Attachment_1_-_Response_to_Questions_RFP_No.SOL-492-14-000003.pdf

Response to Questions under RFP NO. SOL-492-14-000003 (SURGE)

QUESTION 1: “The Technical Proposal/PWS must be written in English using Calibri font, point 11 size, with one-inch margins all around.” Can 9 pt or 10pt Calibri font be used in graphics and tables?

RESPONSE 1: Yes.

QUESTION 2: The RFP L.9.f. Factor 4 Past Performance (See M.2.4) states: “(a) The Offeror (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 in accordance with the following: (1) List in an annex to the technical proposal up to three (3) of the most recent, i.e., completed no more than 5 years, and relevant awards 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 partners) must be included in the annex to the Technical Proposal/PWS.” May we submit recent and relevant past performance information in Factor 4 Past Performance and the Annex for subcontractors who will have proposed cost on the contract that is less than 15%?

RESPONSE 2: No. Past performance information should be submitted for the proposed major subcontractors only as defined in L.9.f

QUESTION 3: Does USAID intend to provide any Government furnished equipment (GFE) to the successful company, or should the company assume that all equipment, such as computers, copiers, need to be priced into the proposal?

RESPONSE 3: No GFE will be provided for this procurement. Offerors are expected to price for equipment deemed necessary for implementing the project in the cost proposal.

QUESTION 4: Is this a follow-on requirement or a new requirement? If a follow-on, could you please provide the incumbent contract number for this opportunity?

RESPONSE 4: This is not a follow on activity. However, projects described in Attachment J.6 of the RFP result from the same development objective as SURGE.

QUESTION 5: In selecting the target cities, will the same exclusions as the previous INVEST Project RFP apply? In considering Highly Urbanized Cities, can we also include metropolitan areas which component cities, on their own, are not highly urbanized but together, as a metropolitan center, have similar potentials for growth?

RESPONSE 5: This is a new project that is different than the INVEST project. Per page 125 under Section L of this solicitation, “Offerors must identify and propose candidate second-tier cities that may be included as CDI partner cities, taking into consideration the geographical spread of these second-tier cities and how they contribute to the overall goal of SURGE. Offerors must justify their selection of these cities where SURGE will operate in and discuss how these cities build on assistance activities in the existing three CDI cities. Offerors must make clear the rationale for their selection of cities proposed under its plan and give an explanation as to why these cities will be included in the CDI program.” In addition to the initial 3 pilot cities, USAID has approved Puerto Princesa, Tacloban, Tagbilaran and Zamboanga Cities for inclusion in the CDI program.

QUESTION 6: Section L.9.d specifies the Deputy Chief-of-Party (DCOP) must have, at minimum, a master’s degree in economics, business or related field with a minimum of 7 or more years of relevant, progressively responsible experience and a proven track record of implementing and/or managing projects focusing on local governance and urban development.

Would the government consider amending the minimum qualification requirements by accepting a minimum of 15 years of experience in lieu of a master’s degree?

RESPONSE 6: No.

QUESTION 7: Section L.9.f indicates that projects submitted for Past Performance have been completed within the last five years. We would like to submit a project completed for a US federal agency that had a period of performance ending in mid-2009 but had a subsequent modification issued in December 2011. Under those circumstances, please confirm it be compliant with the RFP to submit the project for Past Performance consideration.

RESPONSE 7: The project can be considered if the modification extended the period of performance so that the project was completed within the last five years.

QUESTION 8: Under Section F.6, page 41, USAID asks offerors to provide Subcontracting Reporting. Please provide further clarification of this reporting requirement, as a Small Business Subcontracting Plan per FAR 52.219-9 was not requested in this RFP. Please confirm offerors are not required to submit a small business subcontracting plan as part of their cost proposal.

RESPONSE 8: Confirmed.

QUESTION 9: Under Section H.20, page 61, please confirm if the Contractor can flow-down the tax exemption to subcontractors.

RESPONSE 9: Confirmed.

QUESTION 10: Under Section L.4(2)(i)(D), page 121, please clarify if letters of commitment are required for proposed non-key, long-term personnel.

RESPONSE 10: Letters of commitment must be submitted for the proposed Key Personnel and Component Team Leaders only.

QUESTION 11: Under Section L.5, page 123, please clarify if validity would be 120 “calendar days”

RESPONSE 11: Yes.

QUESTION 12: Please reflect updates in FAR clauses

RESPONSE 12: This modification reflects updates to the FAR clauses.

QUESTION 13: Section C.5, page 22, states that “Three pilot cities (Batangas, Cagayan de Oro, and Iloilo) have been initially chosen from the CDI cities to be the focus of SURGE. The Contractor’s Performance Work Statement (PWS) must contain a roll out strategy to expand this coverage to include 10-12 other second-tier cities in the Philippines.” Section L.10.b, page 130, however, states that “Offerors must propose pricing based on the assumption of implementing with an range of 10-12 cities…” Could USAID please clarify if the pilot cities of Batangas, Cagayan de Oro, and Iloilo are included within the 10-12 cities and in fact the total number of cities if between 13-15, or if they are not considered SURGE cities? Could USAID please provide a plug figure or an estimate of cost per city?

RESPONSE 13: The three pilot cities are included in the 10-12 cities. There are no plug figures of cost estimates per city.

QUESTION 14: Under Section C.5.2.1, page 23, footnote 19 at last sentence of paragraph 4, could USAID please provide Attachment A – Overview of the USAID PFG Programming?

RESPONSE 14: Provided in the RFP as attachment J.6. See amendment.

QUESTION 15: Under Section C.5.2.11, page 30, the Performance Incentive Scheme states “The Contractor must develop a criteria or framework to competitively assess and issue award(s) to a CDI city under this incentive scheme.” Could USAID clarify how it intends to have CDI partner cities receive funding for their infrastructure projects? May contractors develop performance incentive awards for which entities other than target cities are eligible? Moreover, could USAID please provide a plug figure for this Performance Incentive Scheme? How will the cost of incentives be reimbursed?

RESPONSE 15: The PIS are applicable to only CDI partner cities. No plug figure, incentive reimbursement, or estimated cost per city is provided as this is part of the Offeror’s determination for budget projection. The Offeror should propose the mechanism that describes how CDI cities will be selected and participate in the scheme.

QUESTION 16: Section L.9, page 124, states that Contractor Past Performance Information must be submitted as a separate section from the annexes. However, in section L.4, page 121, the past performance information is listed in the Technical Proposal Annexes. Please confirm that the Contractor Past Performance Information should be included in the Technical Proposal as an annex. And please confirm the number of required past performance references.

RESPONSE 16: Past Performance Information is required as an annex of Volume I. Section L.9.f(a)(1) requires a maximum of three past performance references for the Prime and a maximum of three for each major subcontractor.

QUESTION 17: Under the Technical Evaluation Criteria (Section M), would USAID consider assigning evaluation points for the Technical Approach, Key Personnel and Other Technical Personnel, Management Approach, and Past Performance sections? How is best value evaluated in the absence of numerical scores? How will the Co be able to determine if a higher technical evaluation merits additional cost/price if there is no numerical scores associated with the technical evaluation?

RESPONSE 17: The RFP uses adjectival ratings. The evaluation of strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies are based on evaluation factors stated in section M. Trade-off and best value determination is based on the evaluation of these factors and follows standards applicable to all FAR Part 15 competition.

QUESTION 18: Under Section B.3.b, pages 10-11, please clarify whether the second paragraph of this section is intended to relate only to CLIN 2. It appears that it is more appropriate for CLIN 1, the CPFF completion portion of the contract. When CPFF are considered in both CLINs, please clarify how USAID envisions payment of fee under each CLIN. Please also confirm if Section B.3(c) items (1) and (2) only applies to the fee on the percentage basis of allowable costs.

RESPONSE 18: The paragraph is applicable to both CLINS. Sentence clarified to read: “For CLIN 1 deliverables required in Section F of this contract and deliverables set forth in the Performance Management plan, for CLIN 2-deliverables defined in each task order.” Items (1) and (2) of B.3(c) applies to the fixed fee that directly corresponds to the percentage of allowable costs being paid. See RFP amendment.

QUESTION 19: Under Section B.5, page 11, please confirm that the $2,000,000 referenced for ODCs in CLIN 2 should be considered a plug figure used by all offerors in their cost proposals.

RESPONSE 19: Section B.5 specifically mentions the $2,000,000 value as a ceiling amount only, not a plug-in amount.

QUESTION 20: Section B.6.a, page 12, states that the offeror is obligated to provide up to a maximum of 548 professional/technical person days per year. Please confirm that offerors should budget the full 548 days per year. Would USAID please provide a definition for “professional/technical” labor. Please clarify if the 548 person-days are for both technical and administrative staff. Furthermore, could USAID please confirm that the “Other short-term technical experts” referenced on page 134 include both international and local technical assistance? Would USAID clarify if bidders are required to budget for all of the illustrative positions and that none are optional? Should we allocate the 548 person-days evenly across all positions or base the allocation on our technical assumptions? Along these lines, would it be possible for USAID to provide bidders with minimum qualifications for these positions such that bidders may estimate costs for the same level of expertise?

RESPONSE 20: The 548 days per year specifically is only mentioned as a ceiling LOE to consider when planning for anticipated activities. Professional/technical labor includes any type of personnel expertise required for the task order. The Offeror should present a budget for all illustrative positions and how the LOE will be allocated across tasks and positions. Minimum qualifications are provided for key personnel only.

QUESTION 21: Section B.6.b, page 12, states that the fee set forth in B.3.c is based upon the furnishing of CLIN 2 LOE. This implies that B.3.c pertains only to CLIN 2. Please clarify whether B.3.c relates to CLIN 1, CLIN2, or both CLINs.

RESPONSE 21: Section B.3(c) applies to both CLINs.

QUESTION 22: Section L.10, page 131, states that an LOE chart must be presented as an annex to both the technical and cost proposals. This chart is not in the list of Technical Annexes. Please confirm that the LOE chart is an annex only to the Cost Proposal.

RESPONSE 22: Confirmed.

QUESTION 23: Section B.2 Contract Type states that a Cost Reimbursement-Completion contract will be issued for CLIN 0001 and an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type of contract will be issued for CLIN 002. Please clarify if Task Orders under CLIN 0002 will be issued on a CPFF term (LOE), CPFF completion, and/or firm fixed price basis.

RESPONSE 23: Task orders will be issued as CPFF term.

QUESTION 24: Section B.5 indicates that CLIN 0002 includes estimates for material, equipment, subcontracts, travel, and training, and requires that the amount of Other Direct costs not exceed $2,000,000. Given that offerors define Other Direct costs differently, would USAID please clarify what types of costs are included in the Other Direct costs category and whether this category should include the referenced costs for material, equipment, subcontracts, program activities, travel, and training?

RESPONSE 24: Yes, other direct costs as stated in Section B.5 include costs for material, equipment, subcontracts, program activities, travel, and training, that have not been previously identified.

QUESTION 25: Section B.9 Cancellation Under Multi-Year Contracts states that "Therefore, the contractor must 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." However, Section I.11, states that the cancellation charge can cover costs that would have been equitably amortized over the entire multi-year contract period. Could USAID please clarify the apparent conflict between the two clauses?

RESPONSE 25: Sentenced corrected. Please see RFP amendment.

QUESTION 26: Section B.6.b indicates that the total estimated cost and fixed fee in an individual task order under CLIN 0002 must not exceed the amounts set forth in section B.4 IDIQ CLIN 0002. Given that section B.4 IDIQ CLIN 0002 establishes a contract ceiling for this CLIN, does USAID intend to issue only one task order, order in the amount of the CLIN 0002 ceiling, or does USAID anticipate awarding multiple task orders which will not cumulatively exceed the amounts set forth in section B.4 IDIQ CLIN 0002?

RESPONSE 26: There is a possibility of awarding multiple task orders. Section B.4 sets forth a cumulative ceiling for all task orders under CLIN 0002.

QUESTION 27: As it relates to Section C.5.2.9 Public-Private Alliances described on page 28, may contractors design and implement public-private partnerships using partnership structures other than Global Development Alliances?

RESPONSE 27: Yes. The Offeror may propose other PPP arrangements other than GDAs.

QUESTION 28: Page 30 of the RFP (section C.5.2.13) states that the offeror will provide “Other Support Services.” Can USAID please provide examples of types of support services as well as a plug figure?

RESPONSE 28: Section C.5.2.13 aptly provides description of other support services. No plug figure is provided because offerors are expected to estimate based on their approach.

QUESTION 29: Section H.9 indicates that work weeks must not be less than 40 hours for overseas employees and work days must not be less than 8 hours and work weeks must not be less than 40 hours for non-overseas employees. However, section L.10.d.6.v requires the Offeror to describe its work day and work week policies as some organizations do not have an 8-hour work day. Please confirm that contractors and subcontractors whose standard policy and practice is to use a less than 8 hour work day or 40-hour work week may follow their established policies, procedures, and practices.

RESPONSE 29: Confirmed. As stated in Section L.10 (d)(6)(v) , an organization that does not have an 8-hour workday must describe their work day and work week policies.

QUESTION 30: Section H.10.b on page 55 notes that staff compensation must not exceed the Contractor’s established policy and practice, the Contractor Salary Threshold, and the US Embassy Local

Compensation Plan. Section L.10.d on page 134, however, states that the Cost Proposal must include a Compensation Plan for SURGE activity professional and administrative staff and submit this for CO approval. Please clarify what USAID would like to see in this Compensation Plan, beyond what is already being defined in Section H.

RESPONSE 30: Offeror’s compensation is not required. Offeror may opt to submit a plan to substantiate proposed costs. See RFP amendment.

QUESTION 31: Section H.28.h indicates that prospective subcontractors subject to vetting must submit a USAID Partner Information Form. Please confirm that, in order to expedite the vetting process, the Offeror may assemble the Partner Information Forms for all of its proposed subcontractors who are subject to vetting and submit them to the designated vetting official. Please confirm whether subcontractors will undergo vetting at the same time as offerors.

RESPONSE 31: Offerors may assemble the information required in USAID Form 500-13 (Attachment J.4 of the RFP) for anticipation purposes. However, this information is not required with proposal submission and offeror will submit the information only when requested by the vetting official.

Subcontractors will be vetted at the same as offerors.

QUESTION 32: In assessing the qualifications of potential key and other technical personnel, could USAID please consider allowing years of experience to be substituted for a Master’s (or equivalent) degree?

RESPONSE 32: No.

QUESTION 33: Section L.4.c.5 indicates that hard copies of proposals must be received no later than one week after the deadline of electronic submission. Would USAID please confirm that the deadline for hard copy submission is December 1, 2014 9:00am Manila time?

RESPONSE 33: Confirming that hard copies of proposals must be received no later than Jan 9, 2015, at 9:00am, Manila time. See RFP amendment for change in deadline.

QUESTION 34: Please confirm the Cover Page, Transmittal Letter, Table of Contents, Executive Summary, and Acronym list are not included within the 50 page limit.

RESPONSE 34: Confirmed. See RFP amendment.

QUESTION 35: Please confirm the draft first year illustrative work plan described in section L.9.c on page 25 is for CLIN 0001 only.

RESPONSE 35: Confirmed

QUESTION 36: The instructions for the management chapter (L.9.e on pages 127 and 128) note that an offeror “must clearly outline the organizational structure of their proposed approach to include descriptions of Key Personnel, additional core staff proposed by the offeror, and any administrative staff required for completion of the award and their roles.” Later on, this section asks offerors to discuss the composition and roles and responsibilities of the field teams. Section M goes on to indicate that the offeror should describe the chain of authority, roles and responsibilities of staff, and the degree to which the staffing plan demonstrates its ability to provide adequate staff to execute the program (section M.2.3 on page 144). Please confirm that a table outlining the qualifications/descriptions of our key personnel, additional core/technical, and administrative staff; chains of authority; and proposed roles and responsibilities of staff can be included as an annex to the technical proposal that does not count toward the page limit.

RESPONSE 36: Proposed summary matrix of qualifications/descriptions and other pertinent information may be presented in an Annex and will not be counted in the page limitation. However, the total page count for each technical proposal including annexes must not exceed 150.

QUESTION 37: Page 127 of the RFP (section L.9.d) notes that “At the time of submission of the proposal, the Offeror is encouraged to include a prospective line-up of international and local short-term consultants.” Please confirm this line-up of short-term consultants can be included in matrix form as an annex to the technical proposal that does not count toward the page limit.

RESPONSE 37: Yes, this description can be presented in an Annex to the technical proposal. Annexes do not count toward the fifty page limit of the PWS. The technical proposal including annexes must not exceed 150 pages.

QUESTION 38: Page 129 notes that “To supplement the narrative summary in (A), provide a list of the recent contracts completed over the past three years for which you submitted subcontract reports to eSRS (FAR 52.219-9(d)(10)) and a copy of any similarly recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS.” Given that our subcontracting reports for the past several years total more than 800 pages and comprise more than 10 electronic files of at least 5 MB each, and that many of our subcontracting reports are available on the eSRS, may offerors submit 10 to 15 relevant SF 294 forms that have not been submitted to the eSRS for review?

RESPONSE 38: Reports available on eSRS are sufficient, no additional submission is required.

QUESTION 39: Also please confirm the SF 294 forms, in addition to the narrative on using small business concerns, will not count against the 50-page limit.

RESPONSE 39: Confirmed

QUESTION 40: Section L.4.c.2.i.G indicates that signed letters of commitment from proposed subcontractors must be included in the technical proposal, and Section L.10.d.6.i indicates that signed letters indicating subcontractors' agreement to be included in the Offeror's proposed teaming arrangement must be included in the cost proposal. Please confirm the same letter can be submitted in both the cost and technical proposals.

RESPONSE 40: Subcontractors letter of commitments submitted under Volume I – Technical Proposal will suffice. See RFP amendment.

QUESTION 41: Would USAID consider allowing Letters of Association from resource partners to be included in an annex to the technical proposal?

RESPONSE 41: No.

QUESTION 42: Section L.10.c.B (page 133) indicates that the costs associated with the 548 professional/technical person days per year are not to exceed 12% of CLIN 0001 including fees. Please confirm whether the total estimated cost plus fixed fee of CLIN 0002 must not exceed 12% of the total estimated cost plus fixed fee of CLIN 0001, or whether the total professional/technical labor costs proposed for CLIN 0002 must not exceed 12% of the total estimated cost plus fixed fee of CLIN 0001.

Should these professional/technical labor costs include applicable overhead costs and/or fee?

RESPONSE 42: Total estimated cost plus fixed fee of CLIN 0002 must not exceed 12% of the total estimated cost plus fixed fee of CLIN 0001.

QUESTION 43: Section L.4.2.iii (page 122) indicates that completed SF 1420-17s for “other proposed technical personnel” should be included as an annex to the cost proposal. Please clarify what is meant by other technical personnel, and for which staff offerors should submit SF 1420-17s.

RESPONSE 43: Other Technical personnel are considered non-key personnel, but not administrative staff. Offeror will submit SF 1420-17s for all other Technical personnel.

QUESTION 44: The detailed budget template provided in Section L.10 Instructions for the Cost Proposal (page 130) includes one line-item for CLIN 0002 with no additional sub line-items such as labor, ODCs, applicable indirect costs, or fixed fee. Please confirm how offerors should present CLIN 0002 in the budget, and if they should roll the above mentioned additional costs into the main line-item for CLIN 0002 labeled Supplemental Technical Assistance.

RESPONSE 44: Offerors should replicate the detail budget for CLIN 0001 for CLIN 00002

QUESTION 45: Section F.6 on page 42 refers to an “estimated grant budget” for project results. Please clarify if USAID anticipates grants being issued under this contract. If so, could USAID please provide a plug figure or amount of financial resources for estimated grants under contract?

RESPONSE 45: No grants will be issued. See RFP for correction.

QUESTION 46: RFP page 13. Section B.9 references FAR 52.217-2, “multi-Year contract.” All other sections of the solicitation are in line with a multiple year type contract rather than a multi-year contract. Further, the matrix included in the FAR shows that FAR 52.217-2 is not applicable for a ‘cost reimbursable service’ type contract. Can USAID clarify the reference to Multi-Year contract?

RESPONSE 46: Subject to the definition of FAR 17.103, a multiyear contract is contemplated. The FAR matrix is a useful guide or tool but not absolute determinant of the applicability of a FAR clause.

QUESTION 47: RFP page 121. A major subcontractor is defined as, “….one whose proposed cost comprises at least 15% of the total cost.” Does this percentage refer to the total budget or only to the total LOE?

RESPONSE 47: This refers to the total budget.

QUESTION 48: RFP page 122. In the Cost Proposal annexes list USAID states copy of Personnel, Procurement, Uncompensated Time Off and Travel policies and procedures, are to be included in the annex to the cost proposal. Can USAID confirm that the Offeror’s Personnel, Procurement, Uncompensated Time Off and Travel policies and procedures are required only if the Offeror has no prior U.S. Government contracting experience?

RESPONSE 48: Confirmed

QUESTION 49: RFP page 130. USAID states, “The detailed budget, at a minimum, must include the following…..” and sets a budget format. Please confirm that the presentation and organization of the cost elements in this particular format is illustrative and that it is acceptable for Offerors to present their Cost/Business Proposals, particularly as they pertain to labor costs, in a format that is consistent with their established accounting policies and procedures.

RESPONSE 49: These minimum requirements are illustrative and do not prevent an offeror from providing more information in a format that is consistent with its policies and procedures.

QUESTION 50: We have searched DEC (Development Clearing House) extensively but are unable to find the yearly reports or the most recent end of project report for the INVEST project. Would USAID please share all of INVEST’s past yearly reports and the most recent quarterly reports?

RESPONSE 50: Yes, all pertinent reports from the INVEST project are now available in the DEC.

Additional reports on recent workshops can be found at https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0ByS15Zw6-BC8RFFDU1FpV2Z5cFU&usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0ByS15Zw6-BC8amt0MEFjekVLQ00&usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Bwzg4PTJfsf0akl5VTkwazRqUjA&usp=sharing

QUESTION 51: Section B.2 of the RFP states that a cost-plus-fixed fee (CPFF) completion-type contract is intended for this award. Sections B.6 (a) and L.10.B, however, indicate a maximum amount of level of effort (LOE) to be provided under the contract. As FAR 16.306(d)(2) indicates that LOE limitations are only applicable to CPFF term-type contracts, we kindly request that USAID remove the LOE requirements included in those sections.

RESPONSE 51: Please see section B.2 of the RFP for contract type and note that B.6(a) and L.10.B is applicable to CLIN 00002 only.

QUESTION 52: In Section L.9.e (Management Approach) on page 127, USAID requests offerors to provide descriptions of key personnel and additional core staff. However, Section L.9.d (Key Personnel and Other Technical Personnel) also requests similar information. To prevent offerors from presenting repetitive responses in these two sections, would USAID please confirm that the information requested in L.9.e (Management Approach) refers only to the roles and responsibilities of staff and not descriptions of the individual qualifications and experience of each proposed staff member?

RESPONSE 52 Yes. Section L.9.e refers to the roles and responsibilities of key personnel and staff.

QUESTION 53: In Section L.9.e (Management Approach) on page 128, USAID requests that offerors discuss means of communication between project staff in the field and their headquarters backstop officers. Is USAID referring to the communications between project staff in the field and the project headquarters in Manila or the offeror’s corporate headquarters, which may be based in the United States?

RESPONSE 53: Offeror should describe a means of communication that is appropriate for its management of project staff.

QUESTION 54: Would USAID please confirm that the first page of the proposal (specifications found in Section L.3.c.3 on page 117), the table of contents, and acronym list are excluded from the 50-page limit for the technical submission?

RESPONSE 54: Confirmed. However, the total page limit of the technical proposal including all annexes must not exceed 150. See RFP amendment.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0ByS15Zw6-BC8RFFDU1FpV2Z5cFU&usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0ByS15Zw6-BC8amt0MEFjekVLQ00&usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Bwzg4PTJfsf0akl5VTkwazRqUjA&usp=sharing

QUESTION 55: Section L.4 (page 121) identifies that additional relevant information for any proposed subcontractor may be included by the offeror. Could USAID provide additional clarity on the type of information that is desired?

RESPONSE 55 : This is the offeror’s discretion.

QUESTION 56: Section L.10.C. CLIN 0001.7 (Subcontracts) states “Any costs for local organizations and local personnel must include a US$ equivalent column. The standard exchange rate of PHP41 must be used for uniformity.” Should this exchange rate be used throughout the entire cost volume or just in relation to subcontractors? Can USAID please confirm that all previous salaries, including those of Philippine nationals, should be converted to U.S. dollars? If so, should offerors use the 41:1 exchange rate or the actual exchange rate at time of performance?

RESPONSE 56: The exchange rate of PHP42 must be used throughout the entire cost volume. See RFP amendment.

QUESTION 57: Could USAID please confirm that USAID form 1420-17, Employee Biographical Data Sheet, is not required for proposed CLIN 0002 labor categories listed in Section L.10 (page 134)?

RESPONSE 57: Confirmed.

QUESTION 58: Section L.10 (c) specifies that” individual subcontractors must include the same cost element breakdowns in their budgets as applicable.” We intend to propose several subcontractors that will not be a major subcontractor, as defined in L.4 (c) (2) (i) (A). Please confirm the information in Section L.10 (c) is required only for proposed major subcontractors.

RESPONSE 58: Cost break down and information in Section L.10 (c) is required for all subcontractors.

QUESTION 59: Section L.10 (d) (4) requires the “Offeror and subcontractors” to submit sufficient evidence of responsibility for the Contracting Officer to make an affirmative determination of responsibility pursuant to the requirements of FAR 9.104-1. We would appreciate the government revising this requirement to apply only to the Offeror and proposed major subcontractors.

RESPONSE 59: Evidence of responsibility determination must be submitted for all subcontractors. See Far.9.104-4 and RFP Amendment, Section L.10(d)(3).

QUESTION 60: Section L.10 (d) (6) sets forth information required for “each subcontractor.” Section L.10 (d) (6) (iv) refers to “each proposed major subcontractor.” We intend to propose several subcontractors that will be a major subcontractor, as defined in L.4 (c) (2) (i) (A). Please confirm the information in Section L.10 (d), L.10 (d) (6) (v) is required only for proposed major subcontractors.

RESPONSE 60: This RFP amends section L.10.(d)(5)(iii) previously L.10 (d) 6 (iv), to include each subcontractor.

QUESTION 61: Section L.4 (c) (2) (ii) (F) specifies that subcontractors “must be registered on SAM.” We would appreciate the government revising this requirement to apply only to proposed major U.S.-based subcontractors.

RESPONSE 61: Subcontractor registration is not required. See RFP amendment.

QUESTION 62: In reference to the RFP page 133 section (10) Can a subcontractor submit a T&M or Fixed Price proposal to the prime if they don’t have an Approved Cost Accounting System and does not have a Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) with the US Government? Will this same subcontractor need to include an unsanatized version with a cost element breakdown in a sealed envelope to the US Government?

RESPONSE 62: The Prime has the discretion to determine cost submissions from their subcontractors.

A cost breakdown may be submitted under separate email following instructions set forth in Section L.

QUESTION 63: Given USAID already has a contractor performing work under CDI that is inherently linked to the scope and objectives of SURGE, how does USAID plan to make available all relevant CDI project documents such as quarterly or annual reports to USAID, presentations to USAID, city leaders or government officials, lessons learned or best fit practices and any frameworks generated for USAID on selecting other secondary cities to enable a fair and equal competition for SURGE?

RESPONSE 63: USAID does not agree with the statement above. All pertinent CDI project reports are now available on DEC.

QUESTION 64: Section L.10 (c) under CLIN 0001 item 10 requires providing the “latest NICRA for prime and proposed subcontractors and requires proposed subcontractors that do not have a cognizant Government Audit Agency to provide, among other things, financial statements and detailed indirect cost rate calculations.” We would appreciate the government revising this requirement to apply only to the prime and proposed major subcontractors.

RESPONSE 64: No. Please see RFP instructions for offerors or proposed subcontractors that do not have NICRAs.

QUESTION 65: May we include up to three PPRs for subcontractors whose proposed cost comprises at least 15% of the total cost or who are otherwise defined by the prime to be essential to successful project implementation?

RESPONSE 65: Refer to the requirements of the RFP.

QUESTION 66: Is it acceptable for one firm to be a subcontractor to numerous Prime consultants?

RESPONSE 66: There is no restriction on teaming agreements under this RFP. Offeror is best placed to determine what teaming agreement meets their business objectives.

QUESTION 67: Will you accept fixed fee proposals by project task, or is it required to breakout fee proposals by staff billing and billing rates? If billing rates are required, for privately held professional services corporations, are fully loaded billing rates acceptable?

RESPONSE 67: Yes, offeror has the discretion to determine the type of billing rates proposed.

QUESTION 68: Will CPA reviewed financial statements be sufficient or are audited financial statements a requirement? Overhead: is there a limit on overhead multiplier for staff billing rates?

RESPONSE 68: RFP requires audited financial statements. Please refer to your NICRA for overhead rate base of application and limits. Offerors with no NICRA have the discretion of proposing rates, that will be subject to negotiations.

QUESTION 69: Will you accept GSA approved billing rates?

RESPONSE 69: This RFP is not tied to a GSA contract. Offerors should propose competitive market rates.

QUESTION 70: Under Section B.5 CLIN 0002, would USAID reconsider the ceiling of $2,000,000 for Other Direct Costs in light of all the resources, subcontracts, travel and trainings that a proposal of this size and scope may entail cost-wise (e.g., 5.2.13 Other Support Services which require extensive logistics, travel, and activities, among other expected results?

RESPONSE 70: No

QUESTION 71: Under B.6 level of effort, would USAID confirm that the ceiling of days does not include any supporting personnel (administrative, financial support)? Would USAID reconsider the suggested ceiling of 548 days for Professional/Technical person days stated in B.6 in order to meet all the expected results of this contract within the framework of PFG Join Country Action Plan and those detailed in 5.2.3 Relations with other donors, and 5.2.4 USG and GPH counterparts?

RESPONSE 71: The ceiling LOE for CLIN 0002 is inclusive of all personnel for this task. The suggested LOE ceiling in Section B.6 only applies to CLIN 0002.

QUESTION 72: Where three pilot cities (Batangas, Cagayan de Oro, and Iloilo) have been initially chosen from the CDI cities to be the focus of SURGE. Would USAID confirm that potential offerors are to open regional offices in the pilot cities listed in C.5.? From the budgetary point of view, how the additional regional offices can be included in the subsequent years? Would USAID be providing additional language on this particular paragraph?

RESPONSE 72: Section L.9.e requires that the Offeror organize and budget for at least 3 regional offices outside of the central project office in Metro Manila, including a presence in Visayas and Mindanao.

QUESTION 73: Would USAID confirm that the second tier cities mentioned on the footnote number 15 are the ones to be budgeted for?

RESPONSE 73: No. The second tier cities to be identified are not part of the cities mentioned in the footnote. In addition to the initial 3 pilot cities, USAID has included Puerto Princesa, Tacloban, Tagbilaran and Zamboanga cities in the CDI program.

QUESTION 74: In Section 5.2.13 it was mentioned that “The contractor must respond to unanticipated events impacting on or related to the achievement of the objectives set forth in the contract performance work statement using Supplemental Technical Assistance ordered by the Contracting Officer.” Is USAID suggesting that a “Rapid Response Fund” should be included in the cost proposal? If so, would USAID provide any additional guidance on this matter?

RESPONSE 74: No. Requirements for Supplemental Technical Assistance are set forth in the RFP.

QUESTION 75: There might be CCNs and TCNs whose salary history may exceed the daily rates that are included in the attached LCP. In order to successfully implement a project of this size and scope, offerors are compelled to seek and retain the most qualified and experienced personnel and often, this is reflected in their salary history. Would USAID allow biodatas that would reflect this type of proposed salary?

RESPONSE 75: Yes.

QUESTION 76: The RFP states that “The blended rate must be proposed for each of the five years of the period of performance. The offeror must provide a description of the methodology used to determine the blended rate for each consultant. “Usually, offerors at the pre-award stage may be in a position of proposing a blended rate based on current and actual rates for the local market. In light of this matter, would USAID reconsider the inclusion of this requirement?

RESPONSE 76: The requirement for blended rates is removed. See RFP amendment.

QUESTION 77: Section L.9.c (p. 125) seems to indicate that we need to select the cities in the proposal stage with justifying rationale. Can USAID please clarify whether offerors must select the additional 10- 12 cities during the proposal process, or if this selection process can take place post-award?

RESPONSE 77: Selection is during the proposal stage. Offeror has the discretion to select cities and make a compelling offer. Aside from the initial 3 pilot cities, USAID has included Puerto Princesa, Tacloban, Tagbilaran and Zamboanga cities in the CDI program.

QUESTION 78: Would USAID please clarify the term “Performance Work Statement (PWS)” as used in the RFP? Specifically, does it refer to a discrete portion or component of the Technical Proposal that should be labeled as such, or is it synonymous with the Technical Proposal as a whole?

RESPONSE 78: As stated in Section L.9, the Performance Work Statement is a component of the technical proposal.

QUESTION 79: Section C.2 (p. 15) under the Cross-Cutting Issue of "Governance" USAID notes that the Contractor will “...improve the national policy environment that impinges on local economic governance". However, only one of the 13 SURGE Sub-Objectives (3.1: Reduce policy and regulatory barriers to productive rural-urban linkages) seems to clearly call for intensive attention to the national enabling environment. Would USAID please provide more guidance on the scope and level of project resources it would like to see devoted to improving national policy, legislation, and regulation as they may impact achieving the project's objectives?

RESPONSE 79: All SURGE sub-objectives will involve interventions at the national and local levels. The Offeror is expected to propose resources it deems appropriate for the achievement of project objectives. Innovation is encouraged under this RFP.

QUESTION 80: Are there cities other than Batangas, Cagayan de Oro, and Iloilo where INVEST activities have commenced or where there are plans to start work prior to the launch of the SURGE project?

RESPONSE 80: No. INVEST activities have only commenced in the three listed pilot cities of Batangas, Iloilo and Cagayan de Oro. INVEST is presently providing only logistical and administrative support to USAID in the following CDI partner cities: Tacloban, Tagbilaran, Puerto Princesa and Zamboanga. Apart from existing USAID projects in these cities, there are no plans to start SURGE-related work prior to the launch of the SURGE project in any city.

QUESTION 81: How important does USAID consider a relatively “even” distribution of candidate cities between Luzon, the Visayas and Mindanao?

RESPONSE 81: USAID considers the even distribution of candidate cities across the between Luzon, the Visayas and Mindanao very important.

QUESTION 82: Does USAID envisage that Tacloban should be included in this list of cities (for limited or full SURGE support), not necessarily due to its potential as a growth hub but simply because of the disaster that occurred there and the existing urgent need?

RESPONSE 82: Tacloban is being considered as a potential CDI partner city.

QUESTION 83: As implementers work with cities to identify sectors that will accelerate economic growth and generate jobs, are there any industry sectors that USAID will not support? Will SURGE be under any restrictions to provide technical assistance to Freeports or Export Processing Zones or facilitate investment into these zones?

RESPONSE 83: There are no specific industry restrictions. As provided for under ADS 225, USAID assistance may not be provided for the purpose of inducing businesses to relocate outside the U.S. in a manner that would likely reduce the number of U.S. employees of that business; and that contributes to the violation of internationally recognized workers’ rights in the recipient country. Under Sec. 7025(b) of the 2012 Foreign Assistance Act, no funds may be used for agricultural development activities (specifically, any testing or breeding feasibility study, variety improvement or introduction, consultancy, publication, conference, or training) that would compete with a similar commodity grown or produced in the United States.

QUESTION 84: Section L.9.d (pg. 127) states that the DCOP “… is expected to manage the day-to-day operations of the project and report directly to USAID.” How does USAID envision this direct reporting relationship between the Mission and the DCOP?

RESPONSE 84: Offeror will assign responsibilities, deemed appropriate for the DCOP, that allow for direct reporting to USAID.

QUESTION 85: Section L.9.b request an Executive Summary be provided. Will this Executive Summary be used in Technical Evaluation Factor 1 Technical Approach? If not, which factor will be used to evaluate the Executive Summary?

RESPONSE 85: The Executive Summary is a summary of all the factors in the technical proposal.

QUESTION 86: Section B.3. states that Payment is based on deliverables required in Section F but Section B.3. (c) states that payment is based on percentage of costs incurred. Can USAID please clarify?

RESPONSE 86: See RFP amendment for clarification regarding fix fee. The fix fee is paid based on the on percentage of cost incurred by contracting towards meeting deliverables in the contract.

QUESTION 87: Section B.8 states that the Contractor is allowed to recover applicable indirect costs on ODCs, however there is no mention of Labor. Is the Contractor allowed to recover applicable indirect costs on Labor?

RESPONSE 87: Recovery of indirect should be consistent with offeror’s NICRA. See RFP amendment.

QUESTION 88: Section B.9 requires a schedule of cancellation costs. Does the table require the total for Contract Year 1 if it is cancelled after year one or just the additional costs incurred because of cancelation in Year 1?

RESPONSE 88: See the full text of Far 52.217-2 for cost calculations.

QUESTION 89: Section L.10. (c) A. (3) Consultants require a “blended daily consultant rate for each type of consultant.” Is this only required for To Be Determined (TBD) consultant positions? If consultants are named in the proposal, we would use their consulting rate history as supported by the biodata to determine the proposed daily rate.

RESPONSE 89: Yes, the blended daily rates are required for TBD position and daily rates substantiated by biodata for named consultants.

QUESTION 90: Section L.10 (c) B requires daily rates for illustrative positions. (1) are the daily rates based only on salaries, or should they be fully loaded T&M type rates? (2) are the illustrative positions listed Expatriate (U.S. citizens) or CCN positions?

RESPONSE 90: These are illustrative positions; offerors have the discretion of determining team composition and rates proposed.

QUESTION 91: Please clarify if the inclusion of Section H.16 clause where it indicates that the Awardee will have responsibility for major construction activities? If major construction is not envisioned but minor, demonstration projects are contemplated, may we suggest the addition of the attached language?

RESPONSE 91: Section H.16 is applicable to CLIN 00002 only, if and when used.

QUESTION 92: Please clarify the need for inclusion of H.17 “Limitation on Subcontracting to non-local entities”; are local organizations eligible for this prime award?

RESPONSE 92: This is a mandatory provision for inclusion in all contracts. Yes, local organizations are eligible by virtue of full and open competition.

QUESTION 93: Section H.28 includes a reference to AIDAR 752.204-71. We were unable to locate this clause in the on-line version of the AIDAR and were under the impression that the final rule on partner vetting had not finalized in the Federal Registry. Please advise.

RESPONSE 93: The clause is provided in full detail in the RFP. Please see 48 CFR 752.204-71 – Partner vetting.

RESPONSE 93: The clause is provided in full detail in the RFP. Please see 48 CFR 752.204-71 – Partner vetting.