RFP-442-16-000006_Amendment_01.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 21

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

See block 16C

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (IF OTHER THAN ITEM 6) CODE

Office of Acquisition and Assistance (OAA) USAID/Cambodia #1, Street 96, Sangkat Wat Phnom, Khan Daun Penh Phnom Penh, Cambodia

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State, and Zip Code)

To All Potential Offerors

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

SOL-442-16-000006

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11) 06/10/2016

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

CODE: FACILITY CODE: 10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered, solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers, FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If Required) N/A

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

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

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify Authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

The purpose of this amendment is to provide responses to the potential offerors’ questions and make necessary changes in the solicitation.

(continued on p.2)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

Javier O. Castano, Contracting Officer

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE

SIGNED

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

/s/

16C. DATE

SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Previous Edition Unusable Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

06/24/2016

RFP No.: SOL-442-16-000002, Amendment 01 Feed the Future Cambodia Horticulture

Specifically, this solicitation is amended as follows:

COVER PAGE

1) First paragraph, DELETE “January 15, 2016” and INSERT “January 15, 2017”;

SECTION C- STATEMENT OF WORK

1) REVISE the title TO READ “Feed the Future Cambodia Horticulture activity” throughout the text of

Section C;

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

2) Section F.5 Key Personnel, (g) (p.19), 1. Chief of Party/Value Chain Expert (COP/VCE), Required

Qualifications, REVISE the minimum educational requirement TO READ:

“S/he must possess an advanced degree in agribusiness, agricultural science, law, economics, business administration, or other relevant degree as determined to be appropriate for this position; a lower level degree will be accepted with 5 additional years of relevant experience.”

3) Section F.5 Key Personnel, (g) (p.19), 2. Technical Expert (Ag Policy and Enabling Environment), Required

Qualifications, REVISE the minimum educational requirement TO READ:

“S/he must possess an advanced degree in economics, agriculture, regulatory reform/law, business administration, or other relevant degree as determined to be appropriate for this position; a lower level degree will be accepted with 3 additional years of relevant experience.”

4) Section F.5 Key Personnel, (g) (p.20), 3. Private Sector Development Specialist, Required Qualifications, REVISE the minimum educational requirement TO READ:

“S/he must possess an advanced degree in the field of business administration, agriculture, economics, law, or other relevant degree as determined to be appropriate for this position; a lower level degree will be accepted with 3 additional years of relevant experience.”

5) Section F.8 Reports and Deliverables or Outputs, 11. Final Report (p.21), DELETE “90 days before the award” and INSERT “90 days before the expiration date of the award” as the due date for the submission of the draft Final Report;

6) Section F.8.6 Gender Action Plan (GAP) (p.24), DELETE the second sentence:

“The GAP must be accompanied by and be based on a Gender Analysis to be conducted by the Contractor as stipulated under Section C.”

7) Section F.8.11 Final Report (p.26), DELETE “45 days prior to the completion date” and INSERT “60 days prior to the completion date” as the due date for the submission of the Final Report;

SECTION G – CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

8) Section G.7 Short-term Personnel and Meetings, (a)(p.33), DELETE “donors and other organizations,”;

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

9) Section L.8.2 Technical Proposal, (1) Technical Proposal Page Limitation, second paragraph (p.68), DELETE “Technical Approach” and INSERT “Technical Requirements”;

10) Section L.8.2 Technical Proposal, (1) Technical Proposal Page Limitation, second paragraph (p.68), DELETE “Management and Coordination Approach” and INSERT “Management and Staffing Plan”;

11) Section L.8.2 Technical Proposal, (1) Technical Proposal Page Limitation (p.68), ADD the following paragraph:

“Offerors may submit an executive summary not to exceed two (2) pages as an annex, and it will not count towards the page limit.”

12) Section L.8.2 Technical Proposal, (c) Technical Proposal Format, first paragraph (p.68), DELETE

“Management and Coordination Approach” and INSERT “Management and Staffing Plan”;

13) Section L.8.2 Technical Proposal, (c) Technical Proposal Format, Factor 2 – Key Personnel, ADD the following to the first paragraph (p.69):

“If proposing a candidate with “other relevant degree”, the Offeror must include a narrative to support its relevancy for the position.”

14) Section L.8.2 Technical Proposal, (c) Technical Proposal Format, Factor 2 – Key Personnel, third paragraph

(p.70), DELETE the words “In another annex”;

15) Section L.8.2 Technical Proposal, (c) Technical Proposal Format, Factor 3 – Institutional Capacity (p.70), REVISE the first paragraph TO READ as follows:

“Offerors must describe the experience of the prime and major subcontractors (one whose proposed cost exceeds 25% of the offeror’s total contract cost) in implementing activities similar in scope and complexity to those included in the proposed SOW; activities in South and Southeast Asia are considered most relevant and are preferred.”

16) Section L.8.3 Cost/Business Proposal, (a) Submission Instructions, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3 (p.72), DELETE

“L.7.3(c)” and INSERT “L.8.3(c)”;

17) Section L.8.3 Cost/Business Proposal, (a) Submission Instructions, 4.1.3 (p.72), DELETE the following:

“with a specific reference to the page and paragraph of the technical proposal that these costs are associated with”;

18) Section L.8.3 Cost/Business Proposal, (a) Submission Instructions, 10. Indirect Cost Information (p.73), DELETE in its entirety and INSERT the following in lieu thereof:

“The prime and all major subcontractors may propose lower overhead rates than their established Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) and sign the letter found in ADS 300, Mandatory Reference for Best Practices Guide for Indirect Costing. Indirect rates proposed cannot be higher than the rates established in their Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA). Please read further instruction below if your organization does not have a NICRA.

Offerors may propose a single ceiling rate covering the term of award or a ceiling rate in each applicable contract year. If an annual ceiling rate is proposed, USAID will average the ceiling indirect rates and use that figure for evaluation purposes.

(i) The Offeror and each major subcontractor must include a complete copy of its most current NICRA or other documentation from its cognizant Government Audit Agency, if any, stating the most recent provisional indirect cost rates. The proposal must also include the name and address of the Government Audit Agency, and the name and telephone number of the auditor.

(ii) If the Offeror or major subcontractor does not have a cognizant Government Audit Agency, the proposal must include:

Audited balance sheets and profit and loss statements for the last two complete years, and the current year-to-date statements (or such lesser period of time if the Offeror is a newly-formed organization). The profit and loss statements should include detail of the total cost of goods and services sold, including a listing of the various indirect administrative costs, and be supplemented by information on the prime contractor’s customary indirect cost allocation method, together with supporting computations of the basis for the indirect cost rate(s) proposed; and

The most recent two fiscal year pool and base cost compositions along with derived rates, the bases of allocation of these rates and an independent certified audit by a certified accounting firm of these rates.

EXEMPTIONS FOR SMALL BUSINESS OFFERORS ONLY

All the above instructions apply to small business offerors. However, if the small business offeror does not have a NICRA, the proposal must include either Audited Financial Statements or Reviewed Financial Statements as defined below:

1. Audited Financial Statements provide the auditor’s opinion that the financial statements are presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with the applicable financial reporting framework. In an audit, the auditor is required by auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS) to obtain an understanding of the entity’s internal control and assess fraud risk. The auditor also corroborates the amounts and disclosures included in the financial statements by obtaining audit evidence through inquiry, physical inspection, observation, third-party confirmations, examination, analytical procedures and other procedures.

The auditor issues a report that states that the audit was conducted in accordance with GAAS, the financial statements are the responsibility of management, provides an opinion that the financial statements present fairly in all material respects the financial position of the company and the results of operations are in conformity with the applicable financial reporting framework (or issues a qualified opinion if the financial statements are not in conformity with the applicable financial reporting framework. The auditor may also issue a disclaimer of opinion or an adverse opinion if appropriate).

2. Reviewed Financial Statements provide a certified CPA accountant’s (referred to as

“Accountant” or “CPA” herein) review; the accountant is not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the financial statements for the statements to be in conformity with the applicable federal financial reporting framework. During a review engagement, the Accountant obtains limited assurance that there are no material modifications that should be made to the financial statements. Therefore, the objective of a review of the financial statements is to obtain limited assurance that there are no material modifications that should be made to the financial statements. A review does not include obtaining an understanding of the entity’s internal control; assessing fraud risk; testing accounting records; or other procedures ordinarily performed in an audit. The CPA issues a report stating the review was performed in accordance with Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services; that management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework and for designing, implementing and maintaining internal control relevant to the preparation.

The proposal must not include compiled financial statements. Compiled financial statements will not be accepted because the Accountant does not obtain or provide any assurance that there are no material modifications that should be made to the financial statements. That is, there is no assurance that the organization is misrepresenting costs on compiled financial statements which puts the agency at risk.

The objective of compiled financial statements is to assist management in presenting financial information in the form of financial statements without undertaking to provide any assurance that there are no material modifications that should be made to the financial statements.

If the small business offeror receives an award based on the submission of Reviewed Financial Statements, within six months after the end of the small business offeror’s fiscal year, they must submit an adequate final incurred cost proposal to the to the Contracting Officer (or cognizant Federal agency official) and auditor within the 6-month period following the expiration of each of its fiscal years in accordance with the Allowable Cost and Payment Clause FAR 52.216-7. The receipt of an adequate proposal by the audit office starts the audit process. This audit will establish the final indirect cost rate(s) for the audited year. Provisional rates will be updated as needed based on current information.

USAID auditors will work with the small business to issue a NICRA establishing the proposed provisional indirect cost rates after award based upon acceptable information submitted above.”

19) Section L.8.3 Cost/Business Proposal, (b) General Assumptions and Other Instructions, 2.g. (p.74), DELETE “January 15, 2016” and INSERT “January 15, 2017”;

The following are the answers to the potential offerors’ questions:

QUESTION 1

• Section L.8.2 Technical Proposal, Page limitation reads “The metric standard format most closely approximating the described standard 8 1/2" x 11" size may also be used” Can USAID please confirm that page size A4 (8.27"x11.69") is acceptable

Answer: Yes.

QUESTIONS 2-3

• Section L.8.2 Technical Proposal, Factor 5 Past Performance, (a).1. Can USAID Confirm whether (5)

Past Performance is required from Prime and each of its Major Subcontractors or its total for the consortium.

• (Page 70) Are offerors limited to five PPRs for both the prime and any major subcontractors together, or can they provide five PPRs for the prime and five for the major subcontractor?

Answer: The prime and major subcontractors must each provide a list of 5 of the most recent and relevant contracts.

QUESTIONS 4-5

• Section L.8.2 (c) technical proposal format does not list an Executive Summary. Would USAID allow for 1-2 pages executive summary to be added to the technical proposal and not count against page limit?

• For the convenience of the technical evaluation committee, please confirm that Offerors may submit a

2-page Executive Summary that will not count against a page limitation.

Answer: Yes, offerors may submit an executive summary not to exceed two (2) pages, and it will not count towards the page limit, however, these pages will not be evaluated so all relevant information must be included in the appropriate sections of the technical proposal; the RFP is amended accordingly.

QUESTION 6

• Section L.8.2 Page limitation indicates “Technical Approach (Limit of 25 pages)” however subsection

(c) Technical proposal Format indicates that the Technical Approach is part of the Technical Requirements – can USAID please confirm if the 25 page limit sighted above is applied to Technical approach or the Technical Requirements section.

Answer: “Technical Approach” in L.8.2(1) refers to the “Technical Requirements” and the 25-page limit applies; the RFP has been amended to clarify this.

QUESTIONS 7-8

• Page 68 under Section L.8.2. provides a list of annexes identifying the first annex as “Resumes, references, and tables that summarize detailed qualifications of proposed key personnel” while page 70 (top of page) indicates “In another annex, Offerors must provide five references for each of the key personnel candidates”. Can USAID please confirm the total number of Annexes and the expected content of each annex.

• Section L.8.2(1) implies that key personnel references should be included in the same annex as the resumes and qualifications table, however Factor 2 – Key Personnel of section L.8.2(c) notes that the references should be in a separate annex. Would USAID please clarify where the key personnel references should be included?

Answer: References must be provided in the same annex with resumes and tables as stated on p.68; the RFP is amended to remove the reference to another annex.

QUESTION 9

• Section L.8.2. (1) under Page limitation and proposal format , list Factor 4 as “Management and

Coordination Approach” however page 70 defines Factor 4 as “Management and Staffing Plan”, can USAID Please confirm the title it wishes to use for said Factor.

Answer: The correct title is “Management and Staffing Plan”; the RFP is amended accordingly.

QUESTION 10

• Page 68 under Section L.8.2. List of Annexes lists Annex 5 as: “SF 294 Subcontracting Reports” can

USAID please confirm that this is meant to be an annex to the cost proposal and not the technical.

Answer: No, utilization of small businesses concerns is part of the past performance technical evaluation factor.

QUESTION 11

• Section H.22 indicates that “the total value of an individual grant to a U.S. organizations must not exceed $100,000”. a) will U.S. Organizations be allowed more than one Grant award per year or conversely through the life of the project. and, b) is there a ceiling on awards to Local NGO’s.

Answer: USAID does not have other limitations than those prescribed in ADS 303 and those already stated in the RFP.

QUESTIONS 12-16

• Cover page indicates that the anticipated award date is Jan 15, 2016. The same has been included on page 74 under section L.8.3 (b). 2.g. Can USIAD confirmed that the intended award date is Jan 15, 2017 and not 2016?

• Cover Letter, first paragraph, states, that the expected award date is January 15, 2016. Question: The

Offeror respectfully requests that USAID confirm the Program start date?

• (Cover Page and multiple locations) The RFP states that the expected start date is January 15, 2016 – can you kindly confirm that the anticipated start date is January 15, 2017?

• Will USAID please clarify the anticipated award date for this project? The anticipated award date, per the cover letter and elsewhere, is listed as January 15, 2016.

• Cover Letter and Section L.6: The anticipated award date is January 15, 2016 as mentioned in cover letter and Section L.6 (page 63). Can USAID please revise the anticipated award date?

Answer: Yes, the anticipated award date is January 15, 2017; the RFP is amended accordingly.

QUESTIONS 17-18

• Page 72 of the RFP under section L.8.3.4 indicates that “Proposal Budget including 1) A summary budget for the prime and all subcontractors following the format in L.7.3(c). 2) A separate summary budget for the prime and each of the subcontractors following the format in L.7.3(c).” however Section L.7.3(c) doesn’t exist in the RFP. Can USAID confirm the referenced section number.

• Page 72, Section L.8.3 subsection (a) (#4) (1.2) states that offerors must include a separate summary budget for the prime and each of the subcontractors following the format in L.7.3 (c). Could USAID please confirm that this should be corrected to reference L.8.3(c)?

Answer: Please refer to L.8.3(c) for the budget format; the RFP is amended to eliminate the discrepancy.

QUESTIONS 19-20

• If these are the same four provinces as addressed under the recent HARVEST Project, is baseline data corresponding to this Program’s Targets available? can copies of the HARVEST M & E and Completion Report be made available?

• Would USAID consider making all documents related to the implementation of the HARVEST program available to offerors to ensure that all lessons learned are appropriately taken into account?

Of most interest would be an updated list of all private sector partners under HARVEST, a list of all participating farmers, and any assessments or analyses carried out under HARVEST.

Answer: The HARVEST progress reports are available in the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC);

the Final Report is not available at this time. Data for incremental sales among HARVEST beneficiaries is available on the USAID Cambodia Website (https://www.usaid.gov/cambodia/work-with-us/partnership-opportunities). USAID does not provide targets; this program’s targets are to be proposed by the offeror.

QUESTION 21

• What project role is envisioned for the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) and other Cambodian Ministries?

Answer: This depends on the interventions that each offeror proposes. It is expected that there will be coordination and collaboration with MAFF and other line ministries – please see RFP Section C.7, paragraph 3 (p.14).

QUESTION 22

• What forms of public and private sector investments supportive of commercial horticulture in project focus provinces can be measured in Program Targets? For example, can improvements in transport infrastructure be measured?

Answer: It is up to the offeror on what investments need to be made to improve the commercial horticulture value chain. Yes, improvements in transport infrastructure can be measured, if that has been identified as a constraint in the horticulture value chain.

QUESTIONS 23-32

• Section L.8.3. (b) 3. Indicates “Third Country Nationals (TCNs) do not have waiver authorization for salaries above the local compensation plan and will receive benefits only authorized under the local compensation plan”. Will USAID be amenable providing waivers for FSN’s with salary histories above the Salary Grades listed in Attachment J.

• Page 75, Section L.8.3(b)3, Cost/Business Proposal, General Assumptions and Other Instructions, states, “Under this RFP, Third Country Nationals (TCNs) do not have waiver authorization for salaries above the local compensation plan and will receive benefits only authorized under the local compensation plan (See AIDAR 722.170).” Question: This is a restriction on the allowable waivers provided for within the regulations and may restrict the quality of personnel that an offeror may propose. Therefore, the Offeror respectfully requests that USAID follow the regulatory option of requesting a waiver for a TCN as an expatriate.

• Section L.8.(b).3 (page 75) states that “third Country Nationals (TCNs) do not have waiver authorization for salaries above the local compensation plan and will receive benefits only authorized under the local compensation plan.” Are we correct to assume that although no blanket waiver is in place, we can request waivers for TCNs on a case-by-case basis?

• Section L.8.3(b)4, p. 75. USAID states “For local staff hired in Cambodia, the salary threshold is

$47,614/year for a 40 hour work week.” We respectfully request that USAID remove this requirement given that high-level Cambodian specialists may exceed this level of compensation (supported by biodatas) and others may be near this level but would require future annual performance increases https://www.usaid.gov/cambodia/work-with-us/partnership-opportunities https://www.usaid.gov/cambodia/work-with-us/partnership-opportunities that would eventually exceed the threshold in order to ensure retention and prevent turnover that would negatively impact the project.

• Page 75, Section L.8.3(b)3, Cost/Business Proposal, General Assumptions and Other Instructions, states a restriction of salary to $47.614/per year for local staff, while Clauses H.4 and H.5 both incorporate by regulations the application of the contractor’s established policies and procedures in compensation determination. Question: The Offeror respectfully requests USAID allow offerors to propose their own compensation plans to enhance the quality of local professional staff available for this proposal and to ensure equity with the market rates for local professionals.

• (Page 75) The RFP notes that TCN salaries do not have waiver authorization for salaries above the local compensation plan. Does this also include daily consulting rates for TCNs who will provide STTA? Will waivers for salary be allowed for TCNs from developed countries (such as Great Britain, Netherlands, Australia, etc.)?

• Section L.8.3(b)3 of the RFP states that, “Third Country Nationals (TCNs) do not have waiver authorization for salaries above the local compensation plan and will receive benefits only authorized under the local compensation plan (See AIDAR 722.170).” This restriction may preclude offerors from complying with AIDAR 752.7007, incorporated by reference in RFP Section H.4, which states that “Direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract.”

Mandating TCNs to receive salaries and benefits under a local compensation plan may result in offerors deviating from AIDAR 752.7007. We respectfully request that USAID remove the clause preventing TCNs from having a waiver, thereby allowing offerors to submit cost proposals in accordance with their established policies, procedures, and practices.

• Reference: Section L.8.3 (b); P 75, RFP Language: “Under this RFP, Third Country Nationals

(TCNs) do not have waiver authorization for salaries above the local compensation plan and will receive benefits only authorized under the local compensation plan (See AIDAR 722.170).” Question:

USAID references AIDAR 722.170 in its language concerning TCNs. Per AIDAR 722.170, will USAID consider case-by-case exemptions to the general policy regarding TCNs?

• Could USAID please clarify the meaning of the TCN salary stipulation provided in Section L.8.3(b)3

(page 75) of the RFP? Are offerors required to submit a waiver request for TCNs (for a salary to exceed the local compensation plan and benefits outside the local compensation plan) or does the statement mean that USAID will not consider granting TCN waivers under this RFP?

• If offerors propose TCNs as key personnel with a substantiated compensation levels higher than the local compensation plan, will it be possible to seek a waiver for their compensation package?

Answer: The Mission will consider such requests if justified and adequately supported. In accordance with AIDAR 722.170 “Compensation, including merit or promotion increases paid to TCN's and CCN's may not, without the approval of the Mission Director or the Assistant Administrator having program responsibility for the project, exceed the prevailing compensation paid to personnel performing comparable work in the cooperating country as determined by the USAID Mission.” The salary cap does not apply to firm fixed price or fixed daily rates sub-contracts for consulting services.

QUESTIONS 33-34

• Please confirm that the proposal Cover page will not count against 40-page limit for the technical proposal.

• (Page 67) Can you please confirm that a cover page does not count against the 40 page limitation for the technical proposal?

Answer: The Cover Letter is included in the 40-page limit, please see L.8.2(1) on p. 68.

QUESTION 35

• SUB-PURPOSE 2: Improved Market Linkages (page 11) refers to observations in

USAID/Cambodia’s partnerships assessment. Could USAID kindly share this assessment with potential bidders?

Answer: No, this is not a public document.

QUESTION 36

• Section L.8.2, p68 states that tables related to key personnel qualifications should be submitted, but no additional guidance is given. Could USAID please elaborate on the desired structure and content of these tables?

Answer: The table should summarize the proposed key personnel qualifications discussed in the technical proposal narrative (Factor 2) and demonstrated in the CVs. Offerors are free to come up with a format, but at a minimum it should state the title of the position and the name of the candidate, and highlight how the candidate meets the minimum required and desired qualifications established in Section F.5 of the RFP.

QUESTION 37

• Section L.8.2 (Factor 5, p70) states: “The offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself, the contractor teaming arrangements, if any, and each major subcontractor…” (emphasis added). Could USAID please confirm that the italicized portion refers only to joint ventures?

Answer: Yes, this is correct.

QUESTION 38

• Section L.8.2 (Factor 5, Past Performance – page 71), item (c) says: “This information is not included in the page limitation.” Can USAID clarify which “information” is covered by this statement?

Answer: This refers to copies of “awards and certifications”.

QUESTION 39

• Section L.8.3.(a).12 (page 74) states that each subcontractor must submit a letter signed by an authorized representative that states: “a) The subcontractor's agreement to be included in the offeror's proposed teaming arrangement; and b) A discussion and agreement on type(s) of subcontract(s) to be used, and applicable terms and conditions, and approximate percentage of each type of work to be subcontracted.” Considering the fact that the details of type of subcontract, ceiling and SOW are provided in the Information to Support Consent to Subcontract, would USAID consider the Information to Support Consent to Subcontractors as sufficient to fulfill part b) of this requirement, along with a letter of commitment for part a) of this requirement?

QUESTION 40

• Page 8, Section C.5, Coordination With Existing Programs In Cambodia, first paragraph, states, that the Program will focus on the horticulture value chain, which could include both fruits and vegetables. Question: In light of the high-value potential of spice production, will USAID consider activities which include spices.

QUESTIONS 41-42

• Page 33, Section H.2, Authorized Geographic Code, identifies, Code 937. The Offeror respectfully requests that Code 935 be allowed to enable a broader regional source of procurement of goods and services.

• (Page 33) Will USAID consider adjusting the geographic code to 935 to allow for additional organizations to provide technical expertise? Alternatively, will USAID consider granting waivers for certain organizations based in advanced developing countries in the SE Asian region, which possess specific and relevant experience?

Answer: The Mission will consider source and nationality waiver requests if justified and adequately supported.

QUESTION 43

• Page 49, Section I.1, Notice Listing Contract Clauses Incorporated by Reference, AIDAR 752.245-70

Government Property – USAID Reporting Requirements, incorporates, “Non-expendable property, for purposes of this contract, is defined as property which is complete in itself, does not lose its identity or become a component part of another article when put into use; is durable, with an expected service life of two years or more; and which has a unit cost of more than $500.” Please confirm that the Non-Profit Cost Principles regarding the asset definitions of property will apply to a successful non-profit organization for reporting purposes. This definition is a unit cost of $5,000 and a shelf life of one year.

Answer: No, the definition in AIDAR 752.245-70 will apply.

QUESTION 44

• Page 55, Section J.2 Initial Environmental Examination document contains, a reference to activities of this Program that do not match the activities listed in Section C.6, Program Objectives. Question: The Offeror respectfully requests USAID to confirm that Section C.6 takes precedence over the IEE annex.

Answer: Yes, section C.6 takes precedence.

QUESTION 45

• Page 55, Section J.2 Initial Environmental Examination document, Pesticides Section does not identify a PERSUAP for this Activity. Question: Please verify that an applicable PERSUAP does not exist for Cambodia.

Answer: An applicable PERSUAP does not exist for Cambodia.

QUESTIONS 46-47

• Page 68, Section L.8.2(1), Technical Proposal Page Limitation, , paragraph 1, states, that 8-point type is acceptable for graphics and tables. Question: The Offeror respectfully requests that 8-point type be acceptable for text boxes within the narrative.

• Section L.8.2, p. 68. The tech instructions indicate that 8pt font is acceptable for graphics and tables;

can 8pt font also be used for text boxes?

Answer: No, 12-point font must be used for text boxes within the narrative.

QUESTIONS 48-51

• Page 68, Section L.8.2(1), Technical Proposal Page Limitation, paragraph 2, states, the items that are included in the 40-page limitation. Question: The Offeror respectfully requests that the proposal Cover (Title Page), Cover Letter, Table of Contents, Acronym List, and Dividers be excluded from page limitation to enable offerors to present a more responsive and thorough technical narrative.

• Section L.8.2, p. 68. Given the amount to be covered in this proposal, we respectfully request that

USAID revise the technical instructions to exclude the cover letter, table of contents, acronym list, title pages, and dividers from the page limitation.

• Would USAID consider not counting the Cover Letter; Table of Contents; Acronym List; Title Page;

and Dividers towards the 40-page limit for the technical proposal as stated in Section L.8.2(1)?

• Reference: Section L.8.2; Pp 67-68, RFP Language: “The 40-page limitation state above is inclusive of the following… table of contents; acronym list; title pages; and dividers.” Question: Would USAID eliminate the requirement that the table of contents, acronym list, title pages, and dividers be counted as part of the 40-page limit of the technical approach section?

Answer: No, the stated page limitation remains unchanged.

QUESTIONS 52-54

• Page 68, Section L.8.2(1), Technical Proposal Page Limitation, paragraph 3, states, the materials that may be included as an annex. Question: The Offeror respectfully requests that the organizational chart be accepted as an annex.

• Section L.8.2(c), p. 70. Neither the tech instructions for the management section nor the list of acceptable annexes mentions an organizational chart. May offerors include an organigram in an additional annex to the technical proposal?

• To best respond to USAID’s instructions to include descriptions of staff responsibilities (Section L.8.2, Factor 4, Management and Staffing Plan), please confirm that offerors may provide a staffing matrix in an annex that does not count against the 100-page annex page limit.

Answer: Offerors may submit an organizational chart as an annex; the RFP has been amended accordingly.

QUESTIONS 55-57

• Page 68, Section L.8.2(1), Technical Proposal Page Limitation, paragraph 3, states, the SF 294

Subcontracting Reports shall be included as an annex. Question: Will USAID accept a list of the SF 294s in lieu of the actual reports?

• L.8.2, p. 68, and L.8.2(c), p. 71. One of the required technical annexes is the offeror’s 10 most recent and relevant SF 294 subcontracting reports. The past performance annex also requires a list of the offeror’s recent contracts with SF 294 reports already submitted to eSRS as well as additional SF 294 reports not submitted to eSRS. If all recent and relevant SF 294 reports have already been submitted to eSRS, must offerors still provide the ten most recent and relevant SF 294 reports in a separate annex?

• In Section L.8.2(I) (page 68), USAID instructs offerors to provide SF 294s (10 most recent and relevant). In light of the annex page limit, can offerors provide a list of the subcontracting reports in question instead of full-page forms?

Answer: Yes, a list can be provided for reports submitted in eSRS.

QUESTIONS 58-59

• Page 70, Section L.8.2., Technical Proposal, Factor 3 – Institutional Capacity, states, that the similar activities must have been performed in South and Southeast Asia. Question: The Offeror respectfully requests that relevant activities of similar size and scope outside of the stated region be considered in establishing Institutional capacity.

• Section L.8.2, Factor 3, p. 70. Under “Institutional Capacity,” USAID has included a restrictive qualifier for similar activities “in South and Southeast Asia.” This same restriction is not included in the Past Performance section of Section L, nor in Section M. Can USAID remove this geographic qualifier for Institutional Capacity in Section L?

Answer: Yes, but activities in South and Southeast Asia are considered most relevant and are preferred; the RFP is amended accordingly.

QUESTIONS 60-61

• Page 70, Section L.8.2., Technical Proposal- Factor 5 – Past Performance, a.1., “List in an annex to the technical proposal up to 5 (five) of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal.” Question: Will USAID consider Past Performance information for cooperative agreements as well as contracts?

• (Page 70) Can offerors provide past performance information for cooperative agreements in addition to contracts?

QUESTION 62

• Page 71, Section L.8.2., Technical Proposal - Factor 5 – Past Performance, (d)(3), requires, a small business utilization narrative summary and references. Question: The Offeror respectfully requests that USAID confirm that this information should be included in an annex to enable a more responsive and complete technical narrative.

Answer: No, this information must be included within the 40-page limit.

QUESTION 63

• Page 73, Section L.8.3(a)10(b) Cost Business Proposal –Indirect Cost Information: requires from an offeror which does not have a cognizant Government Audit Agency, audited balance sheets, profit/loss statements, etc.…” Question: Recent guidance from the Small Business Association requires “reviewed balance sheets” for establishing indirect cost reasonableness for small business entities. The Offeror respectfully requests that the solicitation require reviewed balance sheets not audited balance sheets.

Answer: The RFP is amended to reflect the most recent Agency guidance.

QUESTION 64

• Page 77, Section M.2., Technical Evaluation Factors, contains a table with each technical evaluation factor and its relative weight. A more easily understood evaluation approach using points or percentages will enhance the understanding of all offerors of the relative weight of each factor.

Question: The Offeror respectfully requests USAID please restate the evaluation scoring in terms of points/percentages.

Answer: The Contracting Officer decided not to use points or percentages for this solicitation.

QUESTION 65

• C.8 Program Targets (page 13) defines indicator 1 as the value of incremental sales (collected at farm-level). For cost efficiency, can we assume that the mission can capture incremental farm-level sales as part of their periodic household-level surveys in the ZOI?

Answer: No, guidance on data collection methods and sampling design to collect incremental sales is provided on the Feed the Future website (https://feedthefuture.gov/progress) under M&E resources and http://www.fantaproject.org/monitoring-and-evaluation/sampling-guide-agricultural-data.

QUESTION 66

• Section F.6 (page 20) states that “the work week of the Contractor’s overseas employees will not be less than 40 hours.” Please confirm that it is allowable to have individual non-key personnel employees work part-time on the contract.

Answer: Yes, it is allowable.

QUESTION 67

• Would USAID be willing to change the definition of a major subcontractor? Many responsibilities cannot be delegated to a subcontractor without substantive devolution of important oversight https://feedthefuture.gov/progress http://www.fantaproject.org/monitoring-and-evaluation/sampling-guide-agricultural-data functions. At a minimum, given the prime contractor’s major responsibility for Grants Under Contract, we ask that USAID consider modifying the definition of a major subcontractor to:

“one whose proposed cost exceeds 25% of the offeror’s total contract cost, not including the value of Grants Under Contract.”

Answer: No, the definition will remain unchanged.

QUESTIONS 68-70

• Section F.5, p. 18. We believe that the advanced degree requirements for all three key personnel positions needlessly restricts the pool of acceptable candidates, including those candidates that may be actually the most qualified and with more extensive and more relevant experience. To enable offerors to propose the absolutely best candidates for key personnel positions, would USAID allow the requested “advanced” degree to be substituted with extensive and highly relevant experience? While Section M provides for a more inclusive evaluation of key personnel (“The extent to which the Offeror convincingly demonstrates that the proposed Key Personnel will ensure effective implementation of the SOW and achievement the Program objectives.”), Sections F.5 and L.8.2 have more restrictive wording. The previous HARVEST program did not have the same advanced degree requirements for any key personnel, instead focusing on specific relevant work experience and technical knowledge.

• Section F.5 (pp. 19-20) of the RFP requirements for key personnel lists specific advanced degrees for each candidate. Would USAID grant flexibility on this requirement and allow for “an advanced degree in another relevant field”?

• Would USAID consider allowing 10 or more years of professional experience in a relevant subject area in lieu of an advanced degree for key personnel Required Qualifications?

Answer: Offerors may propose candidates for key personnel positions having lower than advanced degree with additional years of relevant experience; the RFP is amended accordingly. See specific changes above.

QUESTION 71

• Section F.8.2, p. 22. Can USAID confirm that the Gender Implementation Plan mentioned under

F.8.2 is the same as the Gender Action Plan described in F.8 and F.8.6?

Answer: No, the Gender Implementation Plan is submitted as part of the work plan and it must outline the activities to ensure gender integration and inclusion. The Gender Action Plan is a plan for the entire life of the project to be submitted within six months after the effective award date.

QUESTIONS 72-73

• Section H.5(a)(1), p. 34. USAID limits initial salary increases to 4% (without approval from the

Contracting Officer) over an employee’s current salary/highest rate of the immediately preceding three years. Can USAID confirm that Offerors are able to include proposed initial increases of greater than 4% as long as they are appropriately justified in the cost proposal narrative as these increases are often necessary to attract, hire, and compensate employees for leaving current employment?

• Page 34, Section H.5: For Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation (a) Limitations, will

USAID allow a 5% increase on individuals’ initial salary without seeking USAID CO approval instead of the 4% limitation per RFP?

Answer: Such requests will be considered if justified and adequately supported.

QUESTIONS 74-78

• Section L.8.3(a)4, p. 72. Part 1.3 requires “specific reference to the page and paragraph of the technical proposal that these costs are associated with.” As the vast majority of costs are cross-cutting and not associated with any one activity included in the proposal, would USAID be willing to remove this requirement?

• Section L.8.3(a)4.1.3 states that a detailed budget breakdown include “a specific reference to the page and paragraph of the technical proposal that these costs are associated with.” Would USAID consider allowing the reference in the section number rather than in the page and paragraph? Would USAID also consider including only reference to the activity costs line items, recognizing that some items, such as staff, would require multiple references under the current requirement?

• Reference: Section L.8.3(a)4.(1.3); P 72, RFP Language: “Detailed budget breakdowns for each year of the contract following the format in L.7.3(c) including a detailed description that identifies each cost element and addresses why these costs are considered realistic with a specific reference to the page and paragraph of the technical proposal that these costs are associated with. The same cost element breakdowns should be used for individual subcontract budgets as applicable.” Question:

Would USAID please confirm that the “detailed descriptions” of each cost element and explanations of why they are considered realistic should be presented in the budget narrative, rather than in the budget spreadsheet?

• Reference: Section L.8.3(a)4.(1.3); P 72, RFP Language: “Detailed budget breakdowns for each year of the contract following the format in L.7.3(c) including a detailed description that identifies each cost element and addresses why these costs are considered realistic with a specific reference to the page and paragraph of the technical proposal that these costs are associated with. The same cost element breakdowns should be used for individual subcontract budgets as applicable.” Question:

Regarding USAID’s request that offerors reference, for each cost element, the page and paragraph of the technical proposal that these costs are associated with: while we agree it is important to show cost realism with regards to the technical proposal, so many costs are cross-cutting and relate to multiple pages/ paragraphs in the technical this would become a tedious exercise for USAID. We respectfully request that USAID remove this requirement and allow offerors to address technical cost realism as they best see fit, in order to be evaluated by USAID.

• In L.8.3(a)4, sub-item 1.3 (page 72), USAID requests “specific reference to the page and paragraph of the technical proposal that these costs are associated with.” Considering that multiple budget line items are cross-cutting or cover multiple activities (e.g., long-term staff and operating costs), could USAID please clarify how offerors should note these references? May they be limited to specific activity costs?

Answer: Yes, the RFP is amended accordingly.

QUESTION 79

• Section L.8.3(c), p. 75. The given budget format does not include a major line item for allowances.

May offerors add this line item or should it be contained under one of the other line items?

Answer: Please include it under the Other Direct Cost line item.

QUESTION 80

• (Page 11) The RFP notes that USAID/Cambodia undertook a partnerships assessment. Can the

Mission provide this to offerors?

Answer: No, this is not a public document.

QUESTIONS 81-82

• (Pages 21 and 26) On page 21, there is a table that states that the draft of the final report should be submitted 90 days before award. Can you please confirm that this should be 90 days before the award end date (as stated on page 26)?

• Number 11 in the table in Section F.8 and Section F.8.11 states that a draft of the final report will be submitted 90 days before the award. Would USAID please clarify if they meant before the expiration of the contract instead of before the award.

Answer: Yes, it should read “90 days before the expiration date of the award”; the RFP is amended accordingly.

QUESTION 83

• (Section C and Page 23) The RFP notes on page 23 that this program is being resourced by two funding streams - U.S. Government’s Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative Feed the Future (FTF) and Global Climate Change (GCC). However, the indicators mentioned throughout Section C appear to be only be FTF focused? Should offerors incorporate GCC indicators as well?

Answer: Two indicators collect climate change related outputs/outcomes, #3 and #7. Offers should incorporate GCC indicators.

QUESTION 84

• (Page 70) The RFP notes that a major subcontractor is one whose budget exceeds 25% of the offeror’s total proposed contract cost. Is this exclusive of the value of the grants component?

Answer: No, inclusive.

QUESTION 85

• Is the most recent Mission Gender Assessment from 2010? If there is a more recent assessment or report, can USAID provide this to offerors?

Answer: The most recent Mission Gender Assessment is from 2010. It can be viewed on the USAID Cambodia website (http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pdacr982.pdf).

QUESTION 86

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pdacr982.pdf

• Section G.7 states that “The contractor must inform the COR on all meetings with the government of

Cambodia counterparts, donors and other organizations, and seek advance concurrence from the COR.” Experience shows that day to day collaboration with counterparts and other stakeholders, combined with close coordination with USAID, is essential for maximum project impact. Would USAID consider narrowing this requirement to only the government of Cambodia counterparts and allowing the contractor to submit a notification to the COR instead of seeking COR concurrence?

Answer: Yes, the RFP is amended accordingly.

QUESTION 87

• Consistent with the guidance in FAR 37.113-1 and considering that the anticipated contract will be performed entirely overseas, would USAID consider modifying clause K.1. FAR 52-237-8 to instead include FAR 52.237-9, Waiver of Limitation on Severance Payments to Foreign Nationals.