Final-PFMSP_Solicitation-Amendment___2-Part_I_of_III.pdf

RFP # SOL-367-16-000001

Amendment# 2

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION I MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT PAGES

I I 20

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO 5. PROJECT NO.

02 See B lock I 6C (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY CODE

Office of Acquisition & Assistance(OAA) (If other than Item 6)

USA ID/Nepal

PO 13ox 295, US Embassy

Maharajgunj, Kathmandu Nepal

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

8 NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No .. street, county, State and ZIP code) RFP # SOL-367-16-000001 x

9B. DA TED (SEE ITEM 11)

November 17. 2015

D 10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

D 10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE I 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 181 is extended D is not extended by this amendment. 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.

0 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

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

D D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor 1s not, 1s 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 this amendment to RFP # SOL-367- 16-00000 I is to respond lo questions posed by potential Offerors and to make concomitant changes as necessary to the RFP.

This Amendment consists of three parts ( in three files):

Part I - OITerors' questions and USAID/Nepal answers (this document).

Part II - the tracked changes version of the RFP to reflect changes in the so licitation document. (separate file)

Part Ill - "changes accepted" version of the RFP which constitutes the official final version. (separate file)

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

Si nature of rson authonzed to s1 n

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE

-----Continued on followin • a es-----

15C. DATE SIGNED

16A NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

(Type or print)

Kell Fink, Contractin Officer

Computer Generated STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev 1~) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53 243

16C DATE SIGNED

1~/J4/t5

Page I of 21 aparajuli Stamp aparajuli Stamp

PFMSP

PART I - OFFERORS QUESTIONS AND USAID/NEPAL ANSWERS

PFMSP RFP # SOL-367-16-000001

All required changes have been incorporated in the RFP and take precedence over any responses in this document.

SECTION C – STATEMENT OF WORK

1. Section C.6.2.5 Activity bullet 15 states that there will be three (3) targeted ministries; however, the

RFP only clearly identified the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health and Population.

Would USAID like the Offeror to select the third ministry or will the third ministry be identified at a later time?

See Section C.6.2.5, RFP Amendment # 2 for corrected language.

2. RFP Section C.6.1 (Component A) states that “USAID anticipates this component [Component A] will require approximately 65% of the project budget inclusive of a $ 3 million plug figure for

Information Technology (IT) support.” In the footnote to this sentence, USAID mentions that this budget figure is based off an initial needs assessment commissioned by the MOF.

a. Could USAID/Nepal kindly provide a copy of that needs assessment to Offerors? It would be helpful to know which IT systems are being considered by that needs assessment, as the RFP mentions BMIS, LMBIS, TSA, TABUCS and others.

b. If the report cannot be furnished, can USAID be more specific on which systems are being addressed by the $3 million plug figure?

The MOF conducted an initial need assessment for its internal purposes and the report is not available publicly. As a result, the PFMSP must conduct an IT needs assessment and the findings will determine what targeted IT support will look like under PFMSP. See Section C.6.1.4 Bullet 2 and Section F.6.1 line 7.

3. On page 22, Section C.6.1.4 (Activities), the tenth bullet in this list states that the Offeror should provide “Computer training to GON staff from three targeted ministries in 34 districts.” “Three targeted ministries are also mentioned in the list of activities presented in Section C.6.2.5 (top of pg.

25), e.g.; “Support PFM training to GON staff from three targeted line ministries in 34 districts.

USAID/Nepal estimates a planning figure of 500 civil servants in need of this training”. USAID has provided PFMRAF assessments for the MOHP and the MOE; in the context of Components A and

B, should these activity bullets be revised to state “two targeted ministries”?

See Section C.6.1.4 bullet # 10 and C.6.2.5 bullet 15, RFP Amendment #2.

4. Page 21, Section C.6.1.4 states computer training to GON staff from “three targeted ministries” in 34 districts. Similarly, page 24, Section C.6.2.5 states Support PFM training to GON staff from “three targeted line ministries.” The targeted two ministries are Ministry of Education and Ministry of

Health and Population. Can USAID confirm whether the third one stated is the National Authority for Reconstruction or a separate ministry?

See question number 3.

5. Page 21, Section C.6.1.4 states supporting strengthening District PEFA Implementation Units. Can

USAID confirm that this is to be done in the targeted 34 districts only?

USAID confirms that this is to be done in the targeted 34 districts only.

6. C.6.1 A: Strengthen the Line Ministry Budgetary Management Information System

a. Please provide the technical details of the existing IT systems in PFM used in Nepal?

b. What measures are planned to ensure compatibility of the proposed systems such as debt management, audit system, payroll etc. with the LMBIS.

c. Please confirm whether all ministries, spending units and public sector undertaking units in Nepal follow an uniform accounting code?

a and b. See question number 2.

c. Yes, all referenced units follow a uniform accounting code.

7. C.6.1.4 Activities

a. Please define the scope of the consultant in the training of civil servants. “Support GON efforts to train line Ministry/ Agency staff in the use of computer-based LMBIS”.

b. Will the consultant be allowed to provide the cost for providing training as a separate component in the financial quote?

c. On implementation of payroll system of teacher's salary through bank account, will the payroll function in LMBIS be extended to other ministries/ departments, etc.

d. Is debt management part of consultant’s scope? In case debt management system is procured separately, what kind of arrangement is planned for integrating the debt management system?

a. The Contractor is expected to design and impart planned trainings in close coordination and consultation with the concerned ministries/agencies.

b. The Offerors must propose methods and budget for designing and imparting trainings.

c. See question number 2.

d. The scope of PFMSP does not cover revenue and debt management functions.

8. C.6.2 Component B: Institutionalize control environment and improved procurement practices across selected Line Ministries and Agencies

a. Please provide the exact budget for the component B and component C. Will the consultant be required to provide separate financial quotes for components A, B and C?

See Section L.13.1 and L.14.2. ADS 302.3.5.7 prohibits the inclusion of the estimated price range in a solicitation for a cost reimbursement term (Level of Effort) contract.

9. C.6.1.4 Activities, Support strengthening of core financial management software at MOF namely

LMBIS and Budget Management Information System (BMIS) to improve effectiveness and to ensure adherence to Government System Standard, Information security best practices, Legal

Compliance (Licenses) and International best practices.

a. Please elaborate on the scope of work for information security best practices. Please clarify whether the application of information security compliances is part of the project scope?

b. Please elaborate on the term “legal compliance (licenses)” and the scope of activities to be performed by the contractor.

See question number 2.

10. C.6.1.4 Activities, Support strengthening of core financial management software at MOF namely

LMBIS and Budget Management Information System (BMIS) to improve effectiveness and to ensure adherence to Government System Standard, Information security best practices, Legal

Compliance (Licenses) and International best practices. A plug figure of $3M must be allocated for

BMIS upgrade and infrastructure & support system for Business Intelligence and Resiliency.

a. RFP is expecting a plug figure of 3 Mn to be allocated to upgrade the IT systems which includes

BMIS upgrade. Please specify the scope of work for upgrading the LMBIS and BMIS applications. Does the system needs to be re-developed? Or re-implemented, in case it’s a package solution.

b. With reference to the “Infrastructure & Support for Business intelligence and Resiliency”. Please clarify whether the Business Intelligence solution is required to be implemented?

c. Please specify details on the number of reports to be considered if BI solution implementation is required as per project scope.

d. Please clarify whether disaster recovery implementation is included in the project scope

e. Please elaborate on the issues/ constraints with the current system and the key improvements expected.

11. C.6.1.4 Activities, System integration between BMIS/LMBIS, TSA and other Financial system at line ministries (like MOHP’s TABUCS) improving effectiveness and reducing duplication.

a. Please clarify whether “System integration” means developing an interface between

BMIS/LMBIS, TSA and other Financial system at line ministries for:

On-line / Batch validation of data

On-line / Batch data update

12. C.6.1.4 Activities, Support GON efforts to train line Ministry/ Agency staff in the use of computer-based LMBIS, as appropriate. USAID/Nepal estimates a planning figure of 4,500 civil servants across the nation in need of this training.

a. What is the level of current LMBIS usage across ministries in Nepal?

b. Please clarify the staff strength that requires to be trained on LMBIS across each ministry/ agency.

See Section C. 6.1.4.

13. In Section C.8.2 (Personnel Requirements), the RFP states: “The Offeror may propose up to two additional key personnel to enhance project management and implementation. In its offer, the

Offeror must provide the position description, a clear rationale for the additional position(s) and how the key personnel are integral to the overall organizational management structure”.

In Section L.13.2.4.i. (Level of Effort), the RFP also states that: “The LOE total and that of each labor component group is the minimum required (emphasis ours). Offerors may propose additional professional staff as appropriate to their respective approaches and this information must be included in Attachment 8 as added rows, properly calculated in total formula cells.

a. Can USAID/Nepal please confirm that the 11,020 days of level of effort delineated in Section

F.8.4 is an LOE “floor” rather than a ceiling? I.e., can the Offeror propose more than 11,020 days of LOE, if the additional LOE is being devoted to additional professional positions which may or may not be designated key?

b. Can the Offeror have the flexibility to change (increase or decrease) the LOE for each labor category, keeping in mind the LOE of 11,020 as a floor (or ceiling)?

c. If the 11,020 days of LOE (Section F.8.4 et al) are indeed a floor and not a ceiling, could

USAID/Nepal kindly provide a range for the overall cost (dollar) ceiling for Nepal PFMSP, to ensure that Offerors’ bids are overall realistic (per Section M.4 “Cost Evaluation”).

a. See Section F.8 and Section C.8.2 RFP Amendment #2 for revised language.

b. The Offeror has the flexibility for STTA only.

c. The LOE is a ceiling. See Section F.8.1, RFP Amendment #2.

14. Page 34, Section C.8.2.2 indicates that “In addition to the Key Personnel, the Contractor must achieve the goals of this Contract by engaging short- and long-term technical expertise, as needed to perform any additional assessments, studies, analyses, training, or other PFM activities required in accordance with the LOE (Section F.5) required by this RFP.” However page 38, Section F.5 does not include LOE information. Can USAID confirm if the reference is for F.5?

See Sections C.8.2 and F.8, RFP Amendment # 2 for revised language.

15. C.8.2 Personnel requirements

a. Please suggest whether the proposed project team can work intermittently at the project location?

See Section F.8.4. The Offeror is required to devote 9,880 LOE for LTTA and 1,110 LOE for STTA.

The Offeror may propose a varied division of the STTA LOE but the total must not change. STTA may work intermittently, however the Contractor must propose a staffing/management structure and implementation plan which is otherwise in compliance with the requirements of the RFP.

16. On page 35, Section C.9.4 (Contractor Start Up), it is stated that “The Contractor will be responsible for provision of equipment, transportation and necessary commodities for all project staff.” Kindly confirm whether transportation refers to Expat or TCN mobilization to and from post, or whether it also refers to transportation of CCN staff to and from the project office.

It refers to all staff irrespective of Expat, TCN or CCN. However, this is not meant to refer to day to day transportation to and from work for locally based employees if not typically required by local law.

17. Page 8, C.1.3 that notes that “There will be sub-national activities” focused on 34 specific districts.

Sections C.6.1.4 (Component A Activities) and C.6.2.5 (Component B Activities) specify training for staff for three targeted line ministries in 34 districts as activities. In addition, Page 40, section

F.6.2, Component based tasks, notes that procurement and implementation of equipment for BMBIS system in the districts are expected tasks.

a. Are the “sub-national activities” limited to equipping and training the Line Ministry Offices in the districts and training district employees from these line ministries?

b. Does USAID expect these trainings to take place in Kathmandu or another central location, or will these trainings take place in the districts?

c. Does USAID anticipate that the contractor will establish field offices?

a and b. See Section 6.1.4, RFP Amendment # 2 for revised language.

c. See Section C.8.1.1. It is up to the Offeror to describe project management and office set up in their technical proposal.

18. Page 22, Section C.6.1.5 and page 24, Section C.6.2.5 discuss “sub-national entities.” Can USAID confirm that sub-national entities mean the District Development Committees?

The sub-national entities referred to are district offices under the line ministries/agencies.

19. Does USAID envision any coordination or direct work with CIAA, NVC and NPC as part of the support to be provided to different ministries under this project?

The PFMSP anticipates that the Contractor, to the extent possible, coordinate with relevant GON ministries/agencies as appropriate to accomplish the results stated in Section C.

20. A large part of the non-key positions (Other Personnel) on page 34, Section C.8.2.2 of the RFP require experts proficient in the English and Nepalese languages. Can the same be revisited taking into account the need to have a good balance of expatriate and local talent to fulfill project requirements? And is there flexibility in the LOE allocations for LTTA and STTA support?

Since these positions are expected to work closely with GON staff at the national and district level, USAID/Nepal anticipates a strong need for both English and Nepali language skills under both

LTTA and STTA. However, Offerors are to propose appropriate skills sets to meet the broader needs of the technical proposal, beyond language alone as a determinant. See Sections C.8.2.2 and F.8, RFP Amendment #2 for revised language.

21. Is there an FMIP plan available for the other target ministries in addition to the one provided for the

MOHP?

See Attachment 3 for Financial Management Action Plan of the Ministry of Education.

22. How far along is USAID in the signing of the MoU with the counterpart entities named on page 18, Section C.4.1 of the RFP?

GON counterparts have been involved in the design of this project and are aware of the need for

MoUs. USAID/Nepal is beginning the drafting of the MoUs.

23. Page 18, Section C.4 of the RFP discusses the contractor working with additional ministries and agencies over the period of performance. Does USAID have any priority ministries or agencies in mind at this time so as to ensure proper planning and resource allocation by the Offeror?

See Section C.4 RFP Amendment #2.

24. Page 133, Attachment 10 states that the plug figure of US$3 million is to 'upgrade the BMIS to

Enterprise Architecture' and also to invest in an 'infrastructure and support system for business intelligence and resilience.' Please confirm if the same is in line with the Component A results and outcomes on page 21, Section C.6.1.2 and C.6.1.3 of the RFP, and that there is the need for an integrated ERP system.

USAID confirms that the two pieces are intended to be aligned and that there is the need for an integrated ERP system.

25. Given the multiplicity of donors involved in PFM in Nepal (including the MDTF), has the intent of the PFMSP endeavor been coordinated with these donors, in particular the World Bank?

See Section C.5 for reference. The PFMSP design has been coordinated with relevant donors, including the World Bank. No change to the RFP.

26. The RFP mentions a Steering Committee as part of the program management structure. Has USAID already determined as to who will be part of this Committee based on its consultations with various counterpart government entities.

No change to the RFP. See Section C.4.

27. Page 33, Section C.8.2.1.3 states that the “ICT Specialist is required to work for the first two years with approximately 120 days in first year and 90 days in the second year,” which is a total of 210 days, but page 43, Section F.8 shows the ICT Specialist with an allocation of 240 days LOE. Does this mean that USAID envisions the ICT Specialist being engaged 30 days beyond the first two years?

See Section F.8.4 RFP, Amendment #2 for revised language.

28. Level of Effort - Page 33 & 44. The LOE outlined in the job description for the ICT Specialist on page 33 lists the LOE as 210 days (120 days for Year 1; 90 days for Year 2, totaling 210 days).

However, the LOE chart on page 44 lists the LOE as 240 days. Please confirm the correct amount of

LOE for the ICT Specialist.

See Section F.8.4, RFP Amendment #2 for revised language.

29. Scope of Work – Component A. The New Constitution of Nepal has divided the country into seven provinces and the SOW talks about working with two line ministries and 34 districts. These districts will fall in several provinces. Does USAID intend to develop Provincial PFM systems?

See Section C.1.4, RFP Amendment #2.

30. Question Section C.2 Background Page 10, Additional information on the existing and planned requirements or specifications of Ministry of Finance and line ministry budget execution-related information technology systems can improve offeror responses to the subject RFP. Can you provide any documentation and/or references on these, including, for example, on disaster recovery centers, analysis of data integration and transaction processing, database specifications, data dictionaries, database schematics, or other information to support existing or planned business intelligence applications?

31. Section C.6.1 Component A, Page 20, please clarify whether the $3 million plug figure for

Information Technology (IT) support can be used to procure each of IT services, hardware, software, and infrastructure.

32. H.22 Management of information technology resources

a. Please confirm whether the IT infrastructure (Hardware, Networking) component needs to be supplied in this project? If yes, please elaborate the details of the bill of material and minimum technical specifications.

33. C.2.2 Public Financial Management in Nepal (pg. 13)

a. Please provide the list of autonomous government agencies and donor projects that operate outside the TSA/ FMIS framework. Also, please confirm whether the functions of District

Treasury Controller Office (DTCO) are integrated with FMIS.

No change to the RFP. The Contractor may consult with the relevant GON ministries for further information.

SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

34. Section H.27 states “USAID also request implementing partners incorporate disaster risk reduction into their activities,” but this is not listed in other sections of the RFP. Is this something that USAID would like to see incorporated at the time of award, or should disaster risk reduction be incorporated into the proposed activities?

No change to the RFP. See Section H.27.1 and H.27.2 #5.

35. Section H.12.B (1)(c) states that “Annual salary increases greater than 3% and 2.1% within grade percent for local employees and third county nationals are subject to advance written approval by the

Contracting Officer.” This limitation of 3% and 2.1% seems to conflict with AIDAR 752.7007, incorporated in Section H.11 of the contract, which states “direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices.” Would USAID consider leaving the exact percentage “TBD” and incorporating a rate that is consistent with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices upon award?

No change to the RFP. There is an additional cost constraint linked to the local compensation plan.

A contractor’s policy that includes annual increase greater than the stated percentage for the local staff deviates from the local compensation plan. Annual salary increases in excess of these thresholds are subject to CO approval.

36. Consistent with the guidance in FAR 37.113-1 and considering that the anticipated contract will be performed entirely overseas, we respectfully request that USAID include FAR 52.237-9, Waiver of

Limitation on Severance Payments to Foreign Nationals, to prevent conflict with applicable local employment laws.

No change. Please contact us if you have identified any specific conflicts with applicable local employment laws.

37. Page 54, Section H.12 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONNEL COMPENSATION, item B (1) (c) Annual Salary Increases states that “One annual salary increase (includes promotional increase) may be granted after the employee's completion of each twelve month period of satisfactory services performed under the Contract. Annual salary increases greater than 3% percent for expats and 2.1% within grade percent for local employees and third country nationals are subject to advance written approval by the Contracting Officer. Annual salary increases of any kind must not result in a salary in excess of the limitation set forth as the Agency’s Contractor Salary

Threshold (CST). For local and third-country nationals, the limit is the top of the range for the respective grade in the Local Compensation Plan”. However, according to World Bank, the inflation rate in the past few year has been averaged around 9% and it is expected to be at the same rage in following years. Can USAID consider adjusting the escalation rate to a comparable number?

No change to the RFP. See question number 35.

38. Section I FAR Clause 52.204-2 Page 67, FAR 4.404(a) requires FAR 52.204-2, Security

Requirements clause to be inserted when the contract may require access to classified information.

Please clarify the security requirements under this RFP.

This project does not anticipate any, therefore the FAR clause 52.204-2 Security Requirements is removed from Section I.

LEVEL OF EFFORT

39. Section L.13.2.4 Attachment Content Defined i. Level of Effort (LOE) states “…detailing exactly how many productive workdays out of each year each individual will devote to the implementation of the Monitoring & Evaluation and Learning contract.” Please confirm that this refers rather to the

PFMSP RFP, or is USAID looking for the contractor to disaggregate specifically the productive days each staff person will allocate to Monitoring Evaluation and Learning.

See Section L.13.2.4.i, RFP Amendment # 2 for revised language,

40. Level of Effort (LOE) Chart – Section L.13.2.4.i, page 114, states that offerors should use the chart provided in Attachment 8, should record Total LOE and Productive LOE on the chart, and that no cost or price information should be expressed in the chart. The chart provided in Attachment 8 is labeled ‘Cost Proposal Level of Effort Chart’, does not include a column for Productive LOE, and includes five columns labeled ‘Daily Rate’ (price/cost info). Should offerors revise the chart provided in Attachment 8 to comply with the required info on page 114 or will USAID provide a revised LOE chart for the technical proposal?

See Sections L.13.2.4.i; L.14.1 (6) and Attachments 8.a for technical proposal and 8.b for cost proposal in RFP Amendment #2.

41. L.13.2.4.i Level of Effort Page 114, Section L.13.2.4.i, states that the LOE total and that of each labor component group is the minimum required. Offerors may propose additional professional staff as appropriate to their respective approaches and this information must be included in Attachment 8 as added rows, properly calculated in total formula cells.

Question Section F.8, Level of Effort (workdays ordered) Page 43, Section F.8 states that the contractor must devote 11,020 days as level of effort of direct employee, consultant, or subcontractor labor for the period specified in Section F.2.

Please confirm that the 11,020 days LOE provided in Section F and Attachment 8 are the minimum

LOE required and contractor can propose additional LOE as appropriate to its technical approach.

See Section F.8, RFP Amendment # 2.

42. Section L.13.2.4 (i). Level of Effort Page 114, Level of Effort states that “Offerors must complete the Level of Effort (LOE) chart using the attached spreadsheet, Section J, Attachment 8 for all indicated personnel categories, direct and subcontracted, expressed in days and detailing exactly how many productive workdays out of each year each individual will devote to the implementation of the

Monitoring & Evaluation and Learning contract.” Please clarify, as the table format does not does not allow offerors to detail how many workdays each individual will devote to the implementation of the Monitoring & Evaluation and Learning contract.

See question number 39.

43. Section L.13.2.4.i Level of Effort (LOE) states, “Offerors must use Attachment 8 to record the total

LOE (inclusive of leave) and Productive LOE (exclusive of leave) in the appropriate tabs. Offerors are to provide names of proposed individuals for each position in the LOE chart. Offerors must not express any cost or price information in the table”; however, Attachment 8 includes columns for

Daily Rates per year. Can USAID please clarify if cost or price daily rates should be included in

Attachment 8?

See question number 40.

44. Page 54, Section H.12 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONNEL COMPENSATION, states “B. The Contractor must adhere to the following parameters for all STTA staff and staff not listed in the LOE chart”. Since the LOE chart uses the term “consultant” (and since a very wide range of experts can be included under this category), can USAID clarify which STTA can be considered outside this range?

No change to the RFP. These exceptions are handled on a case by case basis so no exact clarification is possible. Section H.12 is consistent with language found in other similar mechanisms managed by the Mission.

45. Section L.14.2.3 of the RFP states that biodata forms must be submitted for all personnel, including

TBDs. Would USAID consider only requiring biodata forms for named personnel?

See Section L.14.2.3, RFP Amendment #2.

46. Page 115, L.14.2.3 requires offers to submit biodata forms for “TBD” personnel. As it does not seem possible to submit biodata forms for unnamed personnel, we would appreciate it if USAID would clarify this requirement.

See question number 45.

47. Page 115, Section L.14.2 Content Details states that "Offerors must submit biodata forms (Form

1420-17-Attachment-6) for all personnel, including TBDs stated in Sections C.8.2 and F.7 comprising the LOE”. Can USAID confirm that the 1420s are required for the TBD? If so, can

USAID provide some guidance on how the Offeror should fill this if no candidates are identified?

48. Are 1420 forms required for every single position proposed by the Offeror?

49. Should Offeror present its wholly owned subsidiary that will be providing both personnel and past performance references as referred under paragraph c of Section L.13.2.4 to the RFP as a subcontractor?

Yes.

50. Can USAID please clarify what is meant by “loading” in Section L.14.2.6, “No loading of days or rates in the preparation of this table is permitted”? Does this mean that USAID wants to see only direct productive work days in this table exclusive of leave? Should daily rates be included in this table or only days?

Only productive work days must be considered under the LOE table, how many productive workdays out of each year each individual will devote to the implementation of the PFMSP. The

LOE table is separate from the detailed budget which will reflect productive LOE and leave, etc. as it is treated in the company’s accounting procedures.

51. On Page, 117, Section L.14.4 (General Assumptions and Other Instructions), USAID provides a chart of unburdened salary ranges. This includes a Fringe Benefit line item (Bonus, Provident Fund, Holiday Bonus, Retirement, other benefits) of 57%. Could USAID/Nepal kindly provide an itemized breakdown detailing the calculation of the 57% Fringe Benefits figure?

The Offeror must comply with their established policies on fringe and benefits. The 57% is an indicative figure only.

52. Page 114 (L.13.2.4.i) requests that the LOE chart indicates “exactly how many productive workdays out of each year each individual will devote to the implementation of the Monitoring & Evaluation and Learning contract.” (italics ours) Is this in regards to only the M&E efforts on the PFMSP project, or is it an error?

See question number 39.

53. Page 114 (L.13.2.4.i) also requires that no cost or price information must be in the table and that we must complete the LOE chart using the spreadsheet in Attachment 8. However, Attachment 8 requires daily cost rates per project year for each position. Will USAID please clarify this requirement?

54. Page 115, Section L. 14.2.2 requires offerors to submit the LOE chart, found Page 131, Attachment

8. The LOE chart shows that USAID expects contractors to hire long-term staff for 1,300 total days or five years, or 260 days per year. If an offer’s NICRA establishes a lower number of workdays per year (with leave and holidays charged through indirect rates rather than direct billed to USAID) may the offer modify the LOE Chart to reflect its NICRA?

The Offeror’s policies in this regard must be mentioned in the budget narrative. Please also note budget instructions distinguishing between presentation of productive workdays versus all workdays inclusive of leave.

55. Subcontractor NICRA - Section L.14.2 Content Details, page 115. Please let us know if GSA

NICRA is acceptable for pricing US National resources by a sub-contractor?

A Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement certified by any U.S. Federal Agency for a specific company many be used only for that company, but under any federal contract. All indirect costs must be charged per the Offeror’s NICRA rates, a copy of the active NICRA provided, and explanation must be provided in the budget narrative. Sub-contractors’ indirect cost rates must be budgeted only in accordance with that company’s individual NICRA or certified audited accounting records. Rates built into loaded GSA rates are not necessarily applicable if they are not supported with a NICRA.

56. On page 112, Section L.13.2.4.c, the RFP states that Offerors should submit “Up to 10 of the most recent” contracts. Is this 10 for the whole proposed team or is it 10 for the prime and 10 more for any major subcontractor?

See Section L.13.2.4.c, RFP Amendment #2 for clarifying language.

57. Past Performance - Section L.13.2.4.c, page 112, states that the offeror must provide past performance information for itself and each major subcontractor. Please clarify if USAID requires past performance information for up to a total of 10 of the most recent (last five years) and relevant contracts or assistance instruments or up to 10 for the offeror and up to 10 for each major subcontractor.

See question number 56.

58. Does the Local Compensation Plan on Page 117, Section L.14.4 reflect the compensation paid to existing CCN experts required to work in such a highly professional field such as the PFM? There is a very limited cadre of local professionals adept in this field. Furthermore, the compensation structures for locals under other similar PFM donor programs are much higher.

No change to the RFP. See Section H.12.B.1.b.

59. Could USAID confirm the LOE chart should be part of the Technical proposal and not the cost proposal?

60. Would USAID/Nepal kindly provide a dollar ceiling for this bid, regardless of the 11,020 LOE days being a floor or a ceiling? We acknowledge that the USAID Mission forecast estimates the overall cost of this project between $10M-25M; however, there is a significant difference between the two extremes of that range. The overall price realism (Section M.4 “Cost Evaluation”) of bids from all

Offerors would benefit from receiving a dollar ceiling range for this procurement.

ADS 302.3.5.7 prohibits the inclusion of the estimated price range in a solicitation for a cost reimbursement term (LOE) contract.

61. Can USAID provide a ceiling amount or dollar range for this solicitation?

See question number 60.

62. Can USAID provide the budget ceiling or range for this RFP?

63. Is there a budget range for this project commensurate with the level of effort and other requirements set forth as part of this RFP?

64. Cost Proposal Range - The November 2015 USAID Missions Forecast indicates a cost range of between $10 - $24.99 million. Please confirm the budget range for this RFP.

65. The LOE Table presented in Section F.8.4 (mirrored in RFP Attachment 8) does not include home office support labor. Please confirm that home office labor is exclusive of the overall required Level of Effort (11,020 days).

See Section F.8.4, RFP Amendment #2.

66. Level of Effort - Attachment 8, page 131.

a. Is this LOE table illustrative?

b. Can an initial expatriate COP be proposed for less than 60 months with a national replacement in project out years 4 and 5 to increase capacity building and sustainability?

a) See Section F.8, RFP Amendment #2.

b) Yes

67. Management and Staffing Plan – M.3.2, Page 119. Bullet iii in this section ends with “; and.”

Please clarify if this text should be deleted or USAID intended to add a fourth bullet under this section.

See Section M.3.2, RFP Amendment #2.

68. Section M.3.2 (pg 119) Management and Staffing Plan states …” iii. The extent to which the proposed management approach demonstrates a logical and efficient use of staff resources to successfully achieve the goals and purpose of the activity; and…”

a. Can USAID clarify whether there is information missing from this statement?

See question number 67.

69. F.8, Level of Effort (workdays ordered) Page 43, The footnote to the LOE table states that, the LOE

Table is not inclusive of administrative and other support personnel including financial, procurement, drivers, and administrative assistants. It is unclear if offerors should include administrative and other support personnel LOE in their proposed LOE table or not. Please clarify and provide guidance on administrative and other support personnel LOE representation.

See Section F.8.4, RFP Amendment #2 for clarification. Note that LOE for these categories must still be detailed in accordance with Section L.14 which requires a detailed budget with a detailed supporting budget narrative.

70. Can USAID confirm that the Level of Effort (LOE) total of 11,020 is the minimum level required and that Offerors can propose additional professional staff and administrative staff as appropriate to their respective approaches?

See Section F.8.4, RFP Amendment # 2.

71. Attachment 8 to the RFP designates the Public Finance Expert and ST Information Communication

Technology Specialist as expatriates. Please confirm that USAID/Nepal is open to Nepalese candidates for these positions, should they meet the requirements stated in Section C.8.2.

72. Page 112, Section L.13.1 of the RFP lists Section 6 of the Technical Proposal to be Past Performance and refers the Offeror to Section L.13.2.4.c. However, that section contains information regarding the Past Performance Annex. Can USAID please clarify if it is desired to have two sections of Past

Performance: one as part of the technical proposal and one in the Annexes?

a. If the answer is yes, please specify page limits and the extent of information to be provided in each section.

No change to the RFP. See Section L.13.2.4.c. Past performance is not part of the 20-page limit.

COSTS/BUDGET

73. In Section B.5 (Indirect Cost/Rates), the RFP states that major subcontractors “are those subcontractors expected to perform at least 20% of the technical effort”. Later, in Section L.13.2.4

(Attachment Content Defined), the RFP states that a ‘“major subcontractor” for the purposes of this solicitation is defined as any subcontractor performing more than 10 percent of the prime contractor’s proposed price or more than 20% of the technical effort’. Please confirm that the definition of major subcontractor presented in Section L.13.2.4 applies to the overall RFP.

USAID confirms that the definition of major subcontractor presented in Section L.13.2.4 applies to the overall RFP.

74. On Page 6, Section B.5 INDIRECT COSTS/RATES defines major subcontractor as (Major subcontractors” are those subcontractors expected to perform at least 20% of the technical effort) while section L.13.2.4 Attachment Content Defined, Subsection c. Past Performance, on page 112 defines major subcontractor as (A “major subcontractor” for the purposes of this solicitation is defined as any subcontractor performing more than 10 percent of the prime contractor’s proposed price or more than 20% of the technical effort (LOE).

Could USAID please clarify the difference in these two definitions of major subcontractor?

The definition stated in Section B.5 for calculation of indirect costs whereas definition stated in the

Section L.13.2.4 is a requirement for past performance. As such more or less information may be needed to satisfy each separate requirement (supporting documentation for “Indirect Costs” versus

“Past Performance.”

75. In Attachment 9, Summary Budget Template by Cost Line Item, fringe benefits and allowances are listed under the same line. Offerors will not normally include allowances set by DSSR under their fringe benefits. Thus, please confirm that fringe benefits and allowances can be budgeted under separate line items.

Yes, fringe benefits and allowances can be budgeted under separate line items in accordance with their formal accounting systems.

76. Attachment 10 definition of Salaries and Wages, states, “Enter all proposed labor categories … and the estimated month, hours for work with their respective salaries per month or hourly rates that will be dedicated for each related Tasks/Subtasks.” Attachment 8: Cost Proposal Level of Effort

(Workdays Ordered) Chart outlines level of effort in Days and rates in Daily rates. Would USAID consider instructing offerors to propose person daily rates instead of monthly rates or hours rates for both the budget and the LOE chart in order to streamline comparison between the cost proposal and

LOE chart?

See Section F.8.4 and Attachment 8.b, RFP Amendment #2 for revised language.

77. Page 132, Attachment 9 (Summary budget template), asks for a breakdown of costs by component, but then uses the IRs in the second table instead of the component names. Please confirm as to whether the cost categories are per component as outlined in Section C and not by Intermediate

Results.

See and follow Attachment 9 for breakdown of costs.

78. Page 133, ATTACHMENT 10: DEFINITION OF THE TERMS OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF

COSTS USED IN THE SUMMARY BUDGET FORMAT mentions that Offerors need to “Enter all proposed labor categories for the project, e.g., Team Leader, Project Director, Finance Manager, Procurement Officer, Program Specialists, M&E Officers, Field based staff, Specialists, administrative support etc., and the estimated month, hours for work with their respective salaries per month or hourly rates that will be dedicated for each related activities /Sub activities.” Can

USAID confirm if Offerors may dedicate the labor to the project’s component instead of activities/sub-activities, as this will be clearer and easier to read and track?

See Section L.14.2 and Attachments 9 and10, RFP Amendment # 2 for clarification.

79. Page, 133, ATTACHMENT 10: DEFINITION OF THE TERMS OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF

COSTS USED IN THE SUMMARY BUDGET FORMAT states that Offerors need to “Enter all proposed labor categories for the project, e.g., Team Leader, Project Director, Finance Manager, Procurement Officer, Program Specialists, M&E Officers, Field based staff, Specialists, administrative support etc., and the estimated month, hours for work with their respective salaries per month or hourly rates that will be dedicated for each related activities /Sub activities.” Can

USAID confirm if Offerors can enter the proposed labor by using estimated daily LOE and rates instead of monthly or hourly?

See Attachment 10, RFP Amendment #2.

80. On page 52 Section H.7 Subcontracting Consent. It is stated in this section that “Subcontractor salaries are subject to CO’s approval comprised in the LOE “. Given that the Consent to Subcontract request includes the subcontractor’s budget with daily rates for all proposed staff; will all salaries listed in the budget be approved if consent is given? On page 54, Section H.11 Personnel

Compensation states “Direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies……..” However, in Section H.12 Additional Requirements for

Personnel Compensation, it is stated that “All LTTA and STTA listed in Section F.5 are subject to technical and daily rate approvals.”

a. Can USAID clarify which specific staff is subject to technical and daily rate approval?

b. Also, can USAID please confirm that H.12 is meant to reference F.8 Level of Effort rather than

Section F.5 Performance Standards?

a. Only LTTA and STTA categories as listed in F.8 are subject to USAID approval. See Section

H.12. However all staff must be paid in accordance with local labor law.

b. Yes, H.12 is meant to reference F.8 Level of Effort. See Section H.12, RFP Amendment #2.

81. Cost Proposal Table of Contents - L.14.1, page 114, lists the sections/documents that make up the cost proposal. Attachment 12 (SF LLL Disclosure of Lobbying Activities) and Attachment 14

(Certification Regarding Trafficking in Persons Compliance Plan) are not included in the table of contents on page 114. Please clarify if attachments 12 and 14 should be included in the cost proposal. If so, please clarify where they fall in the table of contents.

See Section L.14.1 (table of cost proposal contents), RFP Amendment #2.

82. Housing Allowance - Given the reduction in available housing since the April and May earthquakes, please confirm that a ‘Waiver’ will be provided for expatriate housing rent that exceeds the mission limit. (We understand that this is being done routinely for in-country expatriate personnel now.)

The Offeror may propose appropriate amount of housing allowance, requesting waivers on a case by case basis if necessary, and must provide adequate justification for both the budgeted amount and waiver request (if applicable) in the budget narrative.

83. Authorized Work Day/Week - F4. Authorized Work Day / Week, page 38. Would the mission consider a six-day workweek for long-term project staff (Key Personnel at least), given that the GoN has a six-day work week, field travel will be frequent, and the work load will be heavy in the early project work years?

No change to the RFP. See Section F.4

84. Attachment 9: Summary Budget Template by Component. This table only includes Total Direct

Costs. Was it USAID’s intent to not include Indirect Charges and Fee by component?

See Attachment 9, RFP Amendment #2.

85. Page 131 Attachment 8, Please clarify if the “Daily Rate” column should be represented as the fully loaded rate after all burdens and fee (for both prime and subcontractor).

The Offeror must propose unburdened daily rate.

86. B.3 Estimated cost, fixed fee, and obligated amount:

a. We are given to understand that the budget of USD 3 million is for the entire IT and infrastructure component in the project. Kindly provide the component break-up for the USD 3 million.

b. What are the components that comprise the indirect cost.

c. Please clarify whether the bidder needs to provide the details of the consortium partner for executing some of the components of the project at the proposal stage itself? Or would the successful bidder be allowed to sub-contract the work at appropriate time.

d. Please confirm whether Permanent Establishment has to be created at the project location. Also please clarify whether the payment invoice be raised from the home country?

a and b. No change to the RFP. See Attachment 10.

c. No change to the RFP. See Section L.13.2.4.g.

d. No change to the RFP. See Section F.3 for office location and Section G.1 for payment.

87. Indirect Costs/Rates

a. Please confirm whether the bidder need to furnish the details of sub-contractor in the proposal.

No change to the RFP. See Section L.13.2.4.g.

88. B.8 Payment of fixed fee

a. Please confirm whether the financial quote should be provided component wise or a whether a single quote for all the components should be provided.

b. Please confirm whether the payment of fixed fee based on milestones? Please elaborate on payment terms

a. No change to the RFP. See Section G.1, and Attachments 8 and 9. Both must be provided.

b. No change to the RFP. See Section B.8.

89. Section L.14.2 Item 6 Page 116, Section F.8 indicates the LOE that should be used to estimate the budget for the program. If the contractor’s policies differ from the 260 days per year of estimated

LOE for long term staff, can the contractor use a different number of LOE days for those in Section

F.8 to reflect its own workday/workweek policies?

Yes, in the budget, the Offeror may use a different number of LOE days. However, the Offeror’s policies in this regard must be mentioned in the budget narrative. Additionally, though they may be broken down on different lines of the budget to reflect the offeror’s accounting practices, reasonableness of “base salary” is considered against the federal system which includes leave and holidays in “base pay.”

SECTION F – DELIVERABLES

90. Section F.6.1 (Deliverables) Lines 6 and 7 describe the Business Reports Analysis Report and IT

System Assessment Report, respectively. These same deliverables appear to be described in Lines 18 and 19. Please confirm that Lines 18 and 19 should be deleted, and Lines 6 and 7 retained.

See Section F.6.1, RFP Amendment #2.

91. Section F.6.1 (Deliverables) Lines 21 and 23 appear to be describing the same deliverable. Please confirm that Line 21 should be deleted and Line 23 retained.

See Section F.6.1, RFP Amendment #2.

92. Can a “major subcontractor” as defined in the solicitation, be awarded a commercial item subcontract in accordance with FAR 52.244-6 which is included in Section I.1?

Yes. However, in requesting consent to subcontract, this decision and procedures followed must be documented in the negotiation memo.

93. The list of deliverables in Section F.6.1 on pages 39-40 appears to include overlapping entries.

Please clarify the following:

Is deliverable #18 a component of deliverable #6, and if so, shouldn’t they have the same due date?

Is deliverable #19 a component of deliverable #7, and if so, shouldn’t they have the same due date?

Is deliverable #20 included in deliverable #15, and if so, shouldn’t they have the same due date?

Is deliverable #21 included in deliverable #15, and if so, shouldn’t they have the same due date?

We suggest eliminating from the list of deliverables those items that…