RFP Amendment 1 incuding Q As .pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLlCITATION/MODIFICA nON OF CONTRACT I. COi\'1'RACT ID CODE

2.

01 October 3, 2011

CODE

Regional Office of Acquisition and Assistance, USAID/INDlA, American Embassy, Shantipath Chanakya Puri, New Delhi 110021, India

7. ADMINISTERED

CODE

'--------1 Sec Section7

PAGE OF

PAGES

. , Slreel,city,county,Stale,and ZIP Code) 9a. AMENDMENT 01-" SOLICIT A nON NO .

SOL-386-11 -000002

lOb, DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

IX I The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers IXI is extended, [1 is not extended to 1000 hours New Delhi time on November 7, 201 I.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendmcnt 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 I S, and returning 6 copies of the amcndmcnt;(b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or(c) By separate Jetter or telegram which includes a referencc to thc solicitation and amendment numbers.

FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MA Y RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. lfby virtue of this amendment you desire to change an ofTer already submitted, such change may be made by tclcgram 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, IT MODIFIES TilE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

TO: (SpecifyOUlhority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

B.

The RFP is amended to (1) extend the closing date & time to NLT November 7, 2011 by 1000 Hrs New Delhi time; and (2)include the attached Questions and Answers. Specific amendments to the RFP are also incorporated in the Questions and Answers. As provided in Section II above, offerors are required to acknowledge the receipt of this amendment by using anyone of the three methods listed.

II

BRADEN W. ENROTH

SIGNED

BY

Previous edition unusable Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

ASEHGAL

Rectangle

ASEHGAL

Typewritten Text

SOLICITATION # SOL-386-11-000002

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Question 1: We have a query regarding the participation/eligibility conditions of Indian firms (incorporated in India) as a lead partner of a global consortium. In such a case, would their offers satisfy the pre-qualification criterion?

Answer: Section H.6 in the RFP is amended to change the Authrorized Geographic Code for the contract from ‘000’ to ‘935’. The change in Authorized Geographic Code to ‘935’ will enable local firms and organizations of Indian nationality (incorporated in India) to participate in the RFP and make them eligible to apply as a Prime Contractor or lead partner of a global consortium (excluding firms from foreign policy-restricted countries).

This change will also allow subcontracting with local nationality firms without any dollar limitation. The USAID/India Mission Director has approved a waiver to this effect.

Question 2: Is it necessary to partner with other organizations? If yes, is it necessary to partner with at least one US organization?

Answer: The RFP has a requirement that the prime will work with at least two local partners (as sub-contractors) for enhancing their capacity. There is no requirement for offeror to partner with at least one US organization.

Question 3: Is an in-cash or in-kind contribution/ commitment required from any of the public or private partners?

Answer: For the deliverables where public-private partnership is envisioned in the SOW, the offeror is expected to leverage resources from sources other than USAID.

Question 4: Is there going to be just one award for approx. US$21-24 million? If not, how many awards (a range) is anticipated?

Answer: USAID plans to award only one contract against this RFP.

Question 5: Can the sub-contractors be predominantly small-business Indian firms? Does that impact the judgement process? In other words, by choosing large Indian companies, does than increase the chance of winning the proposal?

Answer: By small business, we mean small U.S. businesses. All proposals shall be evaluated based only on the Evaluation Criteria stated in Section M.

Question 6: Will US Citizens residing in India who also have their own registered business entities here in India be eligible as sub-contractors or prime contractors?

Answer: Yes

Question 7: What type of audit formalities are involved for a prime-contracting firm?

Answer: Please refer to “52.215-2 Audit and Records - Negotiation”, included in Section I by reference.

Question 8: [Ref: L.6.1 (p. 100)] Are full-page graphics, charts, and tables, other than the table summarizing qualifications of proposed personnel and the management structure organizational chart, exempt from the 50 page limitation for the technical proposal?

Answer: Section L.6.1 lists the documents that can be included as annexes.

Question 9: [Ref: L.6.1 (p. 100)] Is the list of acronyms exempt from the 50 page limitation for the technical proposal?

Answer: No.

Question 10: [Ref: L.6.2.(e).(3)] Are we correct that the completed Delivery Schedule (F.3) can be included in an annex that does not count against the 50 page limitation for the technical proposal?

Answer: Yes. Section L.6.1 of the RFP is amended accordingly to include Delivery Schedule in list of permitted annexes.

Question 11: [ Ref: L.7.(5).1 (p. 107)] Are offerors required to submit a total of 5 contracts for the team, or 5 contracts for the prime contractor and 5 additional contracts for each subcontractor that meets the 10% threshold?

Answer: Offerors are required to list and provide details of five of the most recent and relevant contracts each for the Prime and similarly five contracts each for every major sub-contract (10% threshold) proposed. Offerors are not required to submit copies of the actual contacts.

Question 12: [Ref: L.7.(5).5 (p.108)] Are we correct that the offeror’s discussion of Performance in Using Small Business (SB) Concerns may be included in an annex that does not count against the 50 page limitation for the technical proposal?

Answer: Yes

Question 13: (a) [ Ref: L.7.(3) (p. 107)] “Offerors must highlight credentials, area of expertise and past experiences for implementing similar programs in clean energy deployment and institutional capacity building. Demonstrated experience in timeliness of performance, cost effectiveness, customer satisfaction, managing subcontracts as well as personnel needs for a large and multifaceted program. Offerors must also indicate experience of staff in addressing USAID’s priorities including gender considerations.” ;(b) [Ref: L.7.(5).5.(D) (p. 109)] “Describe demonstrated ability in the area of clean energy including energy efficiency, smart grids, renewable energy and cleaner coal and in institutional strengthening of national and state level government platforms and Indian institutions.” These above appear to ask for offerors to present relevant past experience of the prime contractor and the subcontractors. Would USAID consider creating a separate proposal section for offerors to present past experiences similar to the PACE- D technical and management requirements?

Answer: No separate proposal section is considered. Offerors are not required to submit details of past experience. The RFP is amended to delete the last paragraph under L.7.(3) pertaining to past experience; and L.7.(5)(D) accordingly.

Question 14 : [Ref: C.3.b, Task 2 (p. 24)] "Pilots and demonstrations to set up small independent solar mini grid, micro grids, hybrid systems, decentralized RE systems (such as solar water heating, solar water irrigation pumps, etc.) and supply power to a cluster of villages or key installations (such as panchayats, police stations)." As noted above, the Activities for C.3.b, Task 2 include pilots and demonstrations. However, implementation of pilots is not included under the Deliverables listed on page 25. Can USAID clarify whether offerors are required to propose design and implementation of pilots and demonstrations for the cluster of villages for C.3.b, Task 2?

Answer: The three deliverables listed under the task 2 are all related to design and implementation of various pilots. The first deliverable covers pilot that may focus on cluster of villagers. Answering the question, the offerors are expected to be innovative in proposing technical approach that best meets the USAID’s overall objectives from this program.

Question 15 : [Ref: C.3.b, Task 3 (p. 25)] "Maximize the amount leveraged from both public and private sector for mobilizing EE projects." Should this read "….RE projects"?

Answer: Yes. The Section is amended to read it as “RE Projects”.

Question 16: [Ref: C.3.c (p. 28)] “The contractor will prepare a draft work plan for the first 12- 18 months of activities under this development result.” Is it correct that offerors are not required to submit a draft work plan for Development Result 3 as part of the proposal?; b) If a draft work plan is required, may we submit the draft work plan for Development Result 3 in an annex that does not count against the 50 page limitation for the technical proposal?

Answer: Offerors are not required to submit a Draft work plan for Development Result 3.

Question 17 : [Ref: C.3.e (p. 38)] Indicator 3 says energy saved in MW, which would measure generation capacity avoided. To measure energy saved, would USAID change Indicator 3 to MWh?

Answer: Section C.3.e. in the RFP is amended to change the Unit for energy saved from MW to MWh.

Question 18: [ Ref: F.4, Mobilization Plan (p. 53)] May offerors submit the draft Mobilization Plan as an annex that does not count against the 50 page limitation for the technical proposal?

Answer: No

Question 19 : [Ref: F.4 (p. 53)] “Draft PMP shall be submitted within 90 days from the date of the contract” [Ref: F.4, Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) (p. 55)] “Posterior to contract award, and based on the information in the proposal’s preliminary PMP, the contractor will be required to finalize the PMP and submit to the COTR for review and approval.” (Qa) Are we correct that offerors are not required to submit PMP information as part of the proposal? (Qb) If PMP information is required, may we include it in an annex that does not count against the 50 page limitation for the technical proposal?

Answer: Offerors are not required to submit Draft PMP as a part of their proposal.

Question 20: Will USAID consider including a grants under contract clause in the final contract? If so, can we assume that fee on grants will be permissible as per FAR 15.404-4 and

ADS 302.3.6.9?

Answer: Grants under contract are not envisioned for the resultant contract.

Question 21: Will USAID consider CCN waivers for Indian personnel on an individual basis depending on work history?

Answer: USAID would prefer that offerors propose CCN with salaries within mission LCP. The exceptional cases shall be dealt with in accordance with AIDAR 722.170, which requires contractors to seek prior Mission Director approval.

Question 22: Given that USAID has requested a 210 day validity period, would USAID consider allowing receipt of the proposal hard copies after the October 21st due date if we provide our international courier label and online tracking information to USAID/India confirming that they have been sent prior to the October 21st due date?

Answer: The soft copies as well as the hard copies must reach the USAID/INDIA office before the RFP closing time & date.

Question 23: Given the number of SF 294 “Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts” for the past 5 years that we have will USAID consider allowing us to submit these on CD-ROM and include the CD-ROM in the original of our hard copy Technical Proposal?

Answer: Yes, you may submit SF-294 on CD-ROM and include the CD-ROM as a part of your hard copy technical proposal submission.

Question 24: How will this solicitation and resulting program relate, coordinate with, and/or complement the RFA of the same name noted in USAID’s forecast to be issued Q2, FY12?

Should the response discuss coordination with the program resulting from the forecasted RFA?

Answer: At this point in time, based on the changing mission priorities, it is anticipated that the RFA included in the business forecast for Q2-FY12 may not occur.

Question 25: If offerors provide a cover or transmittal letter with the Technical Proposal, would that letter be considered an annex not subject to page limitations?

Answer: Yes

Question 26: CLIN 004 (Other Activities and Management Support) Task 2 (Strategic Planning, Assessment, and Analysis) contains no deliverables. For pricing purposes, could the government provide guidance on the number and type of deliverables expected under this task within the period of performance?

Answer: There are no specific deliverables under Task 2. These are some activities that the contractor may have to perform in order to achieve the overall program objective, though there are no specific deliverables which are expected to be produced/achieved.

Question 27: The following passage appears on page 112 of the RFP: “Indirect costs are not allowed for awards to indigenous organizations,” with a reference to http://www.usaid.gov/in/working_with_us/pdfs/ipn_08_006.pdf , which reads as follows “Effective immediately, indirect costs for indigenous organizations will not be reimbursed under USAID contracts and agreements. All costs shall be budgeted as direct costs.” Is the definition of “indigenous organizations” the same as “local partners,” defined on pages 37-38 of the RFP? If not, can you please define “indigenous organization”?

Answer : Yes

Question 28: Depending on the definition of “indigenous organization,” it is possible that we will have subcontractors who are an indigenous organization and have a NICRA with the US government. In such a case, should we budget their indirect costs in accordance with their NICRA or should we budget them as direct costs?; For indigenous organizations that include fringe benefits in their indirect rate structure, should the fringe benefits be budgeted as direct costs to the project (this would seem to conflict with RFP guidance on page 111)?

Answer: Only indigenous organization with already established NICRA with a US federal agency may budget indirect costs in accordance with their most recent approved NICRA. All other indigenous organizations that do not have an approved NICRA shall budget all their costs as direct.

Question 29: In the case where a prime contractor has a NICRA that allows for recovery of G&A on subcontractor costs (and requires that all contracts be administered in the same way so that costs are fairly allocated across all contracts), should the prime contractor’s budget include recovery of subcontractor G&A on the costs of subcontractors who are indigenous organizations (as well as costs of other subcontractors)?

Answer: Prime may apply its indirect rates as per the approved NICRA for recovery of its indirect costs. If the Prime’s NICRA is structured such that for recovery of its G&A cost, the base of application is “all subcontract cost”, so be it. USAID does not intend to change Prime’s (offeror) approved NICRA rate or base of application.

Question 30: On page 113 of the RFP, the section on “Fixed Fee” reads: “FAR 15.404-4 provides for establishing the profit or fee portion of the Government pre-negotiation objective, and provides profit-analysis factors for analyzing profit or fee. Proposed fee with rationale supported by application of the profit-analysis factors. It is not expected that fee will be applied to other than direct costs for sub awards (i.e. not on profit or indirect costs).” Please confirm that we will be able to apply fee on all direct and indirect costs for subcontracts, while fee will only be applied to direct costs for sub awards.

Answer: The prime contractor is not expected to apply its fee on sub-contractors’ indirect costs & fee.

Question 31: On page 112 of the RFP, the bulletpoint titled “Other Training and Conference Costs” requires offerors to provide names of each participant. As individuals for participating in conferences and trainings have not yet been selected, may offerors provide the target audience instead of participants’ names? Names could be provided in all relevant subsequent reports after contract award.

Answer: Section L.8.B.(2)(c) is amended to delete the requirement for providing the names of the participants.

Question 32: May offerors limit the number of Biographical Data sheets (1420-17) in their submission by providing BioData sheets for key personnel only?

Answer: Completed Bio-graphical data sheets (AID 1420-17) must be included in the cost proposal for all the proposed (identified/named) technical personnel.

Question 33: Part 1 of the cost proposal instructions on p. 110 of the RFP requires an original signature of the person authorized to be included on Standard Form (SF) 33. According to USAID standard procurement policies, electronic or scanned signatures are also acceptable. May offerors provide a scanned or electronic signature on the SF 33 submissions?

Answer: You may include a signed and scanned SF33 in your electronic submission and add the original signed SF33 in your hard copy submission.

Question 34: On page 4 of the RFP (B.6 Ceiling on Indirect Cost Rates and Final Reimbursement for Indirect Costs), it states, “The Contractor shall not receive indirect costs that exceed rates two percentage points or 10% of the individual indirect cost rates above, whichever is lower.” Does the two percentage points or 10% ceiling apply for each separate contract year or in the aggregate?

Answer: The two percentage points or 10% ceiling whichever is lower, will apply on the contractor’s NICRA rates prevalent at the time of contract award and will be applicable for the entire contract period.

Question 35: Instruction L.6.2 on p. 101 of the RFP requires that offerors submit electronic copies of up to six attachments of a 5MB limit. Given the number of scanned documents and graphics, and the complexity of the cost proposal excel file to be included in the submission, the anticipated file size is higher than 5MB and could cause issues with transmitting the files via email. Instead of sending via email, can offerors provide the electronic copies of submissions on CD-ROM to be included with hard copy submission?

Answer: In addition to the electronic submission via email, you may include the submission on CD-ROM. For email submission, offeror may opt to split a large attachment, with proper numbering and send thru multiple emails.

Question 36 [Section C.3.c page 31] Under Development Result 3 the development of a Model Power Plant is discussed and in Activity 2 it is specified that “a roadmap of technical and institutional interventions required for establishing the model power plant in an existing facility and its implementation” will be undertaken. Please confirm that the implementation of the roadmap is included in the $2million budget for this Result area.

Answer: The implementation of the roadmap for the model power plant is included in the $2million budget for this Result area

Question 37: What is USAID’s definition of “local business” for the purpose of this RFP?

Answer: Please refer to the definition of “local partner” in Task 5 of Section C.3.d(pg. 37).

Question 38: Are the Deputy Chief of Party positions required to reside full time in India or can they split time at US engineering design center(s)?

Answer: Yes, the Deputy Chief of Party is key personnel and is required to be resident full time position.

Question 39: Are the performance indicators in Table C.3.e annual or cumulative?

Answer: Performance indicators 1, 2, 3 and 5 are cumulative while the other indicators are annual. However, as stated in the RFP, the targets listed in the table at C.3.e are illustrative and may change based on baseline and work plan developed. The contractor will finalize the targets in consultation with the Mission.

Question 40:Section L.7 (2) Key Personnel states “The following is an Illustrative list of non-key positions that maybe required for implementation of the program. These positions will not be evaluated based on Section M Evaluation criteria.” Are the Key Personnel positions (Chief of Party, Deputy Chief of Party EE, Deputy Chief of Party RE, and Monitoring & Evaluation Specialist) the personnel positions considered when scoring according to the criteria in Section M.2 (2)? How are the non-key personnel positions scored by the USAID review board? Are the non-key personnel positions considered a part of the technical approach?

Answer: Yes, only key personnel positions will be considered when scoring according to the criteria in Section M.2 (2)- “Key Personnel”. The listed non-key positions are illustrative positions that may be required for the implementation of the program. The contractor technical approach and management plan may include the discussion about non-key positions to demonstrate their understanding of the program requirement and the management structure required to implement the program.

Question 41: Are we permitted to include any other unsolicited annexes that would not count toward the page limit?

Answer: No, See section L.6.1 for information on what can be included as annexure.

Question 42: For demonstration and pilot programs (C.3.a, Task 1) and several other demo and pilot projects, is the cost of supply to be included as part of the budget?

Answer: There is no supply involved in any of the Tasks. Only technical assistance is anticipated.

Question 43: The RFP does not provide any reference to Host Country Taxes. Please clarify the tax responsibilities to the contractor and its subcontractors.

Answer: Currently, for prime contractors, VAT is payable at point of sale but later reimbursed, whereas, the Service Tax exemption is available upfront. For the purposes of submitting the cost proposal, offerors should not include (a) Services Tax for the prime contractor; and (b) VAT for both prime and subcontractors.

Question 44: Section B.6(c) states that “Any changes in classifying or allocating indirect costs require the prior written approval of the Contracting Officer.” Please verify that this would be the Administrative Contracting Officer responsible for negotiating indirect cost rates under FAR 42.703, and that the RFP is not indicating that the CO for this individual contract is taking responsibility for approving indirect cost rates.

Answer: That is correct.

Question 45: Although the RFP states that the contract will be a cost reimbursement – completion type contract, many of the deliverables in section C are couched as “at least [number]”. This implies that more than this minimum may be required, but does not establish a maximum. Similarly, Section F.4 Reporting Requirements number 13: “special reports” are requested. FAR 16.306 says that “The completion form describes the scope of work by stating a definite goal or target and specifying an end product.” If the contractor achieves the minimum number of deliverables stated in Section C, will he have completed the contract and be entitled to the full fee, or does USAID retain the right to unilaterally require additional deliverables? If USAID does retain that right, how will it adjust the fixed fee for the additional work?

Answer: Each deliverable is linked to a Development Result and it is assumed that the offeror based on their expertise/technical approach would recommend and budget for the numbers which they feel would be required to achieve the stated goals/development result. USAID does not expect that there would any special report required outside the activities which contractor would perform for completing the deliverables. If any additional deliverables are required for any of the tasks later, USAID will re-negotiate the budget, including the fee component with the contractor for a bilateral modification.

Question 46: Section C outlines the importance of rural energy access as an important parameter for RE components and selection criteria for the offerors. Could the offerer assume for EE, it would be based on the opportunities presented (e.g. industrial clusters, manufacturing base locations, etc.)?

Answer: As stated in the RFP, under EE the important parameters will be deployment of some EE technologies such as Smart grids, NZEB, policy work, capacity buildings and development of innovative finance mechanisms.

Question 47: Section C states activities for both “selected states” and “two states.” Should all activities (EE, capacity building of regulators, capacity building of SDAs) be targeted only in the selected two states or could they vary?

Answer: This would depend on the priorities of the Government of India, However, it likely that these two states may be the same for all or some of the activities to ensure maximum development impact.

Question 48: Section C.3 outlines the Statement of Work for the Development Result areas. Are there a minimum number of pilot projects for each component?

Answer: The number of pilots/demonstration projects under each component of CLIN 1 thru 3 are defined in the RFP.

Question 49: Section C.3 outlines the specific tasks for each development result area.

Throughout the section, the activities section and deliverables section of various tasks do not match. Was this intentional?

Answer: Yes, some activities do not have discreet deliverables.

Question 50: Section C.3.a. Details the primary counterparts for Component 1 of PACE-D with MoP, BEE and MNRE. The nature of the project entails access to government data and institutions in a range of areas from both national and state levels. By what means will the contractor gain access to data and other information from institutions at the national and state levels?

Answer: PACE-D is a bilateral program and will be implemented in partnership with the primary counterparts as well as state governments that are selected for the program. Therefore, information and data will be accessible through the partners.

Question 51: Section C.3.a. Task 1. Section ii. Deliverables state “A design and implementation of at least one pilot NZEB.” Could USAID define what it means by implementation in this context?

Answer: It means providing technical assistance for development of a detailed project report that includes the design of the pilot and TA to implement the pilot project to establish a NZEB.

Question 52: Section C.3.b. outlines the development result for Renewable Energy. Are the interventions technologically specific (e.g. solar) in addition to general renewable energy policy and institutional interventions?

Answer: The development result 2 is technology neutral. However, it may focus on some technologies based on MNRE’s priorities.

Question 53: C.3.b. Task 1 outlines in the actives and deliverables that the offereor shall provide technical assistance to SNAs to disseminate and process technical information to overcome barriers, conduct RE resource assessment, and provide pre-development assistance to technology providers. Could the three SNAs be in the same three states where assistance and support will be provided to regulators on RE policy etc.? Currently, it is not clear and appears as if EE/RE/support to regulators/support to SNAs to be different states. Clarification would help.

Answer: The states will be selected jointly by MNRE and USAID. It is likely that these states may be the same.

Question 54: C.3.b Task 4 activities states “Develop partnership between Indian and U.S. based institutions to support GOI fellowship program.” Is more information available on the GOI Fellowship Program referred to in this section?

Answer: Please refer to GOI’s JNNSM for more information http://india.gov.in/allimpfrms/alldocs/15657.pdf

Question 55: C.3.b Task 5 mentions “Regulator Training” and offers deliverables and does not have an activities section. Was the omission of the activities section intentional?

Answer: The activities to be undertaken are described in the section. The deliverables are also indicative of the type of activities involved.

Question 56: C.3.b Task 5 the Regulator Training activities state “An internship program designed and implemented for regulators from central and state government, to gain hands-on exposure to regulatory issues and learn best practices in addressing them..” Would the cost of ‘internship’ program be part of the overall project costs or additional?

Answer: The design and implementation of internship program is one of the deliverables, hence the associated costs need to be budgeted in the cost proposal. The program envisages designing and rolling out an internship program for RE regulators. The offerors are expected to address this in their technical approach and recommend number of participant to have the desired impact for achieving the development result.

Question 57: Section C.3.c outlines the adoption and accelerated deployment of cleaner fossil technologies, however only outlines the deployment of Indian coal. Are conventional natural gas or nonconventional (shale gas) deployment of interest in the development result?

Answer: The current SOW only focuses on cleaner coal, other conventional natural gas or fossil fuel are not covered in the SOW.

Question 58: Section C.3.c describes how “a few selected states” will be selected by USAID in consultation with MNRE. Will the contractor be consulted in this decision making process?

Answer: The states will be selected by MNRE and USAID based on the GOI priorities. The contractor will not be directly involved in selection process, however USAID may seek inputs from the selected contractor.

Question 59: Section C.3.c Task 1, i. deliverables included mentions “two utilities”, have the utilities of which a detailed plan is to be developed to improve their heat rates been identified?

What level of detail in the plan is expected to be developed and implemented within the 12 to 18 months window?

Answer: The utilities have not yet been identified. Post award, these will be identified in consultation with the GOI. The Heat Rate improvement plan for selected utilities has to be fairly detailed, listing the technical assistance required to improve heat rate and TA to implement best practices/technologies. The plan should also be practical and well-conceived so that desired results are achieved within 18 months.

Question 60: Section C.3.c Task 1, i. deliverables included states” a feasibility study on the design and development of an ultra-supercritical power plant using Indian high ash coal.” Please elaborate on the expected level of design details for the feasibility study?

Answer: This has to be fairly detailed so that the study can be used by the GOI for setting up a demonstration plant. Post award, the content of the feasibility report will be finalized by the contractor in consultation with USAID.

Question 61: Section C.3.c Task 1, ii. Does the ‘Model Power Plant’ intend to include capability for testing advanced power generation technologies such as ultra-supercritical and IGCC technologies as well as supercritical heat rate improvement component technologies?

Answer: No. The Model Power Plant’ does not intend to include capability for testing advanced power generation technologies such as ultra-supercritical and IGCC technologies

Question 62: Section C.3.d outlines the tasks for other activities and Management Support and the deliverables for each task. Task 2,3,4, and 5 do not have any deliverables according to the proposal. Was this intentional or are there deliverables still to be determined for these Tasks?

Answer: Task 1 and 5 do have deliverables. The remaining tasks 2,3 and 4 do not have deliverables but the associated activities described therein are excepted to be undertaken by the contractor in order to achieve the development result.

Question 63: Section C.3.d defines “local partners”. Would a quasi-governmental organization qualify as a local partner?

Answer: Per 22 CFR 228.33 Foreign government-owned organizations, firms operated as commercial companies or other organizations (including nonprofit organizations other than public educational institutions) which are wholly or partially owned by foreign governments or agencies thereof are not eligible for financing by USAID as contractors or subcontractors, except if their eligibility has been established by a waiver approved by USAID in accordance with 22 CFR 228.54. This does not apply to foreign government ministries or agencies.

Question 64: C.3.d, Task 2, should the ‘policy analysis’ be at the national or state levels or both?

Can the analysis be technology-specific?

Answer: The policy analysis can be both at national and state level. It can also be technology specific.

Question 65: Section C.3.e The indicator table shows a FY12 target (by 30 Sep 2012) of 122 MW of new RE generating capacity and 1.09 million metric tons of CO2 mitigation, or sequestration. Does USAID expect that these targets will be achieved by actual implementation by September 30, 2012, or that commitments will have been made (contractual and/or financial) that would result in these impacts?

Answer: USAID expects that the targets will be achieved by actual implementations and not merely commitments.

Question 66: Section F.4 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) plan, STTA reports. What is the expected frequency of these STTA reports? Does USAID expect the Contractor to prepare and submit to USAID a report on progress against the SOW for each STTA contract? If so, at what intervals? Or does USAID expect an STTA report by each STTA consultant after each field trip or mission they undertake?

Answer: STTA reports are not required to be submitted. The reference in the RFP about the STTA report may be ignored. The Section F.4 in the RFP is amended to delete the last paragraph on page 56 entitled “STTA Reports”.

Question 67: Section H does not include any mention of the standard six-day workweek authorization. As a cost-efficiency for the project, would USAID considering adding the standard language, which authorizes a six-day work days for international short-term consultants?

Answer: Please refer to Section F.8, it already addresses the question.

Question 68: An exact estimate of the cost of implementation of pilot projects will be impossible at the proposal stage, so does implementation mean actual physical implementation by the end of the project period or an implementation plan with a commitment by the unit selected for implementation to implement it within a specific period of time (or something similar)?

Answer: The Offeror’s Budget must provide complete reasonable cost estimates for completion of all the deliverables/tasks/sub-tasks in the SOW. The offeror will have to complete all the deliverables stated in the SOW within the contract performance period. The contractor shall submit a Program implementation plan in accordance with Section F.4-Reporting Requirements which will provide details of how the contractor will proceed with implementing the SOW and other required plans.

Question 69: Section H.17 AIDAR 752.2032 International Travel Approval and Notification requirements (Jan 1990) states that “at least 3 weeks’ notice is needed for requesting CO approval.” In order to avoid potential implementation delays, would USAID consider granting CO travel approval for all international travel in the language of the contract, assuming the Contractor seeks COTR concurrence in writing?

Answer: The contractor will be required to seek approval from COTR, for each international travel that is not included in the approved international travel budget. In such cases, COTR approval is to be obtained prior to the travel taking place.

Question 70: Section L.6.2 (a) states that “via internet email with up to 6attachments (5 MB limit when all attachments are combined) per email compatible with MS WORD, Excel (all spreadsheets included must be provided in workable format also), Adobe Acrobat…” Do the electronic copies need to be submitted in MS Word or Adobe Acrobat documents?

Answer: The Technical submission can be in either MS Word or pdf (Adobe Acrobat), but the budget spreadsheet must be submitted in MS Excel (workable spreadsheet).

Question 71: Should the CVs of non-key staff be included in the proposal?

Answer: No, Please refer to USAID response to question no. 43 above.

Question 72:L.6.1 Length and Format outlines the strict limits on the technical and cost proposal, including the margins but not the paper size? Are the documents to be submitted in hard copy on A4 or 8 ½ x11 in. paper as it could affect the page length?

Answer: Both A4 & 8 ½ x11 will be accepted.

Question 73:Section L.8.B Instructions states “the budget tables presented in the cost proposal shall be in MS Excel, and calculations and formulas must be visible.” Given the nature of MS Excel, the formulas displayed in a printed excel table will show cell numbers rather than actual values making the document difficult to decipher. Does the MS excel rule apply to the electronic copies and not the printed copies?

Answer: MS Excel (workable files) is required for electronic copies.

Question 74: Section L.8.B (2) c under Subcontracts indicates that indigenous organizations may not be paid for indirect costs. Since this conflicts with FAR 52.216-7, we assume that this would not be a flow down clause and that the cost principles in FAR Part 31 will not apply to subcontractors. If this assumption is incorrect, is there a deviation in place that would allow us to modify the FAR clause? If so, may we see the text? Subcontracting with local organizations will be difficult if we are unable to reimburse them for all of their costs.

Answer: Indigenous organizations that do not have an approved NICRA with a U.S. Federal agency may recover their all costs incurred for program implemention under the contract as direct costs and budget accordingly.

Question 75:Section L.8.2.c Direct Labor Salary and Wages notes the local compensation plan (LCP) current as of January 2010. Given the date of the LCP, it does not take into account local inflationary pressures, especially since the award will most likely be finalized in 2012. Does the Mission plan on issuing an updated LCP in 2012? If so, will the bidders or awardee be allowed to adjust salaries per the Cost of Living increase evident in the revised LCP at this time?

Answer: The LCP of 2010 is the most recent and current LCP in place.

Question 76:Section L. 8.B (2) (c) Direct Labor Salary and Wages states that “completed biographical data sheets, form AID 1420-17 must be provided for all technical personnel.” Does the definition of ‘all technical personnel’ include all short-term staff?

Answer: Yes.

Question 77:Section L.8.B (2) k states “the offerors must provide an illustrative budget for implementing the environmental compliance activities.” Does this requirement fall under CLIN 4: Other Activities and Management Support?

Answer:No. This requirement does not fall under CLIN 4. However, the offeror must ensure implementation of all environmental compliance conditions as defined in the IEE as per 22 CFR 216.

Question 78:Section L.8.B (2) k requires the offeror’s approach to developing and implementing an IEE or EA or environmental review process for a grant fund and/or an EMMP or M&M Plan.

It is USAID’s intention to have the offeror develop and implement a new IEE and present an approach for implementation, or is it acceptable for the offeror to agree with USAID’s IEE dated

June 3, 2010 and demonstrate the ability to comply with the recommended mitigating actions described therein?

Answer: The offeror does not have to prepare a new IEE but rather comply with the conditions listed in the IEE dated June 3, 2010. They have to demonstrate the ability to comply with the recommended action. The EMMP or EA plan will have to prepared after the award of the contract in consultation with the COTR and MEO.

Question 79: Under C.3.a, Task 3: TA and capacity building to develop and implement innovative financing mechanisms (on p. 19 of RFP), would you explain or clarify what you want from the deliverable: “Maximize the amount leveraged from both public and private sector for mobilizing EE projects.”?

Answer: As the deliverable indicates, the offeror is expected to augment the resources available through leveraging from other sources, be it public or private sector, for implementation of EE projects.

Question 80: The first two listed Deliverables are clear enough – two innovative financing mechanisms developed, and at least one workshop. Does “maximizing the amount leveraged from both public and private sector for mobilizing EE projects” refer to securing inputs and contributions of time, money, and/or expertise from sources other than USAID and its contractor in producing the first two deliverables? If so, how would you measure whether such inputs are the maximum that could be secured? Also, what does the phrase, “mobilizing EE projects” mean in this context? Does it mean “developing and financing” EE projects? Or does it refer specifically to the initial steps of implementing a project, i.e., the mobilization phase?

Answer: The contribution refers to securing resources from sources other than USAID and its contractor in implementing EE projects. The measure whether the inputs secured are optimal/best will be assessed and monitored by the COTR. Mobilizing EE projects in this case means developing and providing technical assistance for implementing EE projects.

Question 81: Page 27 C.3.b. – Task 5: Deliverable bullet 3 states “Two peer-to-peer exchange visits between US and Indian regulators…” Can USAID please clarify if this means: (a) two visits from each country will be made; (b) two visits consisting of one visit from a US regulator to India and one from the Indian regulator to the US, or (c) one peer-to-peer visit will occur, comprised of two participants.

Answer: It means two visits from Indian regulators to the U.S. OR consisting of one visit from a US regulator to India and one from the Indian regulator to the US.

Question 82: Page 28 C.3.c. Would it be permissible to have CLIN 3 activities run for 18 months after contract award rather than until the end of FY 2013? This would be helpful in the event the contract award is delayed.

Answer: Yes the activity can run for 18 months from the award date.

Question 83: Page 47 – 52 F.3 (a) – at what stage will the dates be provided on the Deliverable timeline? Will it be based on the offeror’s proposal, or will it be derived from the Program Implementation Plan or Annual Work Plans developed in conjunction with USAID, subsequent to award? If needed at the proposal stage, then can this list (which runs 6 pages in and of itself) be an Annex?

Answer: The offerors are required to complete the F.3 and submit it with the proposal. It can be included as an annex. Refer to USAID response to question 11 above.

Question 84: Page 53 F.4 – In what period of time (weeks, months) should the draft mobilization plan be presented?

Answer: The offeror may present mobilization plan in terms of ‘weeks’.

Question 85: Page 53 and 54 F.4 – Annual Work Plan – The table of reporting requirements on Page 53 notes “subsequent annual work plans will be submitted not later than 30 days before the close of each preceding fiscal year,” but the first work plan is not addressed. The text description of the Work Plan on Page 54 then states that the first annual work plan will be due 30 days after the contract start date, and then seems to imply that the subsequent work plans be submitted 30 days prior to the next contract year. Can USAID please confirm that the first annual work plan is due 30 days after the contract start date? Can USAID also clarify if the subsequent work plans are due 30 days prior to the end of the contract year or fiscal year?

Answer: Refer to Page 54 – Annual Work Plans. The First annual work plan is due to the COTR thirty (30) days from the contract start date. Subsequent annual work plans will be prepared and submitted to the USAID/INDIA COTR not later than thirty (30) days before the close of each preceding year through the end of the contract.

Question 86: Page 67 H.7 – it might not be reasonable to predict now, at the proposal stage, what equipment could be needed over the life of a 5-year program. Would USAID consider providing a “plug number” for equipment that all offerors must use?

Answer: The offeror are required to use their professional judgment based on anticipated program requirements/needs for performing the contract and successfully completing the contract deliverables.

Question 87: Page 106 L.7 (3), Point 1 – Could USAID please clarify what it means by “Placement of the program team within the larger organization(s)” on page 106 of the RFP? We are unclear about what “larger organization(s)” means.

Answer: The offeror is expected to explain the relevance and importance of PACE team including the sub awardee staff within the overall business of the prime (larger organization).

This should indicate chain of authority and responsibilities of the team.

Question 88: Page 107 L.7 (4) states that “USAID reserves the right to limit the total number of participating partners.” Does USAID have an optimal number of local partners it would like to see? We recognize that we need at least two, but how many is too many?

Answer: USAID expect the offerors to be innovative in their technical approach & Mangement structure. Offeror must propose a operations & management structure that is manageable and utilizes the resources efficiently and effectively. The approach should, at the same time utilize/maximize the use of local partners in meeting the program requirement/objectives and enhances their (local partners’) capability in terms of financial management, organizational management, and strengthening internal controls so that these organizations in future could play a more direct role in India’s development.

Question 89: Page 108 L.7 (5) 5. (2) references an Attachment III, which is part of the evaluation of performance. It appears to be different than the Attachment 3 listed in Section J on page 85, which is the Initial Environment Examination. Can USAID please provide this Attachment to Offerors?

Answer: Section L.7.(5)5.(2) is amended to delete the sentence “As part of evaluation of performance in Attachment III of this solicition”.

Question 90: Page 109 L.8 B – indicates that the illustrative budget format may be used. Can we infer that slight changes will be permitted?

Answer: Yes

Question 91: Page 111 L.8 B (2) (c) – Direct Salary - requests a certification that the personnel were not suggested by USAID. Is that certification to be added to those in Section K? Is there a form?

Answer: Please include this certification in the cost proposal and not in Section K.

Question 92: Page 111 L.8 B (2) (c) – Travel - requests that offeror specify travel in great detail, including “purpose”. It might not be reasonable to predict all travel to such specificity now, at the proposal stage, for a 5-year program. Would USAID consider providing a “plug number” for travel within India that all offerors must use?

Answer: Offeror’s are required to present budget narrative explaining their proposed (travel) budget estimates giving the assumption or basis for their proposed costs. The budget assumptions included in narrative must be in line with the offerors’Technical Proposal.

Question 93: Page 112 L.8 B (2) (c) – Indirect Costs – The bolded phrase “indirect cost rate ceilings must be included in cost proposals”. Does this mean that the MS Excel table is to be created using the indirect rate ceilings proposed, instead of our current NICRA?

Answer: No. The budget must be created using offorers current NICRA rates.

Question 94: Page 113 L.8 B (2) (c) – Fixed Fee – Per FAR 15.404-4, subfactor (ii) (A), we would like to point out that by including tight caps on indirect rates the USAID contract design increases performance risk, which would then justify a higher fixed fee.

Answer: USAID considers a ceiling of two percentage points or 10% of the individual indirect cost rates (whichever is lower) to be reasonable.

Question 95: Page 113 L.8 B (2) (c) – Fixed Fee – states “It is not expected that fee will be applied to other than direct costs for sub awards”. Because indirect costs are in integral part of the cost of subcontractors’ doing business with us, prime contractors normally are able to take a fee on the total subcontract cost. Would USAID therefore please reconsider its requirement to limit it to only being no fee on subs’ fee?

Answer: No.

Question 96: Page 113 L.8 B (2) (c) – Fixed Fee states that “it is not expected that fee will be applied to other than direct costs for sub awards (i.e. not on profit or indirect costs).” Please confirm that subcontractors are able to apply fee to all applicable costs, but grant awardees would not.

Answer: Subcontractors may apply fee to all applicable costs. However, since there will be no grants under this contract, the question of grant awardees doing the same is irrelevant.

Question 97: Page 114 L.8 B (2) (j) – Audited balance sheets and profit and loss statements – these are not normally required if the Offeror has a NICRA. Are they required this time?

Answer: Those contractors who have an established Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) with a US federal agency are not required to submit audited balance sheets and profit and loss statements. However, USAID reserves the right to seek this information for responsibility determination.

Question 98: Page 115 L.8 B (2) (k) Point 1 references a grant fund. Is there a grants component to PACE-D, and if there is, can USAID please provide us with a plug estimate for that fund?

Answer: The Section L.8.B (2)(k) point 1 in the RFP is amended to read as “The offerors approach to developing and implementing an IEE or EA or environmental review process for the contract and/or and EMMP or M&M…