Amendment_1PART_I__SOL-367-17-000001_KISAN_II.pdf

TPaudel Stamp

KISAN II

RFP No. SOL-367-17-000001

Part I-Prospective Offerors’ Questions and responses from USAID/Nepal:

The closing date of the submission of the proposals by the prospective Offerors has be changed from

December 19, 2016 , 09:00 hours Nepal time to December 23, 2016, 17:00 hours Nepal time.

General Questions

1. Question: When is USAID/Nepal’s current Business Literacy Program expected to end? Is KISAN II supplementing the current program or is KISAN II’s Component 4 (Subcomponent 4.1) a follow-on to the current program?

USAID/Nepal Response: The current Business Literacy Program (BLP) is expected to end in February 2017 and has been implemented as a standalone project. However, this activity will no longer be implemented separately but will be part of the KISAN II project as component 4. See attachment J.9 of this Amendment

No. 1.

2. Question: Can USAID please provide offerors with the materials being used by the current Business

Literacy Program, inclusive of English versions of module trainings materials and any manuals/guides for use by trainers?

USAID/Nepal Response: All relevant documents that are necessary for the implementation of component 4 will be made available upon award of KISAN II. There are no English versions publicly available at this time.

3. Question: Can USAID please provide offerors with the latest annual progress report for the current

Business Literacy Program?

USAID/Nepal Response: See response to Question 1. This document is attached to this Amendment No. 1

4. Question: On page 4, Section B.4 (a) CLIN 1 Grants under Contract, the amount is shown as

“$3,000.000.” Please confirm that the amount for CLIN 1 Grants under Contract should be $3,000,000 and

$500,000 for CLIN 2.

USAID/Nepal Response: The Grants under Contract (GUC) for CLIN 1 is $3,000,000. The GUC for CLIN

2 is $500,000. The total amount reserved for GUCs is $3,500,000.

5. Question: Please confirm that upon award, the successful offeror will receive access to the KISAN I list of approximately 4,000 farmers groups and other critical information to build on KISAN I activities.

USAID/Nepal Response: USAID/Nepal will ensure that the successful offeror will gain access to the over

4,000 farmers groups and information.

6. Question: May offerors include, as an annex, Letters of Support from organizations with which the offeror intends to collaborate under KISAN II, but are not proposed as an implementing partner?

USAID/Nepal Response: See section L.6.3.c and L.6.3.d of the RFP.

7. Question: In submitting proposals by email, please advise what the maximum file size USAID’s email can accept? Please confirm offerors may divide their proposals into multiple emails as needed due to the file size limit.

USAID/Nepal Response: The maximum file size limit for electronic proposal submissions is 25MB per e-mail. The Offeror may send multiple emails to submit all portions of the proposal. Technical and Cost proposals must not be sent in the same e-mail. (L.6.1 (a)).

8. Question: May offerors include an acronym page in the technical proposal that is not counted toward the page limit?

USAID/Nepal Response: Acronym pages will not count towards the technical proposal 30 page limitation

(L.6.3.g).

Section B

9. Question: Section B.9 (b), p.6: Since this section of the RFP states “the Contractor will not incur any costs which would have been amortized over the life of the contract should the contract be cancelled,” shouldn’t the cancellation ceiling be $0 instead of “TBD” as now shown? In addition, Part 9 of the cost proposal instructs that “the offeror must propose its estimated cancellation ceiling cost;” does the text in section B.9 negate this part of the cost proposal?

USAID/Nepal Response: The text does not negate the cost proposal instructions. The cancellation ceiling could result in $0 based on the Offeror’s proposal, but is TBD upon release of this solicitation.

10. Question: On page 4, Section B.4 (a) CLIN 1 Grants under Contract, the amount is shown as

“$3,000.000.” Please confirm that the amount for CLIN 1 Grants under Contract should be $3,000,000 and

$500,000 for CLIN 2.

USAID/Nepal Response: Please see USAID/Nepal Response No. 4.

11.Question: On page 4, please confirm the Grants under Contract amount under Zone of Influence 1 should read as three million USD.

USAID/Nepal Response: Please see USAID/Nepal Response No. 4.

12. Question: Are the $3.5 million in Grants under Contract designated in section B.4 intended to represent the entirety of the Partnership and Innovation fund? Will offerors have the flexibility to determine the mix of mechanisms (i.e. grants, subcontracts, GDA-type partnerships) for this fund?

USAID Response: The GUC plug figure for CLIN 1 is $3,000,000 and the GUC plug figure for CLIN 2 is

$500,000 (B.4). These plug figures are for GUCs only. Offerors have the flexibility to determine the mix of mechanisms for this fund (L.6.2.3) to meet the requirements of Section C, keeping in mind the instructions in Section L and the evaluation criteria in Section M.

Section C

13. Question: Section C.IV, p. 8: The RFP states that “the contractor must intensify activities in ZOI I and then expand into ZOI II.” When does USAID expect the contractor to expand activities into ZOI II?

USAID/Nepal Response: There is no specific, defined timeline. USAID expects the successful offeror to plan to implement KISAN II in both ZOIs (C.IV).

14. Question: Section C.IV, p. 8: The RFP states that a “third party will be contracted by USAID/Nepal to conduct the baseline survey in selected VDC.” Can USAID confirm that offerors should not budget for the baseline survey or any follow-up surveys (i.e. USAID will contract these directly with a third party), and that offerors should only budget for baseline and follow-up surveys for program indicators not covered by the third party contractor per its M&E Plan?

USAID/Nepal Response: USAID confirms that the successful offeror will not be responsible for conducting the baseline survey, and the baseline survey will be conducted by the USAID designated third party as stated in the RFP. See section C.IV of the RFP.

15. Question: Section C.V.1, p.12: The RFP states that there “have been five vegetable specific IPM packages that were field tested” by the IPM Innovation Lab. Can USAID provide offerors further information on these packages including field testing methodology and results?

USAID/Nepal Response: Check the following official website for IPM related work in Nepal

(https://www.usaid.gov/nepal/fact-sheets/integrated-pest-management-innovation-lab-project) (C.V.1).

16. Question: Can USAID provide offerors with a list of VDCs where KISAN I is currently working?

USAID/Nepal Response: KISAN is being implemented in more than 300 VDCs across 20 districts in the

West, Mid-West, and Far West including: Kapilvastu, Argakhachi, Palpa, Gulmi, Pyuthan, Rukum, Rolpa, Banke, Bardia, Dailekh, Jajarkot, Surkhet, Salyan, Dang, Kailali, Kanchanpur, Baitadi, Accham, Doti, and

Dadeldhura. See new added section J.10 “LIST OF VDCs AND DISTRICTS UNDER KISAN” in the revised RFP.

17. Question: The KISAN Annual Report provided with the RFP was for the period ending September 30, 2015 – more than a year ago. Can USAID please provide the most recent KISAN Annual Report for the period ending September 30, 2016?

USAID/Nepal Response: The 2016 FY just ended and the annual report is not yet officially approved hence is not available for wider use. The FY2016 report has similar content as its predecessor in FY2015 (J.5).

18. Question: Section C.V.6, p.23: USAID states that Partnership and Innovation Fund will “use a variety of mechanisms – such as grants under contracts (GUCs), GDA-type partnerships, and sub-contracts.” Can

USAID confirm that offerors therefore can propose a Fund larger than the plug figure of $3.5 million for

GUC if it also intends to use other mechanisms such as subcontracts?

USAID/Nepal Response: The plug figures are only for GUCs. See USAID/Nepal Response No. 4 and

USAID/Nepal Response No. 12.

19. Question: Pages 25-26 of the RFP provides a discussion on the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture

Index (WEAI). Given that this index is already included in the FTF ZOI Population Based Surveys (PBS) collected by external M&E Contractors, does USAID envision that the WEAI will also be included in the baseline and subsequent follow-on surveys for KISAN II, specifically? Given the amount of time required by enumerators with inclusion of WEAI within surveys, this will have major cost implications for follow-on surveys if the offeror is expected to budget for them.

https://www.usaid.gov/nepal/fact-sheets/integrated-pest-management-innovation-lab-project

USAID/Nepal Response: See USAID/Nepal Response No. 14. All follow-on surveys will be conducted by

USAID designated third party.

20. Question: Page 8, C.IV: There is a discrepancy between USAID’s list of provinces and their districts and the Government of Nepal’s information (for instance, in Nepal’s 2015 Constitution). For example, USAID lists that Surkhet and Dailekh are located in Province 7, whereas the Government of Nepal’s 2015

Constitution lists that they are in Province 6. Similarly, the RFP locates Dadeldhura and Kailali in Province

6, yet Nepal’s 2015 Constitution locates these districts in Province 7. Can USAID please confirm that the

RFP has the districts organized into the correct provinces?

USAID/Nepal Response: The new 2015 constitution that divides the country into seven provinces has not yet been implemented. Therefore, offerors must use USAID’s list of regions/districts as they appear in the

RFP. After the new constitution is implemented; the successful offeror will adjust to the new provincial boundaries.

21. Question: Page 8, C.IV: USAID notes that one criterion for VDC selection is the potential to leverage previous activities and progress under KISAN. With this in mind, can USAID please provide a list of the

VDCs to which KISAN is currently providing support?

USAID/Nepal Response: See USAID/Nepal Response No. 16.

22. Question: Page 9, C.IV: USAID notes that KISAN II will focus on one or two yet-to-be-selected commodities. Is it USAID’s preference for offerors to recommend value chains for these yet-to-be-selected commodities as part of their KISAN II technical approach?

USAID/Nepal Response: Yes, see Section L.6.2 No.3, Technical Approach.

23. Question: Page 20-21, Section C.V.4, 4.1: Can USAID please provide details of the resources ( including human resources such as master trainers) that will be available to the KISAN II contractor?

USAID/Nepal Response: This question is unclear. Prospective offerors are required to plan and propose a technical and cost proposal per the requirements in Section C and the instructions in Section L.

24. Question: Page 21-22, Section C.V.4.1: Does USAID envisions that the KISAN II contractor will modify, revise, or update the modules in any way? If yes, can USAID please explain how?

USAID Response: The training materials used in the modules will be developed under a separate program and provided to the Contractor as stated in the RFP. Training materials are living documents and the

Contractor will be responsible for updating, revising and/or modifying them as necessary. The offeror is welcome to propose the approach it believes is most useful to meet the stated expected outcomes in accordance with the requirements and instructions of the RFP. Any changes to the materials or the module activities after award can be done through the work plan process in close consultation and approval by the

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and the Contracting Officer, if necessary.

25. Question: According to section C.IV of the RFP, KISAN II will assist a third party in conducting a baseline survey. Can offerors assume that a third party will also conduct mid-line and end-line surveys?

USAID/Nepal Response: USAID confirms that a USAID designated third party will conduct the mid-line and end-line surveys.

26. Question: C.V.6 Partnership and Innovation Fund (page 23) and L.6.2.3 Technical Approach (page 100) reference a Partnership and Innovation Fund. We note that the Fund may be used for grants, subcontracts, and other flexible mechanisms such as GDAs and revolving funds. Would USAID consider providing a plug figure for the fund and defining what percent of the fund be set aside for grants?

USAID/Nepal Response: See USAID/Nepal Response No. 4. There are no other plug figure amounts other than the ones provided for the GUCs for CLIN 1 and CLIN 2 in the RFP.

27. Question: Page 9 notes, “Contractor must focus on rice, maize, lentils, vegetables, and one or two yet-to-be-selected commodities” and references an aim towards flexibility. Please confirm that the Contractor is expected to identify these additional commodities during the project implementation.

USAID/Nepal Response: See USAID/Nepal Response No. 22.

28. Question: Would USAID please provide more details on USAID/Nepal’s DCA agreement with Laxmi

Bank, referenced on p. 11 and elsewhere in the RFP?

USAID/Nepal Response: USAID supports a $5 million commercial DCA loan portfolio guarantee (50 percent) with Laxmi Bank, to facilitate increased access to finance by small and medium agribusinesses

(C.V.1). Details have been provided in Section C.

29. Question: We request USAID’s clarification on several of the Component 1 expected outcomes on page

12:

a. With regard to the expected outcome, “Increased yields and volumes of selected crops from baseline by 30% for cereals, 50% for lentil, and 90% for vegetables by women and men, including youth

(FTF indicator)” – please confirm that these changes refer to total volumes produced, rather than yield per hectare.

USAID/Nepal Response: USAID confirms that changes indicated in the RFP refer to total volumes produced rather than yield per hectare (C.V.1).

b. Could USAID please provide further information around or rephrasing of the expected outcome, “Increased volume and value of purchases from KISAN II-assisted input suppliers by 90% by male, female, and youth smallholders?” It is unclear as currently written whether “male, female and youth smallholders” refers to purchasers of the inputs.

USAID/Nepal Response: “Inputs suppliers” are also KISAN II beneficiaries, who sell agriculture inputs to

KISAN II beneficiaries. “Male, female and youth smallholders” are farmers who purchase the inputs from the input suppliers. USAID confirms that “male, female and youth smallholders” refers to the purchasers of the inputs.

c. With regard to the outcome, “90% of targeted households accessing information on use of more productive, climate-smart varieties, inputs, technologies and practices through ICT channels,” would

USAID allow offerors to replace “targeted households” with “small-holder farmers and entrepreneurs”?

USAID/Nepal Response: Smallholder farmers and entrepreneurs fall under the definition of target households. KISAN II, however, will also target beyond the smallholder farmers and entrepreneurs to expand market linkages and opportunities.

d. Regard to the outcome, “33% increase in the number of marginal farmers, women, and households from disadvantaged groups in profitable agribusiness,” please clarify whether this indicator refers to the entire marginalized population of the ZOI, and its assumptions related to USAID’s direction that participants should self-select into the program (p. 9)?

USAID/Nepal Response: This refers to 33% of total project beneficiaries identified in KISAN II; not to the entire population of the ZOI.

30. Question: Page 20 includes the expected outcome for Component 3, “At least four policy or regulatory reforms that address key barriers to agriculture investment and market system development implemented effectively by the government.” As many variables are involved in policy reform over which contractors will not have control, we respectfully request this outcome be revised to “Number of policy or regulatory reforms proposed that utilize evidence-based research and reflect the needs of agriculture sector stakeholders at all levels to address key barriers to agriculture investment and market system development.”

USAID/Nepal Response: Thank you for your comment. USAID/Nepal will keep the expected outcome as written to ensure policy and regulatory reforms are addressed as discussed in the RFP.

31. Question: Page 21 includes the expected outcome for Component 5, “Increased economic empowerment of targeted vulnerable beneficiaries by 60%.” Would USAID kindly define the meaning of

“economic empowerment” here to allow offerors to understand what a 60% increase of it would entail?

USAID/Nepal Response: See the revised RFP. Economic empowerment means the capacity of women and men to participate in, contribute to and benefit from intended growth processes achieved due to KISAN II interventions. See also http://www.oecd.org/dac/gender-development/womenseconomicempowerment.htm

(C.V.4).

32. Question: Under sub-component 4.1 (p. 21), please advise if the existing training materials developed under the USAID/Nepal Business Literacy Program already includes the content for the four modules, and the role of the offeror is primarily to reorganize it into modular course format?

USAID/Nepal Response: See USAID/Nepal Response No. 24. The successful offeror may want or need to update these modules during the course of implementation of the contract. Also please check page 21

(section 4.1) of RFP which reads total number of modules are 5 and not 4 as mentioned in this question.

a. Also, we note that participants are expected to spend 12 hours/week for a year in this course, which represents significant opportunity cost to them in time lost in productive labor – which may pose the greatest hardship to already vulnerable households and thus reduce self-selection into this initiative. May offerors propose shorter durations of these course modules, based on successful prior experience?

USAID/Nepal Response: The offeror is welcome to propose the approach it believes is most useful to meet the stated expected outcomes in accordance with the requirements and instructions of the RFP.

33. Question: Section C.V.6 (pp. 23-24) mentions a variety of mechanisms that the Partnership and

Innovation Fund can use to advance the Project’s objectives, including “Buy down the risk of lead firms looking to establish, expand, strengthen and/or invest in mutually beneficial local supply chains…” Can

USAID confirm that the PIF can use loan guarantees as one of its tools to achieve this?

USAID/Nepal Response: It is up to the offerors to propose mechanisms in its technical proposal that have the greatest chance of successfully achieving the expected outcomes of the project.

Section F

34. Question: Section F.4.4, p.34: The RFP lists 11 cost data collection and reporting parameters. Can

USAID clarify whether it is asking for all activities and interventions to be individually tracked using subcodes of typical project expense codes/cost elements? With hundreds of likely activities, if not more, along with the additional requirement to code at the district level (per page 32 of the RFP), this would entail more than 100,000 varying accounting code, sub-codes, and sub-sub-codes for a program such as KISAN II.

USAID/Nepal Response: This passage has been deleted from the RFP.

35. Question: Section F.8, p.48: The RFP states that “[t]here will be one regional office” in addition to the main office in Kathmandu. Given the geographic scope of the FTF ZOI and travel times required between districts, can offerors propose smaller offices (shared with counterparts or otherwise) for improved efficiency in working with district-based program partners and to limit travel and per diem costs?

USAID/Nepal Response: Offerors should propose an effective and efficient organizational management plan to achieve the expected outcomes of the project.

36. Question: Page 34, F.4.4 #1: Can USAID please provide more information on the ingredients costing method?

USAID/Nepal Response: See USAID/Nepal Response No. 34.

37. Question: Page 39, F.5: Can USAID please confirm that the Short Term Technical Assistance (STTA)

Table can be in an annex?

USAID/Nepal Response: See Section L. This is confirmed.

38. Question: Page 36, F.4.6: USAID states that the Final M&E Plan, which "will include relevant indicators to measure performance annually and at the end of KISAN II, with baselines and targets for each indicator", is "due no later than 60 days after the effective date of this award." Yet according to the RFP, the collection of baseline data by a third party contractor and VDC selection is to take place within four months of the award date. Will USAID consider allowing offerors to submit the Final M&E Plan after baseline survey has been completed, no later than 120 days after the effective date of the award?

USAID/Nepal Response: See Section F.4.6. The draft M&E plan must be submitted within 45 calendar days after award. The targets will be reasonable estimates which can later be revised after the baseline survey is completed.

39. Question: In section F.8 on page 42, the RFP states that the main project office will be located in

Kathmandu and there will be one regional office. Please confirm that offerors can include additional project offices in the field.

USAID/Nepal Response: See USAID/Nepal Response No. 35.

40. Question: Page 39 cites requirement for a “Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Director” while page

101 cites “Monitoring and Evaluation Director;” please confirm the appropriate title for this Key Personnel position is “Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Director.”

USAID/Nepal Response: USAID confirms the title “Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Director”

(L.6.2.4). See the revised RFP.

41. Question Pages 39 – 40, Section F.5.1 lists a Deputy Chief of Party and a Deputy Chief of Party for

Finance. Would USAID consider granting the offeror the flexibility to combine these positions?

USAID/Nepal Response: Please see the requirements stated in Section F.5.1. These are the requirements for the KISAN II program.

Section H

42. Question: Section H.23 states that no prior approval from the Contracting Officer for non-expendable property exceeding $500 will be given prior to award. Would USAID consider any non-expendable property exceeding $500 that is included in an offeror’s cost proposal spreadsheets as approved upon award, with any additional non-expendable property exceeding the threshold post-award still subject to CO approval prior to purchase?

USAID/Nepal Response: Any non-expendable property negotiated and finalized with the value exceeding

$500 will be approved in the award by the Contracting Officer and included in the resultant contract. Any additional non-expendable property exceeding the threshold will be subject to Contracting Officer approval.

43. Question: In Section H.28.xv, USAID includes reference to a standard provision titled “Publications and Media Releases.” Can USAID kindly confirm that the standard provision is now titled “MARKING

AND PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS UNDER USAID-FUNDED ASSISTANCE?”

USAID/Nepal Response: The provision entitled “Publications and Media Releases.” has been revised to read as “MARKING AND PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS UNDER USAID-FUNDED ASSISTANCE”

(H.28.xv).

44. Question: We understand that clauses H.29 and H.30 are flowing from and governed by the policies as provided under AAPD 16-02, and would like to ask USAID to further clarify the applicability of these clauses to contractors, as follows:

a. Page 3 of the AAPD, just above 3. Guidance, says, “M/CIO and M/OAA will initiate formal rule-making procedures immediately to incorporate the revised clause along with the new special contract requirements into the AIDAR.” This language indicates that clauses H.29 and H.30 in the RFP (and other similar

Information Technology clauses as written in the AAPD) are not yet a formal part of the AIDAR. Under standard rulemaking procedures, these clauses would normally be published in the Federal Register, whereby contractors or affected implementers would have the opportunity to assess their impact and cost, digest their applicability, and respond accordingly, and only then the clauses might become applicable to contractors in original or revised form. As far as we know, USAID did not engage in such rule-making procedures, which has had the effect of preventing contractors from discussing with USAID the impact and applicability of these clauses to contractors, or digesting the operational costs of implementing these clauses, all while the clauses themselves appear to carry significant new requirements that could result in major operational costs to contractors. Moreover, the clauses are written so as to bar the contractor from billing USAID for any additional costs associated with their implementation. This concerns us. As a result, we kindly ask USAID to clarify the following Questions:

i. Relying on the definition provided for Information Technology (on Pages 3 and 4 of the AAPD, or

Page 64 of the RFP), on what basis are clauses H.29 and H.30 applicable to contractors?

USAID/Nepal Response: AAPD 16-02 states that “this applies to solicitations and resulting contracts for supplies and/or services that include an IT supplies/services component (including cloud services), or include a requirement that the contractor have access to sensitive information.” The class deviation has been approved by the Agency’s Senior Procurement Executive.

ii. Does USAID plan to engage in formal rulemaking procedures to support its implementation of clauses H.29, H.30, and any other similar IT-related clauses flowing from AAPD?

USAID/Nepal Response: Please speak with USAID in Washington, DC about formal rulemaking procedures.

iii. Does USAID envision that this contract will require the use of any information technology resources consistent with the definition provided under Clause H.29 (a)? If yes, please indicate the type of information technology required, and how USAID envisions its relationship with the contractor will work given the provisions and requirements of Clauses H.29 and H.30.

USAID/Nepal Response: The solicitation is written to include those clauses that may be applicable at the time of award. If the resulting contract does not include the items under definition or stated under the clause’s applicability, it will be removed.

iv. The definition of “Information technology” is provided under H.29 (a) as follows:

“(1) any services or equipment, or interconnected system(s) or subsystem(s) of equipment, that are used in the automatic acquisition, storage, analysis, evaluation, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information by the agency; where;

(2) such services or equipment are used by an agency if used by the agency directly or if used by a contractor under a contract with the agency that requires either use of the services or equipment or requires use of the services or equipment to a significant extent in the performance of a service or the furnishing of a product.

(3) The term “information technology” includes computers, ancillary equipment (including imaging peripherals, input, output, and storage devices necessary for security and surveillance), peripheral equipment designed to be controlled by the central processing unit of a computer, software, firmware and similar procedures, services (including provisioned services such as cloud computing and support services that support any point of the lifecycle of the equipment or services), and related resources.

(4) The term “information technology” does not include any equipment that is acquired by a contractor incidental to a contract that does not require use of the equipment.”

Provided the definition above, in our analysis, both clauses H.29 and H.30 would be applicable to contractors only if the underlined portions of the definition above was true – meaning specifically, only if USAID required and specified the use of particular services and equipment under this contract that would be used in the automatic acquisition, storage, analysis, evaluation, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information by

USAID. Our Question then is - will USAID require the contractor, under this contract, to enlist the use of services or equipment to be used in the automatic acquisition, storage, analysis, evaluation, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information by USAID? If yes, please specify the type of services and/or equipment that would be required for this purpose, and therefore subject to the applicability of this clause? Or, if

USAID finds that the clause is not applicable to contractors, we kindly request the removal of Clauses

H.29 and H.30 from the RFP.

USAID/Nepal Response: Please see responses above. Offerors must propose the program it believes best meets the requirements of the RFP.

45. Question: Regarding the note in H.15 (p. 55) limiting employees of the recipient of grant or cooperative agreement award from being considered for participant training, does this refer to employees of the selected

Contractor, or does it also apply to employees of grantees from the PIF? If the latter is USAID’s interpretation, then it would limit grantees’ or similar beneficiaries’ participation in study tours or regional/international agricultural events of importance, and we respectfully asks USAID to reconsider allowing grantees’ eligibility for participant training.

USAID/Nepal Response: This applies to contractor’s employees, direct grant recipients, or subcontractors of the award.

Section I

46. Question: In reference to Section I.1, Notice Listing Contract Clauses Incorporated by Reference, can

USAID confirm that FAR clause 52.219-4 Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HubZone Small

Business Concerns was included in error?

USAID/Nepal Response: FAR clause 52.219-4 Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HubZone Small

Business Concerns must be included in this RFP.

Section J

47. Question: Page 85, Section J List of Exhibits and Attachments lists SF LLL – Disclosure of Lobbying

Activities. Please confirm this form is required to be submitted only by the prime offeror.

USAID/Nepal Response: This form is to be submitted only by the prime Offeror.

48. Question: Page 121-122, J.2 #6: In the discussion on “Integrating GESI and Women’s Empowerment,”

USAID alludes to a handbook developed in 2009 that can be very useful for conducting market analysis and identifying ways to integrate women into economic opportunities. Can USAID please provide this 2009 resource?

USAID/Nepal Response: Check the following link: http://www.culturalpractice.com/site/wp-content/downloads/4-2009-16.pdf included in section J.2#6.

49. Question: Page 138, J.4.E: USAID notes that KISAN-supported farmers reported “only modest gains of

300kg/HA in rice production,” yet on RFP Page 141, USAID notes that “under the ongoing KISAN project, beneficiaries were able to increase rice yield from a baseline of 3.49 to 4.51 MT/HA.” Can USAID clarify the productivity increase realized by KISAN-assisted rice farmers?

USAID/Nepal Response: The 300 KG/hectre reference was made for six selected districts during a midterm evaluation of the project. The project then made adjustments in its approach which has significantly increased rice yield from a baseline of 3.49 to 4.51 t/ha in the 20 FTF Zone of influence districts. This statement is reflected in section I.E under J.4 of the RFP.

50. Question: Attachment J.5: While we appreciate receiving KISAN’s FY15 Annual Report, could USAID also provide the project’s FY16 Annual Report, so that offerors can base proposals on current information?

http://www.culturalpractice.com/site/wp-content/downloads/4-2009-16.pdf http://www.culturalpractice.com/site/wp-content/downloads/4-2009-16.pdf

USAID/Nepal Response: See USAID/Nepal Response No. 17.

Section L

51. Question: Please Confirm the Evidence of Responsibility should be submitted exclusively by the prime offeror.

USAID/Nepal Response: Evidence of Responsibility is to be submitted only by the prime Offeror (L.7.2.5).

52. Question: a. Please confirm the Certifications and Representations should be submitted exclusively by the prime offeror. Further, the RFP under section L.7.1, page 105 listed copy of certifications and representations as per SAM.gov as one of the cost proposal content. Would USAID clarify if this is required for the SUBs as well? If so, would USAID clarify is it is only for major SUBs or all SUBs?

USAID/Nepal Response: Certification and Representation are for the prime offerors and its proposed subcontractors (L.7.1.7).

b. Would USAID confirm if the annual salary range table provided in the RFP on page 106, under section L.7.2. 11 is for 40 hours/week schedule?

USAID/Nepal Response: Please see the revised RFP. It is for 40 hours/week schedule (L.7.2.11.3).

53. Question: Section L.6, p.98: Section L.6 does not include any information on the format of the technical proposal; are offerors permitted to submit the technical in PDF rather than Word?

USAID/Nepal Response: Technical proposals must be submitted in searchable and editable Word format, unless a required signature or scan in necessary to meet the requirements stated in the RFP. In those instances only, PDF formatting may be necessary (L.6).

54. Question: Section L.6.1 (b), p.98: The RFP states that “[o]fferors must tab annexes.” Since proposals are being electronically submitted and are not being provided in hard copy, how should offerors tab annexes?

USAID/Nepal Response: It is up to offerors to meet the stated requirements of the RFP including tabbing annexes .

55. Question: Section L.6, p98: Are offerors permitted to use a font smaller than 11pt for text boxes, tables, graphs, and/or graphics?

USAID/Nepal Response: Please see Section L.6 of the RFP.

56. Question: Section L.6.1, p98: Can USAID please confirm that a cover letter and acronym list are also among the permitted items that do not count toward the 30 page limit?

USAID/Nepal Response: Confirmed. Acronym pages and cover letter do not count towards the 30 page limit (L.6.1).

57. Question: Section L.6.1, p.98-99: The RFP does not include an org chart either as part of the management and staffing section or as an annex. Would USAID permit the inclusion of an org chart as one of the annexes to the technical proposal?

USAID/Nepal Response: The inclusion of an organizational chart may be submitted as an annex to the

Technical Proposal. See the revised RFP.

58. Question: Section L.6.1 (b), p.98: The RFP lists six annexes and notes that these are not included in the

30-page limit, with additional information on annexes provided on 102-105.

a) Are there any page limits on Annex A (Past Performance, including Small Business Subcontracting

Plan) and/or Annex F (Branding Implementation and Marking Plan)?

USAID/Nepal Response: There are no page limitation for Annex A (Past Performance, including Small

Business Subcontracting Plan) and Annex F (Branding Implementation and Marking Plan) ( L.6.1.b)

b) For Annex B (Curriculum Vitae), the RFP states that “[o]fferors may include a brief annex describing the experience and education of additional personnel.” Should this be provided in the same annex or an additional annex? Is there a page limitation for this information?

USAID/Nepal Response: It should be in the same annex and the page limit should not go beyond the stated four page limitation (L.6.3.b). See the revised RFP.

59. Question: Section L.6.2, p.100: The RFP states that offerors should provide a draft First-Year Work

Plan, but that it is not subject to the 30- or 23-page limitations.

(a) Is there any page limitation on the Work Plan?

USAID/Nepal Response: There is no page limitation but it should be concise.

(b) Should the Work Plan be included in the body of the technical proposal or as a separate annex?

USAID/Nepal Response: The draft work plan should be submitted as an attachment to the Technical

Approach section.

(c) Does USAID have any preferred format for the Work Plan?

USAID/Nepal Response: There is no specific format for the draft work plan.

60. Question: Section L.6.2, p.100: The RFP states that offerors should provide a draft GESI Plan, but that it is not subject to the 30- or 23-page limitations. The RFP also states that the “offeror must submit an original, thoughtful, and succinct narrative – no longer than 2 pages – in an annex describing the ways in which the offeror will incorporate GESI into the performance of this contract, including internal management and staffing, annual work planning, carrying out specific interventions, and monitoring and evaluation.”

a) Question: Is the requested GESI Plan and 2-page narrative one and the same?

USAID/Nepal Response: The GESI Plan and the two page narratives are the same. The offeror must submit an original, thoughtful, and succinct narrative – no longer than 2 pages – in an attachment describing the ways in which the offeror will incorporate GESI into the performance of this contract, including internal management and staffing, annual work planning, carrying out specific interventions, and monitoring and evaluation (L.6.2.3).

b) Question: If not, is there a page limit to the GESI Plan? Should the full GESI Plan be provided in an annex or included within the body of the technical proposal?

USAID/Nepal Response: See USAID/Nepal Response No. 60(a).

c) Question: Which annex(es) should the Plan and/or narrative be provided since there appear to be no relevant authorized annexes listed on pages 98-99?

USAID/Nepal Response: The GESI Plan should be an attachment to the Technical Approach and is not listed as a formal, separate annex.

d) Question; Can USAID please confirm the location for the Work Plan and the GESI Plan referenced on page 100, Section L.6.2.3 of the RPF?

USAID/Nepal Response: See USAID/Nepal Response No. 60(a) and (c).

61. Question: Section L.6.2, p.101: The RFP states “offeror must present a draft M&E Plan” and provides information on what the plan must include. The RFP does not state that the plan is excluded from the page limits of this section (Management and Staffing Plan – “maximum 5 pages”).

a) Question: Given the level of information being requested for the M&E Plan, and the limited number of pages in this section that must also address the offeror’s management and staffing plan, did

USAID intend to not exclude it from the 30-, 23- and 5-page limitations?

USAID/Nepal Response: The draft M&E plan may be submitted as an attachment to the offeror’s

Management and Staff Plan and will not be counted against the page limit.

b) Question: If USAID does exclude it from these page limitations, is there a specific page limitation for this M&E Plan? And, should the M&E Plan be included in the body of the technical proposal or as a separate annex?

USAID/Nepal Response: See USAID/Nepal Response No. 61(a).

c) Given the volume of information required for the M&E plan, would USAID be willing to extend the page allocation for the Management and Staffing section to a 10 page limit which would allow for a comprehensive M&E plan and sufficient pages being allocated to staffing including an Org Chart

(page 101, Section L.6.2.4 of the RFP)?

USAID/Nepal Response: See USAID/Nepal Response No. 57 and 61(a).

62. Question: Section L.6.3.a, p.103: Annex A’s description of the Performance in Using Small Business

Concerns section states that “offerors are also to complete USAID’s subcontracting plan template and small business participation plan template.” Given that both of these contain budget information, should they be included in the cost proposal rather than the technical proposal?

USAID/Nepal Response: It is to be included in the Technical Proposal.

63. Question: Section L.6.2, p.102, and L.6.3.a, p.103: The RFP asks for a description of quality awards and certifications in both the institutional capacity section of the technical body and the past performance annex. Would USAID permit offerors to include this information in the annex only?

USAID/Nepal Response: The description of quality awards and certifications for institutional capacity and past performance must be presented as described in the RFP.

64. Question: May the offeror include a transmittal letter that does not count against the 30-page limit?

USAID/Nepal Response: Offeros may include transmittal letters which will not counted towards the 30 page limitations.

65. Question: Page 102, Section L.6.3.a states that “The offeror must provide past performance information for itself and each major subcontractor (one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost)”. May the offeror provide past performance information for subcontractors whose costs do not exceed 20%?

USAID/Nepal Response: Please abide by what is requested in the RFP under section Past Performance (

M. 3.4): (a) which states that “The offeror must provide past performance information for itself and each major subcontractor (one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost).”

66. Question: Page 100, L.6.2 #3: In the section providing instructions to offerors on technical approach development, USAID notes that “the approach should demonstrate an understanding of implementation principles outlines in Section C of the RFP…” Can USAID clarify which area of Section C includes these implementation principles?

USAID/Nepal Response: See section C in its entirety and the guiding principles for market systems implementation as described in section J.3 of the RFP.

67. Question: Page 100, Section L.6.2 #3: Can USAID please confirm that we can place the First Year

Work Plan in an annex?

USAID/Nepal Response: The first year work plan and the GESI plan are to be submitted as an attachment to the offeror’s Technical Approach. See USAID/Nepal Response No. 60(a) and (c)

68. Question: Page 100, L.6.2 #3: In the section providing instructions to offerors on First Year Work

Plan development, USAID notes that the offeror “should provide a draft First Year Work Plan of proposed interventions, timetable, and methodology for carrying out the proposed interventions in the proposed technical approach…” Can USAID please confirm that we can put this information in a table?

USAID/Nepal Response: The work plan, as required in the 3rd paragraph in page 100 of the RFP, must be able to “...translate the prospective offeror’s approach to field level implementation using best practices in facilitation and market systems development. The Draft First-Year Work Plan must include collaborative learning and adaptation, coordination and layering with other FTF activities, including, joint work plans, joint implementation, and shared indicators with other FTF activities to support KISAN II’s purpose and outcomes. The draft First-Year Work Plan must also outline a plan for regular engagement, coordination and collaboration with Ministry of Agricultural Development (MOAD).” It is up to the offeror how to present this information within the limitations set forth in this RFP.

69. Question: Page 101, L.6.2.4, Paragraph 2: Can USAID please confirm that a Level of Effort (LOE)

Table is sufficient to show the “estimated amount of time each staff member will devote to completing tasks under this activity”? If so, can we put this LOE Table in an annex?

USAID/Nepal Response: It is up to the offeror how they wish to describe each staff member’s role and estimated amount of time devoted to completing tasks under this activity within the limitations as indicated in section L.6.2.4 in page 101 of the RFP.

70. Question: Page 101-102, Section L.6.2 #4: The requirements for the Management and Staffing Plan chapter include an M&E Plan and a staffing plan. Can USAID please confirm that we can put the M&E

Plan and staffing plan in an annex? If not, can the requirements for the chapter be lessened or could we be given more space for this chapter?

USAID/Nepal Response: See USAID/Nepal Response No.57 and 61.

71. Question: On page 100 of the RFP, USAID states that the First Year Work Plan and Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Action Plan are not included in the 30-page limitation or 23 max page limit for the

Technical Approach. Please confirm that offerors should submit these sections as separate annexes.

USAID/Nepal Response: See USAID/Nepal Response No. 59.

72. Question: On page 101 of the RFP, under the Management and Staffing Plan, USAID requires the offeror to submit a draft M&E Plan. Please confirm that the M&E Plan does not count against the 5-page maximum for the Management and Staffing Plan, and that the M&E Plan can be submitted as a separate annex.

USAID/Nepal Response: See USAID/Nepal Response No. 57 and 61.

73. Question: On page 102, the RFP requires offerors to include up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts that have been performed in the last three years of similar magnitude and complexity.

Please confirm that offerors can also submit recent and relevant cooperative agreements with substantial involvement as well as contracts.

USAID/Nepal Response: Offerors may submit cooperative agreements of similar size and magnitude provided that it cannot provide the information requested in section L.6.3(a). See the revised RFP.

74. Question: On page 103 of the RFP, USAID states that offerors must complete USAID’s subcontracting plan and small business participation plan templates. Please confirm that offerors should submit these sections as annexes.

USAID/Nepal Response: Offerors must submit subcontracting plan and small business participation plan templates as annexes (L.6.3).

75. Question: Under section L.6.3 c and d (Letters of commitment from Key Personnel and

Subcontractors), the RFP states that offerors must submit signed non-exclusive statements for each proposed individual and subcontractor/partner. Please confirm that the non-exclusive requirement only applies to local key personnel/staff and subcontractors.

USAID/Nepal Response: It applies to individuals proposed as Key Personnel and organizations proposed as subcontractors (L.6.3.c and L.6.3.d).

76. Question: Page 106, Section L.7.2 states, “Budget Spreadsheets. Offerors must submit a summary budget using the Excel file for the prime and each major subcontractor. For each summary budget, the offeror and each subcontractor must develop and submit its budget breakdown details for each of the proposed budget summary line items.” Please confirm that budget spreadsheets are required only for the prime and major subcontractors.

USAID/Nepal Response: Section L.7.2 states that “Offerors must submit a summary budget using the

Excel file for the prime and each major subcontractor. For each summary budget, the offeror and each subcontractor must develop and submit its budget breakdown details for each of the proposed budget summary line items.”

77. Question: Would USAID consider allowing graphics, charts, and tables to not count against the 30-page technical proposal page limit?

USAID/Nepal Response: Graphics, charts and tables will be counted against the page limit unless otherwise stated.

78. Question: Several other annexes are listed elsewhere in the RFP. Could the following annexes be added to the list of authorized annexes?

G. Experience and Education of additional [non-key] personnel

H. Organizational Chart

I. First Year Work Plan

J. Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) Action Plan

K. M&E Plan

L. Graphics

USAID/Nepal Response: See USAID/Nepal Responses No. 57, 59 and 61.

79. Question: In reference to Section L.7.2.4. (ii), Per PROCUREMENT EXECUTIVE’S BULLETIN

NO. 2015-02, would Offerors be allowed to submit reviewed financial statements on behalf of a small-business subcontractor or partner in lieu of audited balance sheets or a current NICRA?

USAID/Nepal Response: Offerors will be allowed to submit reviewed financial statements on behalf of a small-business subcontractor or partner in lieu of audited balance sheets or a current NICRA.

80. Question: L.6.2.4 Management and Staffing Plan (page 101) states that the management approach must “specify the compositions and organizational structure of the activity team.” Please confirm that offerors may include an organizational chart in an annex to the Technical Proposal.

USAID/Nepal Response: See USAID/Nepal Response No. 57.

81. Question: L.6.2.4 Management and Staffing Plan (page 102) states that the proposed staffing structure should include “proposed roles, responsibilities …of the key personnel, field-based non-key personnel, sub-contractors…and home office support personnel.” This section also states that “the offeror must propose a mix of short- and long-term expertise…including their role, technical expertise, and estimated amount of time to be devoted to the activity.”

To ensure a comprehensive overview of the roles, responsibilities, and technical expertise of all field-based non-key personnel, please confirm that offerors should include this information in the “brief annex describing the experience and education of additional personnel” referenced in L.6.3.b Curriculum Vitae

(page 103).

USAID/Nepal Response: It is up to offerors to decide how to use the allotted page limitations to meet the requirements of this RFP. Additionally, please see USAID/Nepal Response No. 57, 59 and 61.

82. Question: L.6.3.a Annexes (page 103) states that “offerors are also to complete USAID’s subcontracting plan template and small business participation plan template.” Please confirm whether the subcontracting plan and small business participation plan should appear as an annex to the Technical

Proposal or Cost Proposal.

USAID/Nepal Response: It should be included as an annex to the Technical Proposal.

83. Question: L.6.3.b Curriculum Vitae (page 103) states that “offerors may include a brief annex describing the experience and education of additional personnel.” However, this annex is not listed in

L.6.1.b Annexes (page 98-99). Please confirm that offerors may include an additional staffing annex to…