (SOL-367-12-000006) for Component C was released on June 6, 2012. Please see the following websites for additional information: https://www.fbo.gov or http://nepal.usaid.gov/working-with-us/business-opportunities.html.

Q21: On p. 13, Section C.4., USAID instructs Offerors to provide office space for a local organization implementing component C (Literacy/ entrepreneurial). Should Offerors be budgeting for this space or can we assume that the local organization will be paying rent to the institution that provides the office space?

Answer: Offerors should budget for the space needed for one employee of the local organization implementing Component C to be co-located with the Component A and B project.

Q22: On page 28, the RFP requests that the Contractor include DRR in the life skills training package. Can USAID confirm that the life skills package is only for Component C, and these instructions are for the Prime Contractor for Component C? Or does this indicate that life skills training needs to be integrated in Components A&B?

Answer: The life skills package is only for Component C.

Capacity Building Questions

Q23: For CLIN 006, can USAID define what types of activities would be considered to fall under “Capacity Building”? Per RFP pages 22-23, is this CLIN primarily for capacity building activities for the “transition approach” to make 2-4 Nepali organizations ready for direct USAID awards within 2 years?

Answer: The Contractor must achieve Output 5 in relation to “capacity building” as stated in Section C.4 and Section C.4.7.1. Please see the paragraph under “Capacity Building: Transition Approach” in Section C.4.3.2, which describes the Contractor’s mandatory responsibility to choose 2 to 4 Nepali organizations and provide them with capacity building training as described in Section C.4.3.2.

Please also see Output 5 “Increased capacity of GON and local organization” in Section C.4.7.1. The Contractor must work to build the GON’s agriculture research and extension capacity.

Q24: P. 23 of the RFP states that the “Contractor must submit to USAID/Nepal a capacity building framework [that contains] all the elements of the OCAT.” The OCAT is a multi-page annex to the RFP. Please confirm that the framework is not a required element of the technical proposal.

Answer: Confirmed. Please see section L.8.d.9 for requirements concerning OCAT.

Q25: Ref. C.4.3.2, Integrating Capacity Building, on page 25: Could USAID confirm that the Nepali organization that will be contracted for the purpose of monitoring and evaluating will do so against the project’s M& E system?

Answer: No, as per Section C.4.8.6, the Contractor is responsible for performance-based monitoring for their program. The M&E Contractor will be responsible for baseline, midterm, and final data collections for impact evaluations.

Q26: Ref: C.4.3.2, Integrating Capacity Building, on page 26: “The Contractor must propose, for the USAID Nepal’s Contracting Officer Representative (COR) approval, a plan to transition identified Project responsibilities to the Nepali organization or group based on a geographic, district-based division of the Contractor’s and Nepali organization or group’s responsibilities.” The table below this paragraph states that the Nepali organization should be responsible for up to 4 districts in Year 3, up to 8 districts in Year 4, and up to 12 districts in Year 5.

And Ref: L.8.(d).7, Expectations Regarding the Transition Approach and the Proposed Budget, on page 138: “Specifically, for purposes of creating a budget for this proposal, applicants must use the following schedule for a transition of responsibilities: Year 3: calculate that 4 Districts will be transitioned to local implementers via a locally competed USAID issued award(s). Year 4: calculate that 4 additional districts (for a total of 8 districts) will be transitioned to local implementers via a locally competed USAID issued award(s). Year 5: calculate that 4 additional districts (for a total of 12 districts) will be transitioned to local implementers via a locally competed USAID issued award(s).”

Are Offerors free to propose transitioning more than 4 districts in Year 3, 8 districts in Year 4, and 12 districts in Year 5 to Nepali organizations?

Answer: No, USAID/Nepal requires the Contractor to follow the transition approach as scheduled in the table in Section C.4.3.2. That is, up to 4 districts in year 3; up to 8 districts in year 4; and up to 12 districts in year 5.

Q27: Ref: C.4.3.2: “During year 3 of the Project, the Contractor must transition some geographic Project implementation responsibilities to a local Nepali organization or group to implement… The Nepali organization or group taking over Project responsibilities will begin conducting their implementation responsibilities beginning in year 3. The local Nepali organization or group will, subject to USAID approval, take over increasing geographic implementation responsibilities of the Project beginning in year 3 and these responsibilities will increase in geographic scope in years 4 and 5 of the project.”

Beginning in Year 3 when the Contractor begins to transition some geographic Project responsibilities to the Nepali organization or group of Nepali organizations (i.e., Local Implementer(s)), are we correct that the Contractor will continue to implement some interventions in those Districts?

Answer: No, after the transition, the entire responsibility of project implementation will fall to the local organizations.

Q28: Considering the transition to local organizations described on pages 23-24, should the Contractor budget for technical assistance, monitoring and evaluation and/or supervision in years 3-5 in the districts that have been handed over to the local organizations?

Answer: The Contractor is not required to budget for technical assistance, M&E and/or supervision in year 3 – 5 in the districts that have transitioned to the local organizations.

GIS Questions

Q29: Regarding GIS, is USAID expecting the Contractor to create an entirely new system or work off of an existing platform? Further, if the Contractor is responsible for creating the system, is this envisioned as a way to collaborate with other ongoing projects?

Answer: USAID is not requesting that the Contractor provide an entirely new system. The guidelines in Section C4.8.3 should provide sufficient guidance.

Q30: Is USAID interested in promoting capacity building efforts or training in GIS for partnering/affiliated Nepali organizations, programs, or government ministries?

Answer: No. Capacity building is important to USAID, but GIS training is not an objective of this project.

Q31: Can USAID identify any partnering programs or organizations that also use GIS technology?

Answer: As per Section C.4.8.3, USAID encourages partnerships with GIS capacity. We cannot recommend specific programs or organizations for GIS technologies for this RFP.

Monitoring & Evaluation Questions

Q32: In proposing targets for major indicators, should Offerors also include expected contributions by the 2-4 Nepali directly USAID-funded organizations over years 3-5 … or just the expected contributions of the project itself?

Answer: Yes, Offerors should include expected targets for the Nepali organizations that will gradually assume project responsibilities in Years 3-5.

Q33: Can USAID please specify which indicators the Contractor will be responsible for? Of those indicators, has USAID established targets? Of those indicators without targets, should the Contractor propose targets or wait until the workplan phase to do so?

Answer: Please refer to the expected results and illustrative indicators and targets under each Output in the RFP, Section C.4.7.1 and Annex 3. For indicators without targets, the Contractor may propose targets, and final targets may be set after the baseline survey data collection.

Q34: Can USAID please clarify the target number of beneficiaries assisted by the project? Is it 160,000 (page 29), 200,000 (page 34), 150,000 (page 35)? Can the Contractor count those beneficiaries impacted by organizations that are made “USAID-ready” in years 3-5?

Answer: As per Section C.4.4, “[t]he Contractor must impact up to 1 million rural Nepalis (160,000 farm households) through integrated agriculture and nutrition interventions that improve food security, increase income and diversify diets in the target…