RFP.IDIQ.NCRP.SOL-367-17-000003.Amend.03.pdf

SOL-367-17-000003

Amendment 03

The solicitation is hereby amended as follows:

1. The Closing Date to receive Proposals has been extended. The new Closing Date is May 8, 2017 at

9:00 AM Nepal time.

2. Changes have been made to Section L.6 Instructions for Preparation of the Response to Eligibility Criteria. Accordingly, DELETE Section L.6 its entirety and REPLACE with the following:

L.6 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF THE RESPONSE TO ELIGIBILITY

CRITERIA

1. The Response to Eligibility Criteria is limited to two (2) pages. Attachments are excluded from this page limit. Information submitted over two (2) pages will not be evaluated. This page limit does not count against the page limit specified for the Technical Proposal.

2. Offerors must use 8.5 by 11 inch (210 mm by 297 mm) paper, single spaced, Times New

Roman 11 point font, and have margins no less than one inch on the top, bottom, and both sides. Number each page consecutively, including the pages in attachments.

Attachments and section headers may use a font and size other than Times New Roman, size 11 point, as long as they are legible without magnification. Pages larger than 8.5 by 11 inch are allowed for attachments only.

3. The Response to Eligibility Criteria document must be entirely separate from the Price Proposal and it must not include cost or price information.

4. The Response to Eligibility Criteria document must respond to all eligibility requirements described below. All critical information in attachments must be referenced in the Response to Eligibility Criteria document. A page in the Response to Eligibility Criteria document that contains a table, chart, etc. not indicated as an allowable attachment below is included within the stated page limitation for the Response to Eligibility Criteria.

5. The Response to Eligibility Criteria document must contain the following submission requirements and be organized in the following manner:

Section Eligibility Criteria Eligibility Requirement Submission Requirement A Financial Capacity

Evidence of Financial Capacity

The Offeror must show financial capacity to manage TOs anticipated under this award by meeting at least three of the four requirements for each Fiscal Year End indicated in the form as follows:

(a) Current Ratio: minimum of 2

(b) Acid Test Ratio: minimum of 2

(c) Defensive Interval: minimum

In attachment: Complete and submit the excel sheet provided in Attachment J.10 to this solicitation entitled “Eligibility Criteria Financial Capacity”.

Instructions for completion of the excel sheet are provided in the document.

The Offeror must not alter, of 6 months

(d) Working Capital Turnover:

minimum of 6 months hide, or lock any cells, except as indicated in the instructions to Offeror.

B Relevant Experience Evidence of

Relevant Project Experience

The Offeror must show evidence of a minimum of five (5) construction projects, active or completed, within the last seven

(7) years, each with a contract value exceeding US$ 1 Million.

The projects must be/have been in countries with similar contexts to Nepal (similar contexts such as geographic location, topography, climate, culture, construction materials, and practices).

In attachment: Provide a list of at least five (5) construction contracts meeting the minimum eligibility requirement with the following information:

• Contract name

• Contract value

• Place of performance

• Period of performance

• Client’s point of contact and contact information

3. The following answers to questions posed by potential offerors at the Pre-Proposal Conference held on March 24, 2017 in Kathmandu, Nepal will serve as the notes for the conference. The questions and answers are as follows:

Question No. 1: I have a question on taxes. VAT, GST, service taxes, they are applicable, or not? I think nowhere it is mentioned whether the contractor will have to pay VAT or service taxes to the local government. In the cost proposal do you want the contractor to include a line item for the taxes?

USAID Response: All USAID assistance funds are tax exempt. USAID is currently following a process of issuing Implementation Letters (ILs) co-signed by the Ministry of Finance (MOF) and USAID Implementing Partners are using the ILs to request for tax reimbursements. In Nepal, the general practice has been that the contractor pays the VAT tax (and/or other duties) and then requests for reimbursement of taxes from the Government of Nepal (GON). USAID provides a cover letter as necessary. See also Section H.9 of the RFP.

Question No. 2: As I understood from one of your responses to the questions the stated small business format is illustrative. It identifies specific US small business categories, woman-owned business, service-disabled, etc. If small business participation is open to geographic code 935, what are the criteria for achieving small business status and where can that criteria be found?

USAID Response: The small business format is not illustrative, it is a template. Attachment J.8

Subcontracting Plan Template is the format offerors should use to report small business subcontracting plans. A Small Business Concern is defined in FAR 19.001. More information about US small businesses can be found on the Small Business Administration website at www.sba.gov.

Question No. 3: In the RFP there's mention made of the Country Development Cooperation Strategy and the Intermediate Results that come under it. Where might it be possible to see or get familiar with this strategy?

USAID Response: The Nepal Country Development Cooperation Strategy 2014-2018 can be accessed at the following web address: https://www.usaid.gov/nepal/cdcs.

Question No. 4: Regarding the SAM and DUNS requirement for the JV – in relation to question 35 (Amendment 2), if the SAM and DUNS is acquired for the newly formed JV, do the local Nepali firms who are members of the JV need a SAM and DUNS?

USAID Response: See Section L.8.8 of the RFP - Offerors and their proposed subcontractors must be registered in the System for Award Management (www.sam.gov).

Question No. 5: Regarding past performance requirement. If we have the similar experience kind of work experience in Afghanistan is it considered a similar geographical location? The section isn’t clear. It is very general. It says similar climate, or similar geographical locations, etc., but it is not specific.

USAID Response: See Section L.7.13.a of the RFP. The offeror must justify the similarity it would like to highlight of their own experience.

Question No. 6: The materials the contractor is required to use are mostly local materials. The rebar, the reinforcement steel, one place it mentions use Himal steel. And the specifications states ASTM A 615.

To our understanding or knowledge, the local steel, the Himal steel doesn’t meet these requirements.

Which one are we to follow? Is it local steel, or ASTM A 615?

USAID Response: Each Task Order (TO) will specify required design specifications.

Question No. 7: If awarded a Task Order, the contractor has to follow the Defense Base Act to get the insurance from a recognized U.S.-based insurance carrier. For Nepalis, we don’t have U.S. dollars. Will USAID give us money to pay for the U.S. insurance carrier? If we do manage with the help of the Nepal Rastra bank of the central government to pay U.S. carrier, then is that amount reimbursable to the contractor or am I supposed to pay that out of overhead?

USAID Response: DBA insurance is an allowable cost and should be built into the cost of any budget submitted in response to a Request for Task Order Proposals (RFTOP).

Question No. 8: What about the performance bond? Is a performance bond issued by a bank in Nepal acceptable to you or do we have to give the bond in U.S. dollars? Because our banks only go directly from U.S. dollars into Nepali rupees.

USAID Response: See Section F.6.1.(a) for Performance Bond requirements. The bond (or other bank guarantee) may be in Nepali Rupees or US Dollars.

Question No. 9: The way you will evaluate task orders. Given that this contract was designed in order to prevent bad construction habits and ensure high quality products that will withstand future earthquakes, http://www.sam.govp/ will USAID consider using best value as an option for evaluating these task orders? My question is more on how are you going to evaluate those task orders. Is it just price? There’s lowest price-technically acceptable, purely price, there are different ways. I wanted a little clarity on what you will use to ensure firms perform under the task order.

USAID response: See Section F.6.1.(c). TOs will be awarded in accordance with FAR Part 16.505, FAR Part 36.2, and FAR Part 14.

Question No. 10: For bonding. To follow up on the bonding. For bonds, they will have to be U.S.

bonding company? And two, will a bank letter of guarantee or a portfolio line of credit also be allowed?

USAID Response: See response to Question #8.

Question No. 11: Can we provide the bonding from the U.S.?

USAID Response: Yes.

Question No. 12: For clarification – Nepalese banks, other banking institution in Europe, if they are providing bank letters of guarantee in U.S. dollars will they be acceptable?

USAID Response: Yes.

Question No. 13: What is the magnitude of expected task orders?

USAID Response: Task Orders will range from $300,000 to $30 million.

Question No. 14: Is it mandatory for a foreign company to have local license or can they use the subcontractors’ license? USAID doesn’t have any requirement on that?

USAID Response: The Offeror is required to comply with all relevant laws and regulations of the Government of Nepal, including, but not limited to, foreign company registration. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to identify and meet all requirements.

Question No. 15: I would just like to ask – with the Q&A period still open, that’s shortening the window for preparation for this proposal and many of these questions are really critical for whether many of these firms will bid, I would encourage you to consideration an extension for at least two weeks for this proposal.

USAID Response: The closing date to receive proposals has been extended. See new due date contained in this amendment.

Question No. 16: As it is mentioned the contract is an indefinite quantity and delivery –so is there any minimum volume of the bid? For example if we are an NGO and construction is not our core area, but we do the construction work. If we need some support, is it possible to make these complementary projects.

USAID Response: Under this solicitation USAID is anticipating award of multiple Firm-Fixed-Price TOs to eligible firms for construction. No complementary or non-construction TOs are anticipated.

4. Answers to Questions posed by Offerors for Round Two (questions received after March 20, 2017 at

9:00 am through March 31, 2017 at 9:00 am) are as follows:

Question No. 1: Regarding Financial Capacity Eligibility: In the case of two or more firms establishing a Joint Venture for the purpose of pursuing this solicitation, how is the Joint Venture expected to calculate the JV financial capacity? Does each partner complete the Attachment J.10, and the average of the numbers must meet or exceed the eligibility requirements?

USAID Response: In case of a Joint Venture, the financial capacity must be calculated based on the JV proportionate interests of the members of the Joint Venture.

Question No. 2: We are national development NGO-Rural Reconstruction Nepal (RRN). The nature of works - public infrastructures reconstruction - is directly relevant to us as we have been working for community based re/construction and rehabilitation activities (small and medium infrastructures) including social mobilization for aiming to increase resiliency of communities in diversified sectors-health, education, livelihood and self-government in Nepal since its inception (last 2 and half decade).

However, RFP some more extent focuses the private contractors. Can we apply solely or better to make a joint venture or consortium or sub-contractors with engineering construction companies? We do have many engineers, working experiences, specialized experiences and management of infrastructure construction works.

USAID Response: The Offeror must determine their partnership arrangements.

Question No. 3: Will a US and Nepali JV formed in the US be exempted from the Permanent Establishment regulations in Nepal?

USAID Response: The Offeror must abide by all relevant laws and regulations of the Government of Nepal to perform the activities specified in this solicitation.

Question No. 4: My company awarded the US Army GOCO, Fuel Distribution and Maintenance Service in USF Korea. I researched the FEDBIZ OPPS, and found the below Solicitation today.

I am very interesting this opening Solicitation however may I have questions as follows:

i. My primary contractor company has experienced the construction project, and excellent capability of construction.

ii. we propose this Solicitation?

iii. If you have any information please let me know.

USAID Response: All offerors meeting the requirements of this solicitation are eligible to submit a proposal.

Question No. 5: Section L.6 - Eligibility Criteria: Kindly confirm that Attachment J.10 and list of 5 construction contracts shall not be counted in the page limitation (2 pages) of this section

USAID Response: Confirmed.

Question No. 6: Section L.6 - Eligibility Criteria: Should we submit Attachment J.10 as excel (.xls) format file or can it be converted in to PDF?

USAID Response: The file must be submitted in Excel format.

Question No. 7: Section L.6 - Eligibility Criteria: List of (5) construction contracts - Is it enough for the offeror to submit only the list of 5 Projects with contract name, value, place of performance, period of performance and Client POC details? Or should we provide additional details about scope of works and relevancy of those Projects in this section?

USAID Response: The list required per Section L.6.5 must provide only the information requested. The Response to Eligibility Criteria document must contain the offeror’s response to this criterion.

Question No. 8: Section L.6 - Eligibility Criteria: List of (5) construction contracts -Similar Project Experience - Will the projects performed in Afghanistan (similar kind of construction Projects) be considered as similar contexts to NEPAL? Since the offeror is not sure whether AFGHANISTAN will be considered as SIMILAR CONTEXT TO NEPAL in terms of geographic location, topography, climate & culture. As stated in section L.4 of the RFP, we seek your kind clarification.

USAID Response: The Offeror must justify the similarity it chooses to highlight of their experience.

Question No. 9: Section L.6 - Eligibility Criteria: List of (5) construction contracts - Will there be any difference in ratings for the foreign projects when compared to a NEPAL Project? please assume the scope and contexts are similar.

USAID Response: See response to question #8, above.

Question No. 10: L.7.Technical Proposal: Will the resumes of the key personnel, letter of commitments, letter of references, & CPARS be considered as part of the page limitation of this section?

USAID Response: No. Note that presentation of such supporting information must be provided in attachment and must be referenced within the main body of the proposal.

Question No. 11: L.7. Technical Proposal: Cover Page- item (g) - Does the offeror need to submit the DUNS and TIN of the subcontractors in the cover page? Please clarify. Further most of our local subcontractors do not have DUNS. Is it mandatory to engage only the Subcontractors who has DUNS and Federal TIN?

USAID Response: The Cover Page must list the DUNS and TINs of all proposed subcontractors. All proposed subcontractors must have a DUNS at the time of proposal submission.

Question No. 12: L.7.Z(i).Technical Proposal: - Factor 1- Organizational Capacity 1) If the offeror uses the locally available Labor Subcontractors to carry out the self-performance portion of the work (60% of the Task Order Value) will it be acceptable by the Client? Or it must be carried out by the in-house labor resources only (labors on company payroll)?

ii) What are all the criteria’s for the Government to accept the work carried out by the Contractors as Self-performance?

iii) What is the acceptance criteria for the laborers to be considered as in-house resources?

USAID Response: The Offeror (prime contractor) must demonstrate that they possess the capability to perform 60% of the anticipated Task Order scopes of work. Examples of satisfactory demonstration of self-performance would include a contractor using its own direct hire or directly managed labor, and owned or leased equipment to directly accomplish work exceeding 60% of the total task order price (taking into consideration actual costs, plus associated direct management and overhead costs, and profit).

Question No. 13: L.7.Technical Proposal - Factor 1- Organizational Capacity: Reference to the RFP statement ' Any equipment listed as new or used must be owned by the Offeror', please clarify the below.

USAID Response: The statement in the RFP “Any equipment listed as new or used must be owned by the Offeror.” is clear. There is no ambiguity in this sentence.

Question No. 14: Is it not allowed for a foreign contractor to have a teaming agreement with the local equipment supplier on the supply of required equipment for the performance of NCRP IDIQ?

USAID Response: The Offeror is expected to propose all teaming arrangements that meet relevant solicitation requirements. Any teaming arrangements must be described in the technical proposal.

Question No. 15: L.7.Technical Proposal - Factor 2- Management Approach- Sub-Factor 3- Key Personnel. Is it acceptable, if the offeror recruits the new IDIQ Program manager and gets the letter of commitment to serve for the proposed IDIQ Program?

USAID Response: The IDIQ Program Manager must be proposed in accordance with Section L.7.11.(c).

Question No. 16: L.7.Technical Proposal - Factor 3- Technical Understanding & Approach- Sub-Factor 1- Utilize Local Expertise & Subcontractors: This section advises the Prime Contractor to maximize the use of local expertise throughout the Project and approach to engage the subcontractors and suppliers, whereas the Factor 1 is advising the Prime Contractor to perform 60% of the work which is minimizing the usage of local expertise, subcontractors and suppliers. Hence please clarify the requirement on Self- Performance.

USAID Response: The self-performance requirement remains as stated in the RFP. USAID will give appropriate consideration for teaming arrangements that offer the Government the best combination of performance, cost, and delivery.

Question No. 17: L.7.Technical Proposal - Factor 3- Technical Understanding & Approach- Sub-Factor 2- Task Order Personnel: If the offeror recruits the local resources, those meeting the education and experience requirements stated in this section, and submits the letter of commitment , will it suffice the requirement of this RFP section? Or the we must submit only the candidates who have been working with us currently since long time?

USAID Response: See section L.7.12.b, which states the requirements.

Question No. 18: L.7.Technical Proposal - Factor 4- Past Performance - section a Reference to "…must provide performance information for itself, the contractor teaming arrangements if any …" , please clarify the below. What kind of teaming arrangement the Government intends to refer here? Is it the JV teaming arrangement or is it an arrangement other than JV and Subcontractor?

USAID Response: The Offeror must present teaming arrangements (if any) meeting solicitation requirements. This could include Joint Ventures and/or subcontracting arrangements.

Question No. 19: L.7.Technical Proposal - Factor 4- Past Performance Is it 5 relevant contract details requested in this section for the same Projects explained in Factor 1 - Sub Factor 2? Or the offeror is free to use any other set of Projects information in this section?

USAID Response: The offeror may use the same or different references, as determined by the offeror, as long as they meet the requirements described in each section.

Question No. 20: L.7.Technical Proposal - Factor 4- Past Performance Kindly confirm that only the Past Performance Summary is counted in the total page limit of this section and all the other details required under this section shall be excluded from the page limitation.

USAID Response: Confirmed. However, any supporting details must be provided as attachments to the Technical Proposal.

Question No. 21: L.7.Technical Proposal - Factor 4- Past Performance- Section (d) Is mandatory to engage the Small Business (SB) concerns as a Subcontractor under this IDIQ Program?

USAID Response: There are no small business subcontracting requirements under this IDIQ.

Question No. 22: L.8.Price Proposal - Section 7 - Price Narrative: The rate analysis should be submitted in the Price narrative section as part of the MS Word or PDF submission or should it be submitted as part of the MS Excel -Price Detail?

USAID Response: The rate analysis requirement was removed in Amendment No. 2 to this solicitation.

Question No. 23: L.8.Price Proposal - Section 10 - Information Concerning Work-Day, WorkvWeek, and Paid Absences: Please confirm that the Information Concerning Work-Day, Work Week, and Paid

Absences must be provided for all potential subcontractors for the purpose of this procurement (at IDIQ or TO level)? Given that this information is requested in order to “fix” the practice for duration of the IDIQ, should only the Offeror’s information be submitted and not all potential subcontractors, since the subcontractor shall vary project to project according to the TO requirement?

USAID Response: Confirmed; this information must be submitted for the offeror and all proposed subcontractors.

Question No. 24: L.8.Price Proposal - Section 13 - Evidence of Responsibility should the offeror submit all the details requested in item a -g of FAR 9.104-1? Most of these requirements are already covered in Technical Factor, hence please advise on the list of requirements to be described/attached in this section.

USAID Response: Yes. The offeror must submit all of the requested information described in Section L.8.13 as part of the Price Proposal. These submission instructions are not to be confused with information submitted in response to the Technical Proposal.

Question No .25: L.8.Price Proposal - Section 16-Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Attachment J-9 cannot be opened, please provide the openable file. Further, please clarify , if the offeror has never involved in any of the lobbying activities, still the Attachment J-9 to be signed by the offeror?

USAID Response: This file has been checked and it can be opened. This Disclosure of Lobbying Activities form must be completed by all offerors.

Question No. 26: Section C: Is it mandatory for the offeror to submit the Local Nepal license during the proposal stage?

USAID Response: No.

Question No. 27: RFTOP-Drawing, BOQ & Specification Can you please provide the details of the roof and wall insulation?

USAID Response: This information is not necessary. For the illustrative TO, offerors are to provide prices only for the items listed in Attachment J.5 Illustrative Task Order Bill of Quantity for 5R Block School. The offeror may note any missing or recommended items to the BOQ in a separate sheet.

Question No. 28: RFTOP-Drawing, The drawing shows masonry wall till sill level. Hence above sill till the roof level, will the partitions will be Cement Board?

USAID Response: This information is not necessary. For the illustrative TO, offerors are to provide prices only for the items listed in Attachment J.5 Illustrative Task Order Bill of Quantity for 5R Block School. The offeror may note any missing or recommended items to the BOQ in a separate sheet.

Question No. 29: RFTOP-Drawing: What is the reflected ceiling finish? Should it be added in the BOQ?

USAID Response: This information is not necessary. For the illustrative TO, offerors are to provide prices only for the items listed in Attachment J.5 Illustrative Task Order Bill of Quantity for 5R Block School. The offeror may note any missing or recommended items to the BOQ in a separate sheet.

Question No. 30: Eligibility Requirements The company registered in Dubai will be eligible to submit the proposal?

USAID Response: The Geographic code for this solicitation is 935. Any offeror which fits this geographic code may submit a proposal.

Question No. 31: P70, Section L.6.5 – Evidence of Financial Capacity – Current Ratio. The current ratio measures a company’s short-term liquidity. According to the Construction Financial Management Association (CFMA), a current ratio of 1.0 is considered a liquid position for a typical construction company, since current assets can clearly cover current liabilities (https://secureii.com/cfma/reporting/RatiosandDefinitions.aspx?p=2). A current ratio more than 1.5 may be a negative indicator, suggesting the company may be retaining excessive cash instead of deploying it in the marketplace. More importantly, requiring a high current ratio could eliminate many otherwise well-qualified and liquid firms from participating in this opportunity. We respectfully request that the US Government re-assess its position on this ratio and reduces it to a minimum of 1.2, which exceeds construction industry standards and will attract greater competition among well run firms of all sizes.

USAID Response: The requirements have been revised. Please see revised Eligibility Criteria requirements contained in this amendment.

Question No. 32: P70, Section L.6.5 – Evidence of Financial Capacity – Acid Test Ratio. The acid test ratio measures medium-term (one-year) liquidity. According to the CFMA, an acid-test ratio of 1.0 is generally considered a liquid position. In an analysis published by The Economist, the average acid test ratio for hundreds of construction companies in the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, was 1.1 (Bob Vause, A Guide to Analyzing Companies, Fifth Edition, The Economist in association of Profile Books Limited, 2009). Requiring a high acid test ratio could eliminate many otherwise well-qualified firms from competing for this contract. We respectfully request that the US Government re-assess its position on this ratio and reduces it to a minimum of 1.1, which exceeds construction industry standards and will attract more competition for this contract from well-run firms of all sizes.

USAID Response: The requirements have been revised. Please see revised Eligibility Criteria requirements contained in this amendment.

Question No. 33: P70, Section L.6.5 – Evidence of Financial Capacity – Defensive Interval. The defensive interval is another indicator of liquidity. It is perhaps a bit less useful for companies whose clients are sovereign governments, and especially so for companies that have delivered construction, engineering, and technical assistance services to these clients consistently for decades. For these types of companies that have a demonstrated history of routine replenishment of cash, a defensive ratio of 3-4 months is generally considered desirable. In an analysis published by The Economist, the average defensive interval for hundreds of construction companies in the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, and the https://secureii.com/cfma/reporting/RatiosandDefinitions.aspx?p=2

Netherlands, was 3.45 months (Bob Vause, A Guide to Analyzing Companies, Fifth Edition, The Economist in association of Profile Books Limited, 2009). A defensive interval of 6 months seems excessive for purposes of liquidity and could significantly limit competition for this contract from otherwise well-qualified companies. We respectfully request that the US Government re-assess its position and reduces the Defensive Interval to 3 months, which is consistent with construction industry standards and will create more competition from well-qualified firms of all sizes.

USAID Response: The requirements have been revised. Please see revised Eligibility Criteria requirements contained in this amendment.

Question No. 34: P70, Section L.6.5 – Evidence of Financial Capacity – Working Capital Turnover. The Working capital turnover indicates the amount of revenue generated by each dollar of working capital.

The higher the ratio, the more efficient a company is in using working capital to generate revenue.

However, a very high working capital turnover (ratios approaching 20) may indicate a business does not have enough capital to support its revenue growth. Norms for working capital turnover in the general construction industry are in the range 5.0 to 6.0. In a 2016 benchmarking analysis of 89 US civil construction contractors, working capital ratios ranged from 4.2 to 8.3 with an average of 5.4 (http://www.claconnect.com/-/media/files/tools/2016-civil-construction-benchmark-report.pdf?la=en). A Working Capital Turnover of 6 months is on the high end of its standard range for the construction industry and could significantly limit competition for this contract from otherwise well-qualified firms.

We respectfully request that the US Government re-assess its position and reduces the Working Capital Turnover to 5 months, which meets construction industry standards and will create more competition from well-qualified companies of all sizes.

USAID Response: The requirements have been revised. Please see revised Eligibility Criteria requirements contained in this amendment.

Question No. 35: P70, Section L.6.5 – Evidence of Financial Capacity. Setting realistic norms for financial ratios for construction companies enables the US Government to balance its need for financial performance against its objective of competitive pricing and high-quality delivery. There is considerable redundancy in the requirement that companies meet 12 tests of liquidity – four ratios in each of three years – and tends to penalize companies that leverage to grow their businesses so that they can provide higher-quality, more responsive services to their US Government clients. We respectfully request that USAID allow a 70% passing rate among these 12 tests, rather than 100%, as long that one test does not fail for every year nor all tests will fail in one year. This should provide the US Government ample protection and at the same time not penalize companies that leverage to grow and expand their business.

USAID Response: The requirements have been revised. Please see revised Eligibility Criteria requirements contained in this amendment.

Question No. 36: P68, Section L.6.5 – Evidence of Financial Capacity. If a joint Venture is submitting a proposal, does each member firm of this joint venture must individually pass the financial capacity criteria or do the combined firms must pass these tests by adding both of their assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses, etc…?

http://www.claconnect.com/-/media/files/tools/2016-civil-construction-benchmark-report.pdf?la=en

USAID Response: In case of a Joint Venture, the financial capacity must be calculated based on the JV proportionate interests of the members of the Joint Venture.

Question No. 37: P68, Section L.6.5 – Evidence of Financial Capacity. Will a small business need to meet the same financial tests as a large business?

USAID Response: Yes.

Question No. 38: Attachment J.1 Section C.5. It is stated that “.......to construct eight (8) fully operational school facilities............”. Is the Government expecting (1) to receive a BOQ and associated unit rates for each of the 8 schools and then summing the total price for all schools or is the government expecting (2) to receive one BOQ with one unit rate per line items then the offeror will multiply these line items by 8 to reach the total cost? It seems that Option 1 is the more logical approach as there might be slight variation in unit costs especially related to transportation and availability of resources at each school location.

USAID Response: For the Illustrative TO, 8 similar 5-room school blocks must be constructed in 8 different locations. Offers are required to use the same quantities for each school. However, the Offerors may provide different rates for each school location. The total amount of the price proposal will be the total cost for the construction of these 8 schools.

Question No. 39: Attachment J.1. Please confirm that for this illustrative task order, the offeror can assume that all required materials can be purchased in Nepal and there is no need to ship materials from outside Nepal?

USAID Response: Confirmed.

Question No. 40: Attachment J.5 - “Summary BOQ of all Modules of 5-Rooms-Block” and “BOQ & Cost of 5-Rooms-Block (Item-wise)”. When we add the quantities in the spreadsheet for the “Summary BOQ of all Modules of 5-Rooms-Block” (bottom of spreadsheet), they are different from the quantities stated in the “BOQ & Cost of 5-Rooms-Block (Item-wise)” (top of spreadsheet). For example, the sum of all the Excavation and Filling quantities of line 79 is 103.12 cubic meters, while the quantity noted on line 22 for the same item is 107.44 cubic meters. There are several similar discrepancies between summary and detailed quantities. Please confirm that the offeror is to ignore quantities in the “Summary BOQ of all Modules of 5-Rooms-Block” and just use the quantities in the “BOQ & Cost of 5-Rooms-Block (Item-wise)”.

USAID Response: Please use the quantity provided in the excel sheet-BOQ and Cost of 5-room-Block (item-wise) and include remarks for all discrepancies you observe.

Question No. 41: General. Due to the time required to address questions from Round One and from Round Two and to adjust our bidding approach accordingly, we are requesting a 3-week extension to move the proposal due date until May 12, 2017.

USAID Response: The closing date has been revised. See new closing date contained in this amendment.

Question No. 42: We request that the requirement for performance of 60% of the task-order contract value by the prime contractor, leaving only 40% by subcontractors, be waived or adjusted. We suggest that a more fair split would be 10% prime/90% subcontractor. As a U.S. contractor, our intent is to maximize the use of local Nepalese contractors who are knowledgeable and experienced in Nepal, have a local labor pool of Nepalese personnel, and can source specifications-compliant Nepalese construction materials and equipment.

USAID Response: This requirement remains unchanged.

Question No. 43: In regard to the financial requirements for eligibility, we request that the financial test be waived if a firm can demonstrate ample financial capacity and bonding capability. Ratios above the industry standard of 1 are sufficient to indicate a healthy financial condition. Companies with billions of dollars in revenue that have been in business for many decades with no financial difficulties may still not be able to meet the limits as set in the amended RFP.

USAID Response: The requirements have been revised. Please see revised Eligibility Criteria requirements contained in this amendment. However, please note that eligibility criteria and bonding capabilities are separate requirements.

Question No. 44: P68, Section L.6.5 – Evidence of Financial Capacity. The four financial tests tend to be on the very high side for the level of construction and type of projects that are anticipated under this program. This would prevent very good medium and definitely small size firms from submitting proposals to USAID and hence limit the competition and the number of offers that USAID will receive.

Through these pass/fail financial tests, USAID is practically limiting the competition to the very large firms. However, these large firms might not be very interested in submitting proposals due to the nature, disperse locations and size of each project anticipated under the NCRP. We request that USAID, re-visit these ratio and either eliminate these tests or may be reduce to standard value, i.e., Current Ratio > 1, Acid Test Ratio > 1, Defensive Interval > 3 months, and Working Capital Turnover > 6 months. USAID has traditionally implemented very successful construction programs without including such criteria.

USAID Response: The requirements have been revised. Please see revised Eligibility Criteria requirements contained in this amendment.

Question No. 45: P68, Section L.6.5 – Evidence of Financial Capacity. Does the offeror has to meet every test for every year or meeting 80% of these tests would be acceptable to the Government? Very well run firm take loans to increase their businesses through acquisition or for other growth reasons and that makes them fail 1 or 2 tests for a certain year but not for all the years. However, based on the fail/pass criteria, such a company will not be eligible to bid. We are suggesting that if USAID decides to keep this pass/fail criteria, may be to add an 80% passing rather than passing every test for every one of the past 3 years (i.e. 12 tests in total).

USAID Response: The requirements have been revised. Please see revised Eligibility Criteria requirements contained in this amendment.

END OF AMENDMENT