USAID_Oceans_-_SOL-486-14-000024_-_Amendment_No._01.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

, 1. CONTRACT ID CODE I PA~E 01 PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. r PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

000001 12/12/2014

6. ISSUED BY CODE ROM/A 7. ADMINISTERED BY (/fotherthan Item 6) CODE I Regional Office of Procurement

USA ID

Regional Development Mission/Asia Athenee Tower 25th Floor 63 Wireless Road, Pathumwan Bangkok, Thailand 10330

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (x} 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

SOL-486-14-000024

x

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12/01/2014

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

12JThe above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers Dis extended, [3is not extended.

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE 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 FAR 43.103(b).

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor Dis not. Dis required to sign this document and return -------- copies to the issuing office.

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

The purpose of this Amendment is to provide answers to questions submitted by interested parties and incorporate resulting changes throughout the Solicitation.

See specific changes on the following pages.

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 (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

15C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

Martha L. Aponte

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Solicitation No. SOL-486-14-000024

Amendment No. 01

A. SPECIFIC CHANGES TO THE SOLICITATION

1. SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COSTS

1.1. In Section “B.6 CEILING ON INDIRECT COST RATES”:

1.1.1. In Paragraph 1.(a)(1) delete “overhead” and replace it with “[TBD indirect cost, e.g. overhead]”

1.1.2. In Paragraph 1.(a)(2) delete “G&A” and replace it with “[TBD indirect cost, e.g.

G&A]”

1.1.3. In Paragraph 2.(e)(3) delete “overhead” and replace it with “[TBD indirect cost, e.g. overhead]”

1.1.4. In Paragraph 2.(e)(4) delete “G&A” and replace it with “[TBD indirect cost, e.g.

G&A]”

2. SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

2.1. In Section “H.8 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONNEL

COMPENSATION” delete paragraph “(d) Annual Salary Increases” in its entirety.

2.2. Delete Section “H.27 DATA COLLECTION” in its entirety.

3. SECTION L – INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

OR RESPONDENTS

3.1. In Section “L.5 DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS”, paragraph (a) delete the sentence “The instructions permit inclusion of any additional data or information offerors deem pertinent” in its entirety.

3.2. In Section “L.6 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL” delete the sentence “All graphs and charts must be included in the annexes” in its entirety.

3.3. In Section “L.6 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL” , “L.6.2 Proposed Implementation Team” delete the sentence “Individuals proposed for the Key Personnel positions must be available immediately upon contract signature to initiate the assignment in the Asia region.” And replace it with the following:

“Individuals proposed for the Key Personnel positions must be available within 15 calendar days upon contract signature to initiate the assignment in the Asia region.”

3.4. In Section “L.7 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE

COST/BUSINESS PROPOSAL”, Part 2:

3.4.1. In Paragraph (9) delete the following sentences “Cost associated with

Environmental Compliance must be included under this line item.

Cost and technical proposals must reflect IEE or EA preparation costs and approaches.” and replace them with the following:

“Cost associated with Environmental Compliance must be included under this line item.

Based on the Offeror’s unique PWS and depending on the envisioned environmental impact, the activities are expected to fall under the categorical exclusion or negative determination categories (see Attachment 6). If the Offeror proposes activities outside the scope of the IEE, these may require that an additional IEE or EA be completed by USAID. Cost proposals must reflect IEE or

EA (if activities with positive determination are anticipated) preparation costs and approaches.”

3.4.2. Delete Paragraph (10) and replace it with the following:

“(10) Grants Under Contract: Grants under Contract for this Activity must be proposed in accordance with the offeror’s proposed PWS and must not exceed

$5,000,000. In order for USAID to assess reasonableness of the proposed level of the GUC component, USAID must assess the basis for these estimates. USAID is not expecting detailed budget breakdowns. USAID will accept lump-sum amounts, at least indicating the estimated number of grants per year and total estimated amount for each grant. Narrative information supporting how those funds will be distributed among an illustrative group of grantees is required. Estimates are expected to be based on historical information, market research, etc. USAID will not agree to allow the GUCs to be included in the calculation of fixed fee.”

4. In “ATTACHMENT 5 - REFERENCES” add the following at the end:

“Margoluis R, Stem C, Swaminathan V, Brown M, Johnson A, Placci G, Salafsky N, Tilders I. (2013). Results chains: a tool for conservation action design, management, and evaluation. Ecology and Society. 18: 22.

Foundations of Success. (2007). Using Results Chains to Improve Strategy Effectiveness.

An FOS how-to guide. Bethesda, Maryland, USA, Foundations of Success”

5. In “ATTACHMENT 9 – LIST OF ACRONYMS” add the following to the list:

“RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organization”

B. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM INTERESTED PARTIES UNDER

THE SOLICITATION

1. Question: On Page 39, RFP Section H.8(d), Additional Requirements for Personnel

Compensation, restricts annual salary increases to no more than 5%. These above restrictions contradict AIDAR 752.7006, incorporated by reference in Section I.1, which states that direct compensation of the contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices. Can USAID please confirm that offerors should comply with AIDAR 752.7006 and follow their established policies, procedures, and practices for establishing individual salaries and administering salary increases?

Answer: While AIDAR 752.7007 Personnel Compensation states “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” the

Contracting Officer determined it is appropriate to rely on the Offerors’ personnel policies under this Activity and section H.8(d) has been removed from the solicitation. The CO will assess reasonableness of the estimated salary increases in offerors’ cost proposals.

2. Question: On Page 51, Part II – Contract Clauses, Section I.1. Notice Listing Contract

Clauses Incorporated by Reference. the FAR clause 52.237-8. ”Restriction on Severance

Payments to Foreign Nationals.” is included. Would USAID be willing to remove this clause and replace it with FAR clause 52.237-9, “Waiver on Restriction on Severance Payments to

Foreign Nationals”?

Answer: The Head of the Agency has not waived the 31.205-6(g)(6) cost allowability limitations on severance payments to foreign nationals for this Activity, therefore FAR

52.237-8 will not be removed from the solicitation.

3. Question: According to RFP Section L.5(a), page 85, offerors are permitted to include any additional data or information they deem pertinent. This would seem to contradict the instructions in Section L.6, page 87, which states that only the annexes listed on that page or specifically required elsewhere in the solicitation will be reviewed or considered. Can

USAID kindly clarify?

Answer: Only those annexes listed in Section L.6 or specifically required in other parts of the solicitation can be submitted. The referenced sentence in L.5(a) has been removed from the solicitation.

4. Question: On Page 93 the RFP notes, “The M&E Plan must align with and support the

Performance Management Plan (PMP) of RDMA’s Regional Development Cooperation

Strategy (RDCS). Although the PMP and RDCS are not publicly available yet, RDMA will work with the Contractor to ensure alignment in the future. Therefore the draft M&E Plan attached to the offeror’s proposal is meant to be illustrative, but should be as close as possible to a final M&E Plan given the information that is currently publicly available.” Can

RDMA please clarify what relevant information “is currently publicly available” that contractors should use when designing their M&E plans?

Answer: Relevant information includes guidance documents on the USAID website and information and references included in the RFP. At this time, the only publicly available information specifically from the RDCS is included in Section “III. Goals and Objectives” of the SOO.

5. Question: On page 97, RFP Section L.7, Instructions for the Preparations of the

Cost/Business Proposal, Part 2. Proposed Costs/Prices, number 10 states: “The offeror must provide sufficient supporting budget breakdown and narrative for each budget line item to substantiate the GUC estimates. Providing large lump-sum amounts under this cost item will not be accepted.” Traditionally, grantees are not identified at the proposal stage; rather, the grants program is established upon project award using the grants manual as a first step with

RFAs and/or APSs issued to solicit applications. Evaluations and negotiations then take place and detailed budgets are established. Will USAID accept lump-sum amounts with a detailed narrative as to how those funds will be distributed among an illustrative group of grantees?

Answer: As indicated in the Solicitation, Offerors are required to propose the appropriate ceiling of the GUC component based on their market research and their unique PWS. In order for USAID to assess reasonableness of the proposed level of the GUC component, USAID must assess the basis for these estimates. USAID is not expecting detailed budget breakdowns. USAID will accept lump-sum amounts, at least indicating the estimated number of grants per year and total estimated amount for each grant. Narrative information supporting how those funds will be distributed among an illustrative group of grantees is required. Estimates are expected to be based on historical information, market research, etc.

The language in this section has been changed to further clarify USAID’s expectations.

6. Question: On page 97, under RFP Section L.7, Instructions for the Preparations of the

Cost/Business Proposal, Part 2. Proposed Costs/Prices, number 12 states, “USAID will not agree to allow the GUCs to be included in the calculation of fixed fee.” We respectfully request that USAID reconsider its agency prenegotiation fee objective of zero percent on grants and allow offerors to charge a fee that is reasonable and consistent with federal regulations, including FAR 15.404-4 and ADS 302.3.6.9, which state, inter alia, that prenegotiation fee objectives must be determined according to a structured approach that considers contractor effort, risk, and other special factors. Grants require significant effort to administer and carry risks for the contractor.

Answer: USAID is not reconsidering its agency prenegotiation fee objective of zero percent on grants.

7. Question: On Page 112, RFP Attachment 1 – Statement of Objectives, Sub-Purpose, notes that the contractor should “[Develop] a financially sustainable ASEAN regional catch documentation and traceability system to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud in areas where an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management is being applied.” Can USAID please provide further clarification about what is meant by “areas where an EAFM is being applied,” given that EAFM definitions vary widely? Furthermore, if in future years the

Contractor wants to work in sites where an EAFM is not being applied, is the Contractor then expected to implement EAFM prior to introducing a CDT system?

Answer: EAFM as defined by the FAO (citation given in RFP) and by the ASEAN, CTI-

CFF and SEAFDEC countries. The contractor is expected to facilitate and assist countries to implement and apply EAFM prior to and during the introduction of a CDT system, where appropriate. If the contractor’s work plan in any given year proposes sites where EAFM is not being applied, the contractor is expected to implement EAFM prior to, or in parallel with, the introduction of a CDT system. Please also refer to the following reference and link:

Staples S, Brainard R, Capezzuoli S, Funge-Smith S, Grose C, Heenan A, Hermes R, Maurin

P, Moews M, O’Brien C, Pomeroy R. (2014) Essential EAFM. Ecosystem Approach to

Fisheries Management Training Course Volume 1 – for Trainees. Food and Agriculture

Organizations of the United Nations, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.

http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/cred/eafm_training/index.php#course_materials

8. Question: On Page 113, RFP Attachment 1 – Statement of Objectives, Scope, notes that

“Priority species groups should be those that are (i) vital for food security and economic growth, (ii) protected by international, national and local laws, policies and customs, and (iii) under clear threat from IUU fishing and/or seafood fraud.” Can RDMA clarify what is meant by species “protected by international, national and local laws, policies and customs”? Since the trade and consumption of many such species is illegal, can RDMA explain why they would be included in a CDT system?

Answer: Not all species “protected” by law are completely illegal for harvest and trade, although are covered by some regulatory mechanisms consistent with local and international laws. In the case of completely restricted species, mechanisms should be developed in the

CDT system to prevent the entry of illegal species into the supply chain, especially in instances where they are mislabeled as legal species (i.e. seafood fraud).

9. Question: On Page 113, RFP Attachment 1 – Statement of Objectives, Scope, identifies the activity’s demonstration site as the Sulu and the Celebes Seas. Is USAID open to alternate sites?

Answer: USAID is not open to alternate sites. The preferred demonstration site is the Sulu-

Celebs Seas unless the countries around Sulu Celebes Seas decide otherwise during implementation. USAID and the contractor will take an adaptive management approach with respect to geography.

10. Question: On Page 118, RFP Attachment 1 – Statement of Objectives, Section IV, Grants

Under Contract, can USAID confirm that the cost share will be considered on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with ADS303, which states, “In the case of a non-U.S. recipient, it is important to be flexible when establishing cost sharing requirements.”

Answer: Confirmed.

11. Question: RFP Sections C.2.5.2, F.6, No. 2 and No. 9, state that geographic data collection and geographic analysis may provide long-term M&E baseline and change data for the region. Does RDMA have specific thematic data requirements or should domain experts recommend appropriate thematic mapping layers that will inform the long-term success of the Oceans and Fisheries Partnership across the region?

Answer: The offeror should, if applicable, propose the thematic mapping layers in their PWS and annual work plan. USAID will then consult with our own experts and experts in the Asia region when reviewing the offeror’s proposed thematic layers during implementation.

12. Question: P.9 - In section B.6 (1)(a) and (2)(e), offerors are asked to enter the distribution base for overhead and G&A rates for the Prime Contractor and for the Major Subcontractors.

Because indirect cost structures for the Prime Contractor and Major Subcontractors could differ from the lines presented in these particular sections of the RFP, would USAID consider deleting them or perhaps modify section B.6 so that proposed ceilings on indirect cost rates can be more adequately described in the proposal?

Answer: The solicitation is amended to reflect “[TBD indirect cost, e.g. overhead]” instead of “overhead” and “[TBD indirect cost, e.g. G&A]” instead of “G&A”. Please note that

USAID is not expecting offerors to propose ceiling rates for fringe benefits, only overhead and G&A.

13. Question: P. 10 – Can USAID please consider reviewing the cancellation ceiling as currently described in Section B.9 multi-year contract? In the event that the contract is cancelled, there could be costs not fully amortized on specialized equipment at the time of the cancellation notice, and based on 52.217-2 (d)(1)(3) cancellations charges can include such costs. In the spirit of the regulation, it is our understanding that these types of costs are allowable.

Answer: This section remains unchanged. In the event that the contract is cancelled, all costs deemed allocable, allowable and reasonable will be reimbursed to the Contractor.

14. Question: P. 14 - The acronym RFMO is not defined. Can you please confirm that this stands for “Regional fishery management organization”?

Answer: The acronym refers to “Regional Fisheries Management Organization”, the solicitation is amended to add this acronym to the acronym list.

15. Question: P. 20 and p. 24 – Can you please confirm that the Contractor is required to submit the Demobilization Plan 90 days prior to the completion date of the contract as per the table on p. 20 and not 4 months before the completion date as stated on p. 26?

Answer: The contractor is expected to submit a draft demobilization plan no later than four months prior to the completion date of the contract. The final approved demobilization plan is due 90 days prior to the end date of the contract as indicated on page 20 and page 26 (last sentence of paragraph 11).

16. Question: P. 25 – Can USAID elaborate on what type of Genetic Data they anticipate the

Contractor to report on?

Answer: Examples of genetic data may include DNA sequence data, allele frequency data, and genomic data, as exemplified in the genetic studies cited in the Reference section, or new approaches.

17. Question: P. 49 – The RFP states that the Contractor must “permanently destroy all data” related to the project once the contract has ended. Please confirm that programmatic and financial reports, results and achievements, work plans and other standard documentation does not have to be destroyed at project close, and can be retained by the Offeror. Please clarify what specific data USAID requires the Contractor to destroy.

Answer: This provision has been removed from the solicitation. All information regarding handling data under this activity are addressed sufficiently in other sections of the RFP.

18. Question: P.54 – Section I.3 includes clause 52.217-8 Option to extend services. Would

USAID clarify how options will be exercised in light of the fact that the contract is also considered to be a multi-year contract per Section B.9?

Answer: This is a multi-year contract as defined in FAR 17.103 with a period of performance of five years, with no option years established. FAR 52.217-8 provides the CO with the option to extend services for up to six months after the completion date.

19. Question: P. 82 paragraph (D)(b) – Can USAID accept if the Contractor provides a list of the recent contracts for which the Contractor submitted subcontract reports to eSRS and not the actual SF294 reports?

Answer: No, please submit a copy of the 10 most recent SF 294 reports.

20. Question: P. 85 states that “the instructions permit inclusion of any additional data or information offeror deems pertinent”, but p. 87 states that “only those annexes listed above or specifically required in other parts of this solicitation can be submitted.” Please clarify whether additional data beyond what is required by the RFP will be allowed and reviewed by

USAID. If so, please confirm that additional data can be included as an annex.

Answer: Please see response to Question No. 3.

21. Question: P. 87 states that “all graphs and charts must be included in the annexes”, but also that “a page in the technical proposal that contains a table, chart, graph etc… is subject to this page limitation.” Please confirm that tables, graphics, charts, and graphs may be included, where appropriate, in the technical proposal.

Answer: USAID confirms that tables, graphics, charts, and graphs may be included, where appropriate, in the technical proposal. If the offeror decides to provide additional charts and graphs, it may provide those in an annex. The page limitation to this annex (“illustrative charts and graphs”) is 5 pages. The RFP is amended to reflect this change.

22. Question: On p. 87, the RFP states that all graphs and charts must be included in the annexes. On p. 88, the RFP states that the Contractor is required to present diagrams for the

Theory of Change (TOC) and Results Chain (RC) as part of their Performance Work

Statement. Can you please clarify if the TOC and RC diagrams are to be presented in the body of the proposal or as an annex?

Answer: The offeror may choose to include the TOC and RC in either the PWS or in the annex for “illustrative charts and graphs” which is limited to 5 pages.

23. Question: P. 87 – Can you please confirm that the Branding Implementation Plan and

Marking Plan, the Logical Framework, and the Letters of Commitment from Key Personnel can be included as annexes?

Answer: Confirmed.

24. Question: P. 88 - Can USAID please elaborate on what is meant by a Results Chain?

Answer: The following references from USAID’s Biodiversity Policy explain this approach.

These references have been added to the Reference list:

Margoluis R, Stem C, Swaminathan V, Brown M, Johnson A, Placci G, Salafsky N, Tilders

I. (2013). Results chains: a tool for conservation action design, management, and evaluation.

Ecology and Society. 18: 22.

Foundations of Success. (2007). Using Results Chains to Improve Strategy Effectiveness. An

FOS how-to guide. Bethesda, Maryland, USA, Foundations of Success

25. Question: P. 90 – The RFP requires that Key Personnel positions must be available immediately upon contract signature to initiate the assignment in the Asia region. Can

USAID please change this to within 15 days of the award, as prospective candidates may be bound by labor laws or employers’ policies to give a notice?

Answer: Yes, the solicitation is amended to state that Key Personnel must be available within 15 calendar days upon the signature of the Contract.

26. Question: P. 90-91 – Can you please confirm that the Contractor can include Past

Performance narrative in the body of the technical proposal and not just as an Annex in the

Past Performance Sheet (Attachment 8)?

Answer: The information requested in Section L.6.4 is sufficient for USAID to assess the part performance of Offerors. Therefore, past performance narrative in the body of the technical proposal is not required.

27. Question: P. 90-91 – Can you please confirm that USAID will accept Past Performance

Information for Cooperative Agreements and Grants and not just Contracts?

Answer: Confirmed, Offerors may provide contractor performance information on both acquisition and assistance instruments.

28. Question: P. 93 – Are the M&E plans for CTI-CFF and SEAFDEC publicly available? If not, can USAID please share them?

Answer: CTI-CFF Monitoring and Evaluation System (M&E System) Operation Manual is available at this link: http://www.coraltriangleinitiative.org/library/monitoring-and-evaluation-system-operations-manual.

SEAFDEC does not have an M&E Plan at this time.

29. Question: P. 96 - The RFP states that “Cost and technical proposals must reflect IEE or EA preparation costs and approaches.” Please confirm that text regarding IEE or EA approaches should be included in the technical proposal. If this is correct, under which section should it be included? Will it count toward the page limit?

Answer: Based on the Offeror’s unique PWS and depending on the envisioned environmental impact, the activities are expected to fall under the categorical exclusion or negative determination categories (see Attachment 6). If the Offeror proposes activities outside the scope of the IEE, these may require that an additional IEE or EA be completed by

USAID. Cost proposals must reflect IEE or EA (if activities with positive determination are anticipated) preparation costs and approaches. This section has been amended to reflect that the information must be presented only in the cost proposal.

30. Question: P. 97 – Please confirm that the technical proposal should include narrative regarding 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 (to be determined)” as stated on page 96 of the RFP, rather than an IEE, EA, EMMP, or M&M plan itself.

Answer: Only budget narrative regarding the approach is needed at this stage, not the plan itself.

31. Question: P. 118 – The RFP states that the objective of the Grants under Contracts program is to “leverage investments or cost share from local organizations in implementing activities at the USAID Oceans demonstration and expansion sites…” Can USAID please confirm that leveraging investments will be sufficient and that USAID will not require cost share from local organizations receiving GUCs?

Answer: Cost share will be considered on a case-by-case basis and the appropriate level of cost share will be determined post-award, when negotiating the grants manual. Cost share, when appropriate, may be required from local organizations. As noted in Section IV of the

SOO, the contractor will propose the most appropriate level of cost share based on market research.

32. Question: Can USAID confirm where they would like the Indicator Table presented? Should it be in the technical narrative, the PWS, the QASP or in the M&E Plan

(which will not be evaluated as per p.88)?

Answer: Indicators must be presented in the narrative of the technical proposal, where the

Offeror finds appropriate. Corresponding performance standards will be required in the PWS

Matrix and QASP as indicated in the RFP.

http://www.coraltriangleinitiative.org/library/monitoring-and-evaluation-system-operations-manual http://www.coraltriangleinitiative.org/library/monitoring-and-evaluation-system-operations-manual

33. Question: Can USAID describe the extent to which ASEAN-SEAFDEC, CTI-CFF and

RPOA-IUU have been engaged on the RFP development and are ready to work with the contractor – or would the project design and implementation need to be sensitized with these partners?

Answer: Significant stakeholder engagement was undertaken in developing this RFP which includes the CTI-CFF and SEAFDEC secretariats and countries. USAID will provide appropriate guidance during the implementation stage. Please also refer to section “V.

Coordination Role” of the SOO.

34. Question: Given the complexity and ambition of the project and the possibility of working with numerous agencies across a large and diverse geographic area, there are a variety of risks associated with this project. Can USAID reconsider its restrictions on the fixed fee and allow the contractor to apply the fee on the sub-contractors budgets and fees?

Answer: The Offeror must not calculate its proposed fixed fee, if any, over subcontractors’ fixed fee. USAID will consider “fee over fee” unreasonable. There is no additional limitation on applying fixed fee over subcontractors’ budget.

35. Question: I was curious if this was a follow-on requirement. If so, would it be possible for you to provide the incumbent information (we need the contract number and contractor).

Answer: USAID has a number of current and previous activities which have components considered when developing the Oceans and Fisheries Partnership Activity. However, this

Activity is not a follow-on requirement.

36. Question: Has a contractor performed similar work to this for the government in the past?

If available, please provide the incumbent contract number. If you are unable to provide a contract number, is it safe to assume this is a new requirement for the government?

Answer: Please see response to Question No. 35.

[END OF AMENDMENT NO. 01]