The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Solicitation No. SOL-492-11-000010 Strengthening the Capacity of Local Civil Society Organizations in the Philippines July 20, 2011
ATTACHMENT B
Responses to Potential Offerors’ Questions
Cover Letter:
| Q1. | Cover Letter: The Request for Proposal (RFP) closing date is noted as twelve (12) midnight Manila time on 7 August 2011 in the upper right corner, while the second page of the cover letter states the submission time to be eleven (11) pm manila time on 7 August 2011. Please clarify the submission time. |
| A1. | The submission time is twelve (12) midnight Manila time on 7 August 2011. |
| Q2. | The first page of the RCO letter at the beginning of the RFP notes that submissions are due on August 7, 2011 at “12 midnight Manila, Philippines local time.” The second page of the letter notes, “The required closing date and time for receipt of proposals is USAID/Philippines 11p.m. Manila local time on August 7, 2011.” Q. Please clarify the local time by which proposals are due. |
| A2. | The submission time is twelve (12) midnight Manila, Philippines local time on August 7, 2011. |
Section B
| Q1. | On page 6, Section B.3, “Estimated Cost, Fixed Fee, and Obligated Amount”, the clause refers to a three year contract period. On page 80, Clause L.17(d), “Instructions for the Preparation for the Cost Proposal,” the proposal indicates a contract period of “60 months or 5 years.” Q. Please clarify the length of the contract period. |
| A1. | The contract period will be for thirty-six (36) months or three (3) years. |
| Q2. | On page 6, Section b.5, “Budget,” the budget format provided for bidding in this clause does not necessarily follow the accounting structure of our company. Q. Will USAID accept a budget line item format that includes all of the cost categories listed in a different order? |
| A2. | The Mission will accept from non-profits, a budget format with the following line items: Personnel, Fringe Benefits, Travel, Equipment, Supplies, Contractual, Construction, Other Costs, Total Direct Charges, Indirect Charges, Total Estimated Cost. |
| Q3. | “On page 7, Clause B.7, “Advance Understanding on Ceiling Indirect Cost Rates…”, a requirement to establish ceiling indirect rates is incorporated. Q. The purpose of the annual audit and approval of the Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement is to ensure allowable, reasonable, and allocable costs in the indirect cost pool and to ensure that a consistent rate is applied across all direct cost objectives in an organization. This clause undermines the purpose of the NICRA and of the Overhead, Special Cost and Closeout Branch of the cost, Audit and support Division of the Office of Acquisition and Assistance. Therefore, the Offeror respectfully requests that the ceiling on indirect rates is removed and the annual audit remains the basis of the billable indirect cost rate.” |
| A3. | The “Advance Understanding on Ceiling Indirect Cost Rates and Final Reimbursement for Indirect Costs” provision stays. It is incorrect to say that this clause undermines the purpose of the NICRA and of M/OAA/CAS. The offeror is enjoined to review its NICRA more closely, particularly the language on ceilings on indirect cost rate/s in section II, E.2. |
| Q4. | “On page 7, Clause B.7, “Advance Understanding on Ceiling Indirect Cost Rates…”, Please confirm that the ceiling on indirect cost rates should address overhead rates, G&A rates, and other pool rates that are controllable by the contractor and not include fringe benefits rate ceiling which is distinctly beyond the control of any individual company, and which are often not found in an approved NICRA.” |
| A4. | Prior to award, USAID will negotiate the ceilings on the indirect cost rates with the successful offeror based on its NICRA. |
Section C:
| Q1. | Does USAID anticipate developing public private partnerships with CSOs and targeted CSOs planned under this project? |
| A1. | We are open to various methodologies or approaches to capacity development. The proponent, however, should be able to clearly articulate the value-added of developing public-private partnerships to the development of the capacities of local CSOs. |
| Q2. | Does USAID have a list of targeted CSOs intended for this project or will the implementing partner identify a methodology for targeting CSOs? |
| A2. | Please refer to Section C, C.3.2.1 on page 12, of the RFP. |
| Q3. | For planning and implementation purposes, does USAID intend that the targeted CSOs be linked to ongoing cross-sector programs, special geographic areas including the conflict areas in Mindanao or propose some other criteria for targeting? |
| A3. | Please refer to Section C, C.3.2.1 on page 12, of the RFP. In addition, we do expect balanced geographic representation. Hence, we anticipate that roughly one third of the CSO beneficiaries will be from Mindanao or have programs in Mindanao. |
| Q4. | Does USAID intend to develop institutional objectives for training capacity development organizations in addition to the 20 specialists identified in the results plan? |
| A4. | A number of institutions that provide training to CSOs already exist in the Philippines. The proponent however, should go ahead and include a component to develop training organizations if they can make a cogent and compelling case that this is needed. |
| Q5. | In Section C.4 Expected Results, point #4 states that “At least 75% of targeted CSOs that will be randomly selected will pass USAID’s pre-award review.” Can USAID give some documentation on what the USAID pre-award review is? |
| A5. | Broadly speaking, the pre-award review covers financial management capacity (ability to manage/maintain auditable records, internal controls, ability to procure/manage property and personnel, etc.), and organizational integrity and performance (governance and organizational structure in place, strategic plans, track record, etc. |
| Q6. | On p.13 under C.5 Personnel Requirements, the first paragraph mentions “team should be a combination of expatriate and local staff.” However, the very next paragraph states “The contractor should assemble and deploy for the life of the project a team of up to 4 long-term local professionals.” Would USAID please clarify the use of expatriates on this project? |
| A6. | Offerors are encouraged to propose a team which they think will successfully and creatively address the requirements of the project. The team may be made up of expatriates and/or locals. |
| Q7. | Page 13 of the RFP references a team of 4 long-term staff; however, page 77 of the RFP limits the number of CVs to be submitted to a total of 3. Would USAID please clarify the total number of CVs that can be submitted? |
| A7. | Offerors may propose up to a maximum of three (3) Key Personnel. |
| Q8. | On page 10, Section C.2.3, “USAID Forward,” considering the emphasis on capacity building in local civil society organizations and other entities, USAID regulations have established the effectiveness of awarding grants as a tool for this capacity building. Q. Please confirm that a Grants Under Contract (GUC) authorization will be considered and a waiver processed for incorporation of the GUC clause in the award contract. |
| A8. | The intent of this project is for the contractor to build the individual capacities of local CSOs by identifying their organizational needs, providing appropriate training and equipment, monitoring their progress, etc. Giving targeted local CSOs grants to support their own activities is not envisioned for this contract. |
Section H
| Q1. | On page 30, Clause H.7, “Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation”, the clause includes numerous references to the U.S. Embassy Compensation Plan as a ceiling limit on CCN salaries. Q. Please provide the Compensation Plan for use in preparation of this proposal budget. |
| A1. | The USG Philippines Local Compensation Plan is not a public document. However, local compensation information is provided in Attachment C to this Amendment 1. |
| Q2. | Regarding CCn salaries, page 31 states that “for CCNs, the ceiling is the maximum salary of the highest senior FSN position authorized under the U.S. Embassy Compensation Plan, which will be provided to the contractor on request after the contract award.” We respectfully request that USAID provide the U.S. Embassy Local Compensation Plan at this time; or at a minimum, provide information on the maximum salary of the highest senior FSN position. |
| A2. | See Attachment C to this Solicitation Amendment. |
| Q3. | On page 30, Clause H.7(h), “Annual Salary Increase,” a CO approval for any individual annual increase in excess of 5% limits the policy and practice statements of Clause H.6 in annual increases which are performance-based and which may include promotions for excellence and increased seniority or skill level. Q. We respectfully request the application of this limitation to an employee pool of 5% per annum rather than 5% per individual per annum to incorporate the allowability and reasonableness allowed by the regulations, and to reduce the paperwork necessary for timely performance. Please recall that the authority of AIDAR 752.7007 provides for salary incrases in accordance with the contractor’s personnel policy. |
| A3. | The request to apply the limitation to an employee pool of 5% per annum rather than 5% per individual per annum is agreed to. |
| Q4 | On page 32, Clause H.8, “Employment of Third Country Nationals (TCNs)…” We note that the application of the local salary structure and currency are applied to TCNs. A. It is a standard practice to allow the contractor to propose highly qualified TCN employees in senior technical positions. Limiting their rights to equal compensation to their peers who are US citizens can restrict the quality of personnel available for such a complex scope of work. Please confirm that this restriction on TCNs applies only to those TCNs hired to work in the cooperating country and not to TCNs who are employees posted outside the Philippines. |
| A4. | The local salary structure and currency are applied to TCNs who are hired to work in the cooperating country and not to TCNs who are employees posted outside the Philippines. |
| Q5. | On page 35, Clause H.17, “… Title to and Care of Property,” and Page 36, Clause H.18, “Approvals for Nonexpendable Property Purchases,” the clauses define non-expendable property as $500 per unit with a shelf life of two years. Q. XXXX respectfully requests USAID/Contracting Officer consideration to incorporate the appropriate cost principle definition of non-expendable property, such as under A-122 nonexpendable property threshold into any award of $5,000 with a shelf life of one year. |
| A5. | The definition of nonexpendable property in the RFP is the standard definition for commercial organizations. Should the winning offeror be a non-commercial organization, the appropriate cost principles and pertinent definitions will apply to the contract. For example, for non-profits, OMB Circular A-122 will apply. |
Section L:
Q1. Section L.4(b), on page 77 of the RFP, states “The offeror shall include, in an annex, resumes/CVs for all the proposed key personnel candidates and other long-term technical experts, local and expatriate, up to a total number of three.” On page 75, Section L.13(b), it is stated “other proposed key personnel (maximum of four).” Could USAID please confirm that offerers are allowed to submit three page resumes/CVs for up to four key personnel?
A1. Offerors are allowed to propose up to three (3) Key Personnel, including the Chief of Party. Resumes/CVs of Key Personnel are limited to three (3) pages only.
| Q2. | L.14, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, pg. 76: The RFP states “Technical proposal are limited to twelve (12) pages in length” on pg 76. On pg 77, L.14(a), Executive Summary, the instructions state that the executive summary will not be counted against the eleven (11) page limit. Please clarify if the technical proposal is limited to twelve (12) pages or eleven (11) pages. |
| A.2 | The technical proposal is limited to eleven (11) pages. |
| Q3. | L.17, Instructions for the preparation of the cost proposal, pg 80: Section L.17(d) requests the cost proposal be compiled to show an illustrative budget over sixty (60) months (five (5) years) while the period of performance noted in F.3, pg 18, states the program to be three (3) years. Please clarify if the illustrative budget should be compiled for three (3) years or five (5) years. |
| A3. | The period of performance for the CSO Project is three (3) years or thirty-six (36 months). |
| Q4. | The page limits do not add up. On page p.76, section L.14, the RFP states “Technical proposals are limited to 12 pages in length.” However, on the next page it says under Executive Summary that it “does not count against the 11 page limit.” The rest of the sections on p. 77 go on to add up to 11 pages total. What is the correct page length? If 12 pages, in what section should the extra 1 page go? |
| A4. | The technical proposal is limited to eleven (11) pages. |
| Q5. | Page 77 of the RFP states that CVs of key personnel are limited to three pages, and CVs of all other personnel (including long-term personnel) are limited one page each. We respectfully request that the page limit for CVs for the 3 non-key long-term staff be increased to at least two pages. |
| A5. | The CVs for all non-key personnel shall not exceed two (2) pages. |
| Q6. | Page 80 of the RFP requests a budget for the “contract period of sixty (60) months or five (5) years from date of award.” Please confirm that the contract period is three years as stated in the cover letter. |
| A6. | The contract period will be for thirty-six (36) months or three (3) years. |
| Q7. | On page 76, Clause L.14, “Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal,” the clause states, “technical proposals are limited to 12 pages in length.” On page 77, Clause L. 14(a), the clause states, “Executive Summary (2-page size limit; does not count against 11 page limit).” Q. Please clarify the technical proposal page limit. |
| A7. | The technical proposal is limited to eleven (11) pages. |
| Q8. | On page 78, Clause L. 14(e), “Past Performance,” it is noted that “offerors must include a list of five U.S. Government, other donor, and/or privately funded contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, etc. received by your organization and each major subcontractor for work of similar size and scope…” Q. Is the Offeror required to submit five total past performance references for the primary contractor, or five for the primary contractor and five for each major subcontractor? |
| A8. | The Offeror will submit five past performance references for the primary contractor and five performance references each for every major subcontractor. |
Others
| Q1. | Is there a contractor currently providing the same or similar services, or is this being considered a new requirement? If there is an incumbent contractor, could you please provide the contractor name, contract number, and award date? |
| A1. | There is no current contractor providing the same or similar services. |
| Q2. | Is there or was there a past service provider for this contract? If so, what is the name of the contractor & what is the current or past contract price awarded to the contractor? |
| A2. | There is no current or past service provider. |
| Q3. | Can an entity like…a woman own small business have different sub or prime contractors on the different aspects of “Strengthening the Capacity of Civil Society Organizations in the Philippines”. In other words, can I submit more than one proposal with different prime or subs? And collectively, should the total of the numerous proposals amount to 1.5M? or a proposal can be 1.5M each? |
| A3. | The intent of this RFP is to award a single contract to an offeror who will provide all the requirements of the contract and deliver the stated results by the end of the contract period. An offeror may submit a proposal for the project and one alternate proposal. When an offeror submits a proposal, it is assumed that the offeror is the prime under that proposal. The offeror may subcontract with other organizations to deliver the required results under the contract. |
| Q4. | We would like to be clarified on whether the definition of civil society organization is expanded to include smaller NGOs like community based organizations of indigenous people? |
| A4. | The definition of civil society organization is provided in Section C, at C.2.1. The definition is inclusive rather than exclusive. It does not exclude small NGOs or peoples’ organizations. The Project, however, is meant to target a broad cross section of CSOs operating in the Philippines. It does not seek to target a specific sector, e.g. indigenous peoples. |
| Q5. | Would USAID be requiring all target NGOs that would become part of the trainee/mentee pool to be registered entities in any authorized government agency in the Philippines, or only with the Securities and Exchange Commission? |
| A5. | Aside from the SEC, other agencies of the government are authorized to register CSOs including the Cooperative Development Authority, Department of Labor and Employment, Department of Social Welfare and Development, and Housing and Land use Regulatory Board. It is not a question of which government agency provided registration. It is a question of whether the CSO has the legal personality to transact business such as the opening of a bank account, obtaining a loan or grant, participating in government projects, etc. |
| Q6. | Can the capacity building program include exchange learning on best practices and sharing experiences and networking activities with CSO organizations from Indonesia and the Mekong Region? |
| A6. | We are open to various methodologies or approaches to capacity development. This can include exchange visits. But we will need to review every proposal for cost realism and cost effectiveness. We will also need to carefully assess the value-added of exchange visits to other countries. It is a fact that CSO development in the Philippines is more advanced than most Asian countries. The Philippines is often the destination of learning visits from other Asian countries. |
| Q7. | Lastly, can the Training and Technical Assistance to be provided as Phase 3 of the project include trainings around crafting community plans and ancestral domain mapping and planning? |
| A7. | The Strengthening the Capacity of Local Civil Society Organizations in the Philippines Project is geared towards strengthening core organizational competencies. These core competencies are also enumerated in the Statement of Work. Sectoral competencies like ancestral domain mapping is very narrow and not envisioned for this project. |
[End of Attachment B]
