RFP_Amendment1-SOL-492-13-000009_Pacific-American_Climate_Fund.pdf

Issuance of Amendment: 11th July 2013 Closing Date: 29th July 2013 Closing Time: 9:00am, Manila Time

REFERENCE: Request for Proposal (RFP) No. SOL-492-13-000009 Pacific- American Climate Fund

SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1

The purpose of this amendment is to modify specific sections of the RFP as a result of clarifications on the questions received (Attachment 1) and in compliance with FAR requirements. The following are the specific sections in the RFP modified:

1. In Section B.3 ESTIMATED COST, FIXED FEE AND OBLIGATED AMOUNT, Update the following to read:

“B.3 ESTIMATED COST, FIXED FEE AND OBLIGATED AMOUNT

The Total Estimated Cost plus fixed-fee for this acquisition is approximately $20,000,000 - $24,000,000.

The Contractor will not be paid any sum in excess of the ceiling price.

The Contractor’s fixed fee is tied to the accomplishment of the deliverables required in Sections C, D and F. Upon successful achievement of the deliverable, the Contractor shall provide evidence of the achievement to the Contracting Officer’s Representative and the Contracting Officer. Upon acceptance by USAID and receipt of approval from the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall submit an invoice for the amount of the fee associated with the deliverable.

USAID paying office ordinarily pays the Contractor a percentage of fixed fee that directly corresponds to the percentage of allowable costs being paid. Two exceptions to paying fixed fee in this manner apply:

1) If the CO determines that this method results in paying a disproportionately higher ratio of fixed fee than the percentage of work that the Contractor has completed, then the CO may suspend further payment of any fixed fee until the Contractor has made sufficient progress to justify further payment, up to the agreed percentage. 2) The clauses entitled "Allowable Cost and Payment" (FAR 52.216-7) and "Fixed Fee" (FAR 52.216-8) are incorporated into this contract. The terms and conditions of these clauses apply after total payments of fixed fee reach eighty-five percent (85%) of the total fixed fee.”

2. In Section B – SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS, Insert the following to read:

“B.7 CANCELLATION UNDER MULTI-YEAR CONTRACTS (1997)

This Contract is considered non-severable, and is therefore a multi-year contract as defined in FAR

17.103. Therefore this contract is subject to the requirements of FAR 17.106.

This is a CPFF type contract where the contractor is authorized to be reimbursed for all costs which are allowable in accordance with FAR 52.216-7, “Allowable Costs and Payment”. Therefore, the contractor will not incur any costs which would have been amortized over the life of the contract should the contract be cancelled in accordance with FAR 52.217-2. Therefore, the cancellation for each cancellation date is as follows:

Cancellation Dates Total Cost Fixed Fee Total CPF Cumulative CPFF

Contract Year 2: 14 th

October 2014

Contract Year 3: 14 th

October 2015

Contract Year 4: 14 th

October 2016

Contract Year 5: 14 th

October 2017

3. In Section C.6 CRITICAL ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS, Delete last sentence of the first bullet to read:

“Geographic focus. USAID/Pacific Islands will prioritize investments based on existing U.S.

Government strategic objectives and investments, regional and national adaptation priorities, population, human development indicators, other development partner assistance investments, opportunities for collaboration and scale up and the ability to show results.”

4. In Section H.8 GRANTS UNDER CONTRACTS, Update the following to read:

“H.8 GRANTS UNDER CONTRACTS

Subject to the conditions in ADS3 302.3.4.8, the Contractor utilizing the Grants Under Contract mechanism is authorized to execute grants with non-governmental organizations (non-profits or for-profits). USAID reserves the right to terminate the grant activities unilaterally in extraordinary circumstances.

The following requirements apply to any grant to be awarded by a Contractor under this contract:

a. USAID will have substantial involvement in the establishment of selection criteria and shall approve the selection of grant recipients. Unless otherwise directed by the cognizant Contracting Officer, the COR will have authority to approve the grant recipient selection.

b. USAID retains the right to terminate the grant activity (activities) unilaterally in extraordinary circumstances.

c. The Contractor is not authorized to execute or administer Cooperative Agreements on USAID's behalf.

d. Requirements which apply to USAID-executed grants also apply to grants signed by the Contractor.

e. The Contractor must award such grants only to non-U.S. or U.S. non-governmental organizations. The approved amount of such grants to U.S. non-governmental organizations must not exceed $100,000 unless an exception is provided in writing by the Contracting Officer (and further approved by the HCA).

f. In-Kind Components of Grants. For in-kind grants, the Contractor must be able to procure commodities and services for grantees. The Contractor must ensure that procurements include delivery to the grantee, inspection (the Contractor must use a best-value system of procurement to ensure quality and cost control), requisite field demonstrations where applicable, training on use of the commodity, warrantee/maintenance agreements, monitoring of commodity use, titling disposition, and all permits, licenses, waivers, etc. required by law or regulation. Approval in advance from the COR is required before the Contractor can issue grants. In-kind contributions are allowable as cost share in accordance with OMB Circular A-110 and 22 CFR 226.23.for U.S. organizations and in accordance with the Standard Provision, “Cost Share” for non-U.S. organizations.”

5. In Section I – CONTRACT CLAUSES, Update Section I.1 NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE to include FAR Clause 52.217-8 – Option to Extend Services (Nov 1999).

Insert the following to read:

“I.29 FAR 52.217-C CANCELLATION UNDER MULTIYEAR CONTRACTS (OCT 1997)

(a) “Cancellation,” as used in this clause, means that the Government is canceling its requirements for all supplies or services in program years subsequent to that in which notice of cancellation is provided.

Cancellation shall occur by the date or within the time period specified in the Schedule, unless a later date is agreed to, if the Contracting Officer—

(1) Notifies the Contractor that funds are not available for contract performance for any subsequent program year; or

(2) Fails to notify the Contractor that funds are available for performance of the succeeding program year requirement.

(b) Except for cancellation under this clause or termination under the Default clause, any reduction by the Contracting Officer in the requirements of this contract shall be considered a termination under the

Termination for Convenience of the Government clause.

(c) If cancellation under this clause occurs, the Contractor will be paid a cancellation charge not over the cancellation ceiling specified in the Schedule as applicable at the time of cancellation.

(d) The cancellation charge will cover only—

(1) Costs—

(i) Incurred by the Contractor and/or subcontractor;

(ii) Reasonably necessary for performance of the contract; and

(iii) That would have been equitably amortized over the entire multi-year contract period but, because of the cancellation, are not so amortized; and

(2) A reasonable profit or fee on the costs.

(e) The cancellation charge shall be computed and the claim made for it as if the claim were being made under the Termination for Convenience of the Government clause of this contract. The Contractor shall submit the claim promptly but no later than 1 year from the date—

(1) Of notification of the non-availability of funds; or

(2) Specified in the Schedule by which notification of the availability of additional funds for the next succeeding program year is required to be issued, whichever is earlier, unless extensions in writing are granted by the Contracting Officer.

(f) The Contractor’s claim may include—

(1) Reasonable nonrecurring costs (see Subpart 15.4 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation) which are applicable to and normally would have been amortized in all supplies or services which are multi-year requirements;

(2) Allocable portions of the costs of facilities acquired or established for the conduct of the work, to the extent that it is impracticable for the Contractor to use the facilities in its commercial work, and if the costs are not charged to the contract through overhead or otherwise depreciated;

(3) Costs incurred for the assembly, training, and transportation to and from the job site of a specialized work force; and

(4) Costs not amortized solely because the cancellation had precluded anticipated benefits of

Contractor or subcontractor learning.

(g) The claim shall not include—

(1) Labor, material, or other expenses incurred by the Contractor or subcontractors for performance of the canceled work;

https://acquisition.gov/far/current/html/Subpart%2015_4.html#wp1208365

(2) Any cost already paid to the Contractor;

(3) Anticipated profit or unearned fee on the canceled work; or

(4) For service contracts, the remaining useful commercial life of facilities. “Useful commercial life” means the commercial utility of the facilities rather than their physical life with due consideration given to such factors as location of facilities, their specialized nature, and obsolescence.

(h) This contract may include an Option clause with the period for exercising the option limited to the date in the contract for notification that funds are available for the next succeeding program year. If so, the Contractor agrees not to include in option quantities any costs of a startup or nonrecurring nature that have been fully set forth in the contract. The Contractor further agrees that the option quantities will reflect only those recurring costs and a reasonable profit or fee necessary to furnish the additional option quantities.

(i) Quantities added to the original contract through the Option clause of this contract shall be included in the quantity canceled for the purpose of computing allowable cancellation charges.”

6. In Section L.8 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, Update Section L.8(4) to read:

“4. Institutional Capability and Past Performance (See Section M.2)

a. The Offerors (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself and for each proposed major subcontractor (one whose proposed cost comprises at least 15% of the total cost or total level of effort) in accordance with the following. Past

Performance Information of proposed teaming partners, subcontractors, etc., will be accepted given that a subcontractor's scope comprises at least 15% of the total cost or total level of effort for the proposal.

List in an annex to the technical proposal up to three (3) of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal. The most relevant indicators of performance are contracts of similar size, type of work, scope of work and complexity/diversity of tasks with the most relevant being the type and scope of work. A maximum of three past performance references for the Prime and a maximum of three for each of the subcontractors (i.e., consortia members, partners) must be included in the annex to the technical proposal provided that a subcontractor’s scope comprises at least 15% of the total cost or total level of effort for the proposal.

Provide for each of these past performance references, the names of the organizations that awarded the contracts, a list of three (3) contact names, job titles, mailing address, mobile and telephone numbers, e-mail address, and a description of the performance to include:

Scope of Work or complexity/diversity of tasks, Primary location(s) of work, Term of performance, Skills/expertise required, Dollar value, Resources leveraged, if any; and Contract type, i.e., fixed price, cost reimbursement, etc.

(Note: USAID recommends that Offerors alert the contacts that their names have been submitted and that they are authorized to provide performance information concerning the listed contracts if and when USAID requests it.)

Performance information will be used for both the responsibility determination and best value decision. USAID may use performance information obtained from other than the sources identified by the Offeror/subcontractor. USAID will utilize existing databases of Contractor performance information and solicit additional information from the references provided in Section L of this RFP and from other sources if and when the Contracting Officer finds the existing databases to be insufficient for evaluating an Offeror’s performance.

If the performance information contains negative information on which the Offeror has not previously been given an opportunity to comment, USAID will provide the Offeror an opportunity to comment on it prior to its consideration in the evaluation, and any Offeror comment will be considered with the negative performance information. USAID will initially determine the relevance of similar performance information as a predictor of probable performance under the subject requirement. USAID may give more weight to performance information that is considered more relevant and/or more current.

b. If extraordinary problems impacted any of the referenced contracts, provide a short explanation and the corrective action taken (required by FAR 15.305(a)(2)).

c. Describe any quality awards or certifications that indicate exceptional capacity to provide the service or product described in the statement of work. This information is not included in the page limitation and must be presented as an annex to the Technical proposal.”

7. In Section L.9 COST PROPOSALS, Update Section L.9 (b)(2)(i) to read:

“(2) The proposed costs consist of the Offeror’s estimated price to perform the required effort as set forth in the Statement of Work and must be prepared in a manner that is current, accurate and complete. The cost proposal must be presented in the following manner:

(i) As a summary budget with the budget line items below; and,

(ii) The detailed budget provided through the use of spreadsheets, budget narratives and footnotes.”

8. In Section M.2(c) Institutional Capability and Past Performance, Update Section M.2(c) to read:

“Institutional Capability (10 points): The Offeror’s institutional capability will be evaluated based on evidence of their ability to establish a sound team structure that draws on appropriate institutional capacity and expertise. This includes evidence of relevant institutional experience in areas such as grant-making, grant administration, grant monitoring, and financial controls – needed to effectively implement the proposed activity on behalf of USAID and achieve the objectives in the Statement of Work. Proposed teaming partners or subcontractors will be evaluated as part of the team structure if their scope is at least 15% of the total cost or total level of effort for the proposal.

Past Performance (5 points): Past Performance will be evaluated based on the evidence of ability to comply with terms and conditions of grant or contract awards to effectively and efficiently achieve development objectives and results through good planning and implementation and sound business practices and relations. Offerors will be evaluated based on past performance references on relevant programs during the past five years. Past Performance Information of proposed teaming partners, subcontractors, etc., will be accepted given that a subcontractor’s scope comprises at least 15% of the total cost or total level of effort for the proposal.

Institutional Capability and Past Performance references of proposed subcontractors, consortia members, and team partners cannot substitute for the past performance information of the prime Offeror. References of proposed subcontractors, consortia members, and team partners will be evaluated in proportion with their proposed costs.

(a) Performance information will be used for both the responsibility determination and best value decision. USAID may use performance information obtained from other than the sources identified by the Offeror/subcontractor. USAID will utilize existing databases of Contractor performance information and solicit additional information from the references provided in Section L.4 of this RFP and from other sources if and when the Contracting Officer finds the existing databases to be insufficient for evaluating an Offeror’s performance.

(b) Adverse past performance information to which the Offeror previously has not had an opportunity to respond, will be addressed in accordance with the policies and procedures set forth in FAR 15.3.

(c) USAID will initially determine the relevance of similar performance information as a predictor of probable performance under the subject requirement. USAID may give more weight to performance information that is considered more relevant and/or more current.

(d) The Contractor performance information determined to be relevant will be evaluated in accordance with the elements below:

(1) Quality of product or service, including consistency in meeting goals and targets.

(2) Cost control, including forecasting costs as well as accuracy in financial reporting.

(3) Schedule, including the timeliness against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g., efforts that contribute to or affect the schedule variance).

(4) Business relations, addressing the history of professional behavior and overall business-like concern for the interests of the customer, including the Contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior (to include timely identification of issues in controversy), customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts, cooperative attitude in remedying problems, and timely completion of all administrative requirements.

(5) Management of key personnel, including appropriateness of personnel for the job and prompt and satisfactory changes in personnel when problems with clients where identified.

(e) An Offeror’s performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably when:

(1) The Offeror lacks relevant performance history,

(2) Information on performance is not available, or

(3) The Offeror is a member of a class of Offerors where there is provision not to rate the class against a sub factor.

When this occurs, an Offeror lacking relevant performance history is assigned a "neutral" rating.

For example, a small business prime Offeror will not be evaluated on its performance in using small business concerns. If this sub factor is worth a possible 10 points out of a total possible point value of 100 for the technical proposal, then the small business prime Offeror’s technical proposal will have a maximum of 90 possible points. If it was assigned a total score of 80 points out of the 90 maximum possible points, its total technical score for evaluation against the other Offerors would be 88.89 (i.e., 80/90). USAID understands that there may be minor arithmetic differences in percentage terms as a result; however, it considers these differences to be minor and that they will not impact any best-value decision made under this solicitation.

An exception to this “neutral” rating provision is when a non-small businesses prime has no history of subcontracting with small business concerns.

Prior to assigning a "neutral" past performance rating, the Contracting Officer may take into account a broad range of information related to an Offeror's performance.”

9. In Section J – LIST OF ATTACHMENTS, Include the following:

Attachment J.4 – USAID STANDARD FORMS 294 SUBCONTRACTING REPORT FOR INDIVIDUAL

CONTRACTS

USAID STANDARD FORMS 295 SUMMARY SUBCONTRACTING REPORT

Unless otherwise amended, all other items in the RFP remain unchanged.

Pacific-American Climate Fund

RFP-492-13-00009

ATTACHMENT 1

Inquiries and Responses on the Pacific-American Climate Fund RFP

(SOL-492-13-00009)

QUESTION RESPONSE

1) Is there an incumbent? If so, who is current contractor, and what is their contract award amount? Is the incumbent eligible to bid on this project?

This is a new solicitation intended for eligible 8(a) firms and there is no incumbent contractor.

2) Is this a re-compete? Refer to response to question no. 1.

3) If so, please provide name of incumbent and amount of the contract.

Refer to response to question no. 1.

4) As an 8(a) company, we plan to team up with local company/ies in Manila who are very familiar with Climate

Change and contract/grant management related to this initiative.

Will you allow teaming with Philippine-based companies?

Teaming with firms from non-US countries is allowed. Please refer to

Section H.3 of the RFP on the limitations on subcontracting.

5) Past Performance. As a company, we have not provided support services to this kind of endeavor. We have however provided contract support services in the (omitted) industry as well as

(omitted) services to government and the private sectors. Our teaming partners are very knowledgeable about (omitted). Will you accept past performance of our teaming partners? If not, how will companies such as ours be graded? Will you give us a neutral grade?

Past Performance and Institutional Capability will be evaluated for the prime offeror and every organization (e.g., consortia members, teaming partners, subcontractors, etc.) proposed that comprises at least 15% of the total cost or total level of effort.

Offerors may submit up to 3 past performance references per prime and organization with at least the 15% of the total cost or total level of effort specified above. Similarly, Offerors may submit up to 3 institutional capability references per prime and organization with at least the 15% of the total cost or total level of effort. While references are not included in the proposal page count limit, each reference must not exceed 1 page.

As specified on page 116, Section M.2, Past Performance will be evaluated based on the evidence of ability to comply with terms and conditions of the contract and to effectively and efficiently achieve development objectives and results through good planning and implementation and sound business practices and relations. Contractor performance information determined to be relevant for evaluation purposes under Past Performance, are detailed in Section M.2(c).

6) Are we allowed to hire non-USA citizens to fill some of our key personnel?

Yes.

7) Since this is a cost plus fixed fee, will you be requiring an audit of our financial systems prior to award?

Please refer to ADS Chapter 591, particularly section 591.3.3.1 with regard to Pre-award Audits.

8) Is it your intention to award this as a single award to ‘best value’ contractor or multiple award?

The RFP is intended for a single award to an 8(a) eligible contractor.

9) Our understanding is that “Key Personnel” include: one

Climate Fund Coordinator and one Financial Management

Specialist based in the Manila, Philippines and three Regional

Fund Manager each located in specific base. Will you require resumes of all five be included in our technical proposal?

Updated resumés of all proposed Key Personnel are required as indicated in Section L.8 of the RFP.

10) The limit to pages for the Technical Proposal is “30 pages excluding annexes”. Is the cover page and table of contents part of the 30 page limitation?

The cover page and table of contents do not count against the 30-pages limitation.

11) Page 104, Institutional Capability (4.a) requires to present up to three (3) of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the proposal. Does this entail a total of up to three projects for the consortium, or is it up to three contracts per partner?

Past Performance information the Prime Offeror and every organization (e.g., consortia members, teaming partners, subcontractors, etc.) will be accepted given that the organization’s scope comprises at least 15% of the total level of effort or total cost for the proposal. It is required that at least 50% of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be for the employees of the

8(a) concern. A maximum of three past performance references for the

Prime and a maximum of three for each organization proposed are allowed to be included in the annex to the technical proposal. If a subcontractor’s scope comprises at least 15% of the total level of effort for the proposal, past performance and institutional capability information may be included.

12) Branding and Marking Plan. We noticed that per page 111 of the RFP, the Branding and Marking Plan shall be submitted as a separate annex to the technical proposal. However, in reviewing the list of annexes allowed to be included in the technical there is no mention about the Branding and Marking Plan section.

Could you please clarify in this regard?

It is required that Offerors submit a Branding and Marking Plan as an annex to the Technical Proposal. It will not count against the page limitations and will not be scored in the evaluation of the proposal. As indicated in section D.3, the Contractor’s Branding Implementation and Marking Plan will be finalized for Contracting Office’s approval no later than 45 days after contract award. Costs associated with

Branding and Marking must also be considered in the preparation of the Cost Proposal.

13) What, if any, are the expectations for the Pacific-American

Climate Fund project staff to handle any pre-screening for grant applications prior to the Grants Review Board submission for review? This is important to understand in terms of staffing needs for grant application review.

As detailed on page 16, subsequent to establishment of the grant-making facility is the administration, monitoring and auditing of sub-grants that provide seed funding to qualifying recipients through an open, competitive process. Contractor will be responsible for: 1) developing procurements and solicitations; 2) receiving and logging proposals; 3) vetting potential sub-grant recipients; 4) ensuring that proper administrative and financial controls are in place to administer funds and ensuring compliance with applicable regulations; 5) coordinating a review and approval process with USAID’s Contracting

Officer’s Representative (COR) for this Activity, among other responsibilities. During steps 3) and 4) above, the contractor will be asked to identify those applicants who did not appear to have the proper administrative, managerial, or financial controls in place to ensure compliance with USAID regulations. These applicants may still be considered for award by the Grants Review Board given additional capacity building support is provided where necessary. The Contractor will also be required to conduct pre-award surveys similar to those performed by USAID on new local partners being considered for assistance under Pacific-American Fund Climate. Based on the results of the pre-award survey, the Contractor must ensure that any gaps or weaknesses identified are addressed. In some cases, this will also entail recommendations for managerial or financial capacity-building.

14) We understand the importance of the Regional Fund Managers to ensure adequate coverage across the vast Pacific Island region. The RFP is quite specific regarding the exact location of the Regional Fund Managers. We are wondering if there is any flexibility regarding their exact location, so long as the geographic coverage is the same?

No. The Pacific-America Climate Fund must have Regional Fund

Managers for Melanesia based in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, for Micronesia based in Majuro, Marshall Islands, and for Polynesia, based in Suva, Fiji. The locations of the Regional Offices correspond with the locations of our US Embassies in the Pacific Islands. The Fund

Coordinator, Financial Specialist, Outreach and Communications

Coordinator, and Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist will be based in

Manila, Philippines.

15) Will the Grants Review Board's mandate be strictly contained to the approval process for applications? Or does USAID expect that it will play a role in the monitoring of grants?

The function of the GRB is to make selections for winning sub-awards.

It is not envisioned that the GRB will have a monitoring and evaluation role. Alternatively, the USAID COR will monitor the prime award, as well as technical and programmatic provisions of sub-awards. As specified on page 103, the contractor will be responsible for “ 7) monitoring and reporting (both internally to USAID and for public outreach) on grant implementation; and 8) monitoring and auditing of financial expenditures, reports and other related documents to ensure adherence to USAID requirements and that grant monies are used for intended purpose.”

16) On page 21 under the "Geographic focus" section, the RFP states that "The Contractor must maintain an operational control plan for the USAID/Pacific Islands and its stakeholders." Can further details be provided on this plan and its purpose? Is this plan for Pacific-American Climate Fund or for the

Operational control is specified in further detail in Section C.9.. On behalf of USAID, the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will provide oversight of the activity to help the Contractor achieve the objectives of the sub-grants of the Fund. Additionally, the selection process for winning sub-grants will be guided by USAID. The Grants

USAID/Pacific Islands office? Review Board will be chaired by USAID’s Contracting Officer’s

Representative (COR).

17) On page 99 under technical annexes "G. Subcontractors information," can further clarification be provided on what type of information is to be provided in this document?

Subcontractors Information pertains to Standard Forms 294 and

295.Offerors are required to fill out these forms for each of their subcontractors.

18) To what extent are bilateral agreements in place with the 12 island nations to allow for grant-making without subsequent tax implications for either the prime contractor or the grant recipient? Can USAID make copies of those bilateral agreements available?

USAID has a bilateral agreement with Papua New Guinea that addresses VAT issues, but none for the eleven other Pacific island countries that definitively establish tax exemptions for US assistance funds. However, USAID and the US embassy will provide assistance in all tax and registration issues in all implementing countries to the extent necessary for implementation of project activities. For the purpose of preparing the cost proposal, do not include VAT in your budget estimates.

19) On page 18, section C.4.b Sub-grants, how prescriptive is the allocation of grants between the 3 identified categories of size?

Are there any additional requirements or expectations on the average size/number of grants to be made within each category?

No more than two Category 3 sub-grants are anticipated under the

Pacific-American Climate Fund. USAID does not have any additional requirements or expectations on the average/size number of grants to be made in each category, as this will depend on the quality and quantity of sub-grant proposal submissions.

20) Is there any flexibility in the key personnel position titles?

Would USAID allow contractors to propose alternative titles for these positions so long as the job descriptions remained the same?

Offerors may rename positions as they deem fit, as long as position descriptions, management structure, location, and other key staff specifications remain the same.

21) On page 101, with regards to the outlined technical proposal structure, is there any flexibility in either adding sections and/or reordering?

Yes, sections can be added or reordered, however proposals are strictly limited to no more than 30 pages in length excluding annexes. Offerors should include those sections outlined on page 101 that correspond to the evaluation criteria in Section M.2.

22) On page 106, section L.9.b.2.i the cost proposal is requested in

"component line items." Can further details be provided on what each component line item should include?

Development-focused budget with component line items as mentioned in section L.9(b)(2)(i) are tied to the Results Framework shown in Figure

1 on page 14. However, as this endeavor is intended towards accomplishment of Intermediate Result 1.1 (see Figure 1 on page 14 of the RFP) and the Results Framework are not finalized as of the posting of the RFP, presentation of the budget in a development-focused budget is no longer necessary. Section L.9(b)(2)(i) is hereby removed from the

RPF.

23) Regarding performance information, can USAID confirm that up to 3 PPR's for the offeror AND each subsequent subcontractor are allowable?

Past Performance references of proposed subcontractors cannot substitute for the past performance information of the Prime Offeror.

A maximum of three past performance references for the Prime and a maximum of three for each of the subcontractors are allowed to be included in the annex to the technical proposal. If a subcontractor’s scope comprises at least 15% of the total level of effort for the proposal, past performance information may be included.

24) In Micronesia, is USAID open to alternate regional office locations that show better value and increased leverage of funds for partnerships and cost sharing? For example, select locations in Micronesia currently host leading USAID grantees, organizations such as fisheries commission offices, and representatives of other development organizations focused on climate change.

No. Please refer to response on question no. 14.

25) In Polynesia, is USAID open to alternate regional office locations that provide better value through larger presence of partner agencies, reduced management costs?

No. Please refer to response on question no. 14.

26) Since capacity building is a critical part of the program, would

USAID like the contractor to (a) apply the method currently used by USAID capacity building of CSOs elsewhere, adopted

USAID does not specify a particular approach for capacity building of

CSOs through the Pacific-American Climate Fund. The Offeror must describe their approach to building financial, managerial and for the region, or (b) use a USAID/Philippines approach adopted on related projects? If (b), could USAID identify where the contractor can locate information on such an approach?

organizational capacity of civil society partners. As specified on page

22, capacity building will be done at least partly by the Pacific-

American Climate Fund’s Financial Specialist, and may also be completed through hiring of third parties, or through contract or grant services.

27) Does the USAID Philippines mission currently have functional

GIS capacity? Is it using AIDtracker or any other Web-based database for its M&E work?

There is no functional GIS capacity that cuts across all

USAID/Philippines projects. For its M&E work, the mission uses many tools to support the collection of data and analyses to inform our decisions and assess our development effectiveness. For the external audience who are interested to see breath of our programs, you can visit http://map.usaid.gov and evaluation reports at http://www.usaid.gov/evaluation/usaid-forward-evaluation-reports

28) Qualifications for the five key staff positions are provided in the RFP. What are the qualifications for the non-key staff positions (M&E Specialist and Communications Specialist)?

Are these non-key staff positions considered to be full-time?

There are no specific qualifications given for non-key staff. There is no specified requirement as to whether non-key staff positions must be part-time or full-time, but their LOE should be specified in the Offerors proposal, as specified on page 99, 101, and 106.

Non-key staff will be evaluated insofar as they address the Offerors management and technical approach to implementing the Pacific-

American Climate Fund. Monitoring and Evaluation will be scored as detailed in Section M.2.c. The ability of the Offeror to monitor and evaluate grant performance, monitor and audit financial reports, and ensure due diligence and compliance of USAID rules and regulations

(as specified under C.4) are important elements to achieving the objectives of the Pacific-American Fund. Under C.4.a, Communication is listed as one of four outputs to be performed the contractor. Since

Communications Specialist is not a key staff, there are no mandatory qualifications required for a Communications Specialist. However, as specified in the RFP, capturing and disseminating best practices and lessons learned at the community level promotes community buy-in, scale-up, and increased adoption of proven adaptation measures, and fosters sustainability of adaptation activities.

http://www.usaid.gov/evaluation/usaid-forward-evaluation-reports

29) As activities and grantees will be spread across the 12 Pacific

Island nations, accurate budgeting for travel will be crucial.

Could plug figures be provided for regional and local travel so that proposed cost and technical design are ensured to be in line with USAID/Manila expectations?

Plug figures for travel will not be given. The Offeror must provide estimates for regional and local travel to adequately implement the contract.

30) May the fund utilize regranting entities with existing regional presence and oversight capacity to minimize risk in awarding small community-level grants?

Yes. The Offeror may propose a consortium, but must be guided by

Section H.3 of the RFP on the limitations on subcontracting.

31) Is USAID open to the possibility of renaming positions? For instance, could the fund coordinator position be renamed to

“chief of party”?

Yes. See the answer to question no. 20.

32) What sort of processes or platforms will be required for the

“open competitive process” mentioned in C.1.b of the RFP?

USAID’s internal guidance, policy directives, required procedures, and standards for the award and administration of USAID grants and cooperative agreements can be found in the Automated Directives

System (ADS) Chapter 303: Grants and Cooperative Agreements to

Non-Governmental Organizations. Under the Pacific-American Fund, the Contractor must develop a grant-making facility that will publically solicit for sub-grant activities. For the purposes of solicitation, The

Contractor is not limited to the procurement mechanisms used by

USAID, but may take into consideration the types of solicitation and procurement processes the agency employs (e.g. Requests for

Application (RfA), Annual Program Statements (APSs), and Fixed

Obligation Grants (FOGs).

33) In Section C.3, Figure 1: Draft USAID/Pacific Islands Results

Framework for the Regional Development Cooperation

Strategy includes special objectives related to mitigating the impact of HIV/AIDs and strengthening democratic institutions.

What is the anticipated relationship between these special

As described on page 14, “The Pacific-American Climate Fund will make grants available, through which USAID will fund adaptation interventions that directly support USAID’s objective of strengthening the resilience of Pacific Island communities (IR 1.1)”. However, the winning contractor may be encouraged by the COR to liaise and objectives and the activities of the Pacific-American Climate

Fund which is primarily concerned with IR 1.1 in the regional results framework?

communicate with Chief of Parties (CoPs) and stakeholders of other

USAID-funded projects on a regular basis. This may include CoPs who work on achieving health and democracy objectives in the Pacific

Islands.

34) Considering the amount of regional travel by local country personnel, can USAID clarify what currency will be required to pay regional TCNs?

Please refer to section I.5, page 69 of the RFP on the employment of

Third Country Nationals (TCNs).