SOL-514-16-000014_(01)_-_Attachment_2_-_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

SOL-514-16-000014 - NATURAL WEALTH

ATTACHMENT 2 - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

TECHNICAL

1. Question: Could USAID please share the outcomes of the Conserva TNC/Fondo Accion project?

Notably, it would be beneficial for offerors to know where the assessments were focused; which public and private protected areas were identified; and what were the recommendations in order to inform future programming.

Answer: All of the outcomes can be found in the following link:

https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/search/SearchResults.aspx?q=ZG9jdW1lbnRzLmNvbnRyYWN0X2dy YW50X251bWJlcjooIkFJRC01MTQtRy0xMC0wMDAwNCIp&qcf=ODVhZjk4NWQtM2YyM i00YjRmLTkxNjktZTcxMjM2NDBmY2Uy

Additionally, the reports produced under the Conservation Landscape Program Cooperative Agreement with Fondo Patrimonio Natural can be found in the following link:

https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/search/SearchResults.aspx?q=KERvY3VtZW50cy5JbnN0aXR1dGlvbl 9vcl9VU0FJRF9CdXJlYXVfQXV0aG9yOihwYXRyaW1vbmlvKSkgQU5EIChEb2N1bWVud HMuRGVzY3JpcHRvcnNfR2VvZ3JhcGhpYzooIkNvbG9tYmlhIikp&qcf=ODVhZjk4NWQtM 2YyMi00YjRmLTkxNjktZTcxMjM2NDBmY2Uy

2. In Section L.6.1, page 106, in part (h), USAID requires the use of the SOO's Results Framework to develop performance standards.

Question: Could USAID please confirm that Attachment 8 – Log Frame Natural Wealth outlining the objectives of the program is the Results Framework in reference?

Answer: Attachment 8 refers to the Logical Framework Project Appraisal Document of the Office of Environment. The SOO’s Result Framework refers to the objectives and required results defined in Attachment 1. The title of Attachment 8 has been revised in the solicitation to reflect this.

3. Section C.2 Special Considerations (pp. 13–19) lists 11 subsections, some of which (e.g., 2.2

Cross-cutting Technical Issues) have further sub-parts. Section L.6.1 “Technical Approach and Performance Work Statement,” under number 3 (p. 104), instructs offerors to address: “Special Considerations defined in Section C--including: gender and vulnerable populations, land tenure and related issues, partnerships, STIP and local system development-- indicating how these have been integrated to the approach.” USAID has only included a partial list of the special considerations in Section L Instructions, one of which (“land tenure and related issues”) is only one sub-part of one of the C.2.2 “Cross-cutting Technical Issues” (“Addressing Root Causes of Conflict”). Was omission of the other Special Considerations listed under C.2 intentional? Please clarify.

Answer: All Special Considerations listed in Section C.2 must be incorporated into the technical approach. The language in Section L.6.1.3 of the solicitation has been revised to further clarify this.

4. In Attachment 1, reference is made to Vision Amazonia (e.g., p. 125 Purpose, RR1.1 on p. 130, and RR1.3) and along with geographies prioritized by the National Development Plan, outside the Caribbean and Orinoco regions. The “Geographic Focus” section on p. 134 emphasizes that Objectives 1 and 2 focus on “on-ground” conservation efforts in the two prioritized ecosystems (Caribbean Dry Tropical Forests and Orinoquia ecosystems) and that Objective 3 has a national focus. The SOO also states that the Activity will also “complement, as necessary, efforts currently implemented through USAID’s Environmental Peace Initiative in Colombia (EPIC).”

Is it possible for USAID/Colombia to further clarify the geographic scope for this activity? In addition to the Caribbean and Orinoco, will we be asked to implement the activity in the Guaviare and Vaupés departments?

Answer: Outcomes proposed must be primarily focused in improving conservation of tropical dry forest in the Caribbean and ecosystems in the Orinoquia. However, the SOO’s Results Framework also supposes having outcomes to improve biodiversity conservation that are applicable to other geographies (e.g., national focus). Vision Amazonia 2020 is referenced in the SOO as an example of GOC’s priorities for biodiversity conservation that could benefit from these overarching outcomes. Within the same logic of mentioning Vision Amazonia 2020 in the SOO, we described how the program could also produce outcomes useful in the development of EPIC, in areas like policy and institutional capacity.

The last paragraph under the Geographic Focus section in the SOO has been deleted to avoid confusions.

5. In relation to Required Result 1.1, the mention of new and innovative legal alternatives for protecting areas indicates that activities associated with legal reforms are desirable.

This introduces the possibility of working with legislators and supporting legal reforms. Are these activities desirable and eligible under this funding opportunity?

Answer: New and innovative legal alternatives for protecting areas include a wide range of possible solutions. The Offeror is the one that must propose ways to legally protect land that are viable and achievable within the period of performance.

6. In Section L.6.1 and in Section C, the offeror is requested to conduct a biodiversity-threat-based analysis using Miradi software or a similar approach. Would USAID consider allowing an additional annex to the Technical Proposal in which the technical diagrams developed from the Miradi Biodiversity Threat Analysis—i.e., the theory of change and result chain analyses—could be included? In our experience these diagrams can only be legibly displayed using full pages.

Answer: If using Miradi software, what USAID expects to see in the technical approach is the diagram that presents the result chain which comes from the development of a conceptual model (i.e., Theory of change). The diagram of the result chain usually is one page in length and can be added as page 6 of the technical approach. The page limitation in Section L.6(b) of the Technical Approach has been revised to allow for one additional page. If interested, please consider the following link: http://cmp-openstandards.org/about-os/history/.

7. Attachment 7: Would USAID consider providing “Attachment 7 – Gender Analysis Matrix” (p.

156 of the RFP) in a more legible size and/or format? In its current form on page 156 of the RFP, it is not clearly legible.

Answer: The chart included in the body of Attachment 7 – Gender Analysis Matrix has been removed, and an electronic version has been uploaded as a separate Microsoft Office Excel file through the Amendment of this Solicitation.

8. Can you please confirm that USAID Colombia will continue using the indicator “Number of person hours of training in natural resources management and/or biodiversity conservation supported by USG assistance,” as shown in Attachment 8, despite it being archived in the Standard F Indicator List update from 2016?

Answer: Indicators in Attachment 8 that are also standard F indicators should be considered if they are not archived in the Standard F indicators list. Section L.6.1 of the solicitation has been revised to include the words “and current” to reflect that no archived indicators should be used.

However, please note that Attachment 8 will not be changed through Modification No. 1 of the Solicitation as this is an internal document that has not been updated by the Mission.

9. Would USAID consider providing the Indicator Reference Sheet (IRS) of the following USAID

Colombia Custom Indicator presented in Attachment 8: “Number of communities and other stakeholders adopting sustainable practices to improve biodiversity conservation”? If not possible, can USAID provide the definition of “communities and other stakeholders” in the context of this indicator?

Answer: The unit for this indicator is legally organized entities. Reference to communities in this indicator denotes legally registered institutions composed of community members that seek a community purpose (such as Juntas de Acción Comunal, producer associations, Resguardos Indígenas, among others); stakeholders include legally registered institutions with other than communitarian purposes (such as Small and Medium Enterprises, Government institutions, large companies, among others).

10. The requirement of an advanced degree can render ineligible highly qualified candidates who lack an advanced degree but bring many years of relevant practical experience and technical knowledge, and, except for the degree, are fully qualified for the position.

Question: The Offeror respectfully requests that USAID allow additional years of experience in lieu of an advanced Degree for key personnel positions.

Answer: Key personnel must follow the basic minimum requirements stated in the RFP.

However, to further clarify, the solicitation has been revised to reflect that Graduate level education in this RFP means formal post-graduate studies beyond a bachelor’s degree that are one year or longer.

11. Given the importance of a landscape approach as an organizational and geographic framework to project implementation and sustainability, would USAID provide guidance on how it defines “landscape” in each of the priority geographies in a way that balances the physical space required to sustainably conserve each area’s biodiversity while managing for complexity from a logistical, social, cost, and institutional standpoint?

Answer: The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) specifies a landscape is composed of three elements: patches, matrix and corridors (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs144p2_015351.pdf). For the purpose of this document patches are considered natural plant and animal community representing a distinct ecosystem (i.e. ecosystem fragments). Corridors are linear arrangements of vegetation that commonly connect patches hosting habitats for wildlife, facilitating the transfer of energy, water, nutrients, genes, seeds, organisms (i.e. migration) and act as filters, buffers and sinks of substances, organisms, objects. Under a conservation perspective matrixes contain patches and protected areas both of which are connected through corridors to secure healthy, resilient and sustainable ecosystems (https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/ecr/wscbecr-pac-01/other/wscbecr-pac-01-presentation-04-en.pdf). According to the Global guide on connectivity conservation management (Connectivity conservation management: a global guide.

2013. Worboys, Graeme L.Francis, Wendy L.Lockwood, Michael), conservation needs to be rethought and managed at larger scales than just protected areas by law which entails working through different land tenures and jurisdictions. Hence conserving biodiversity at a landscape scale through the theory of connectivity implies it's also a socially inclusive tool making all stakeholders involved active participants but also beneficiaries of the ecosystem services supplied through their conservation actions.

CONTRACTUAL

12. Could USAID please confirm the maximum file size limit per email for submission?

Answer: The maximum file size per e-mail is 25 MB including all attachments and the message.

The solicitation has been amended to include this information which was initially included but inadvertently removed prior to issuing the solicitation.

13. Section L.5: Please advise if there is a limit on email size and email attachment size.

Answer: Please see the answer to question No. 12.

14. In Section L.6, page 103, the Branding Implementation Plan and Marketing plan is limited to 2 pages, but the suggested template is 8 pages long.

Question: Could USAID please confirm the page length of the Branding Implementation Plan and Marketing Plan?

Answer: The solicitation has been amended to remove the 2 page limitation for the Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan. Therefore, this Attachment will not be page limited.

15. In Section L.6, pages 103-104, the requirements state that all graphs and charts be included in annexes. I Section L.6.1, page 104, offerors are required to include Miradi software outputs (graphs and charts) as evidence of the biodiversity threat-based analysis in the Technical Approach, “The offerors must present a narrative using Miradi software or an similar approach to diagram their Theory of Change and Results Chain...."

Question: Would USAID please confirm that the narrative regarding the threat analysis and Theory of Change goes within the five page Technical Approach and the Miradi models/graphics can go in the Performance Work Statement, Annex (A)? If USAID expects offerors to include these models in the Technical Approach, would USAID please allow offerors to include these graphics as non-counting pages?

Answer: Please see the answer to question No. 6.

16. RFP Section L.6 (page 103) states: “All graphs and charts must be included in the annexes,” yet page 104 instructs offerors to “diagram” their theory of change and result chain. As a theory of change diagram using Miradi software could be extensive, we respectfully request USAID to allow the use of 11x17 paper for presentation of the theory of change diagram and that offerors be permitted to present the diagram in the technical approach as non-counting pages against the section’s five page limit.

Answer: Please see the answer to question No. 6. If necessary, Offerors may use a larger paper size for the results chain diagram page only to guarantee legibility. A foot note has been included in the solicitation to allow for this.

17. In Section L.6.1, on page 105, the instructions for objective 3 under the PWS Annex (A) state

“The results to be accomplished under each component and the deliverables associated with each, along with the deadline of completion.” On page 106, under the AMEP Annex (C), the offeror is required to include the “anticipated M&E tasks for the Activity, periodicity, the composition of staff/personnel needed to carry out such tasks with the level of effort and an overview of the strategy.” On page 106, QASP Annex (D), “the offeror must include the proposed services to be delivered accompanied by a robust set of performance standards for each intervention proposed with a timeline and a monitoring method”

Question: Could USAID please confirm whether these items should be included in the PWS Annex (A), or if they should go in the AMEP Annex (C) and QASP Annex (D)?

Answer: The PWS, AMEP and QASP are three separate documents with different purposes that must go under each corresponding annex (A, C and D respectively). All three are subject to evaluation per Section M.2.1.

18. Would USAID please confirm that Section B.6 refers to CLIN 0002 only?

Answer: Yes it does. The title of Section B.6 has been amended to further clarify this.

19. RFP Section B.6. states that “(a) In performing Government orders for Technical Assistance under this CLIN, the Contractor is obligated to provide up to a maximum of [4,000] person days.” Can USAID please confirm this maximum applies only to CLIN002?

Answer: Please see the answer to question No. 18.

20. Would USAID please confirm if SF LLL - Certificate of Lobbying Activities (Attachment 13) should be included as part of the Cost Proposal?

Answer: Yes. The language on Section L.7, Part 3 - Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors has been revised to reflect this.

21. Would USAID please confirm if Certification Regarding Trafficking Compliance Plan (Attachment 10) should be included as part of the Cost Proposal?

Answer: Yes. The language on Section L.7, Part 3 - Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors has been revised to reflect this.

22. In Section B.2, page 9, the CPFF portion (CLIN 0001) of the contract is stated to be 90% of the total estimated cost and the IDIQ portion (CLIN 0002) of the contract is stated to be 10% of the total estimated cost.

Question: Could USAID please confirm that a reasonable fluctuation for CLIN 0002 around the 10% required is acceptable?

Answer: No fluctuation is acceptable. As stated on Section L.7, B. CLIN 0002: “For the Supplemental Technical Assistance Portion, the offeror must set aside 10% of the proposed Total Estimated Cost to cover Task Orders to be potentially issued under the IDIQ Contract”.

23. Section L.7 (p. 118) states that offerors must propose costs for a total of 800 person days equally distributed across all labor categories for each year of the five-year contract, however, Section F.

2 Period of Performance states that CLIN 002 could be utilized over a seven-year period. Could USAID provide further detail as to how Years 6 and 7 should be budgeted if labor is not to be included?

Answer: Labor is to be included in years 6 and 7. This section of the RFP has been revised to read “For estimating purposes, the offeror must propose costs for a total of [800] person-days equally distributed across all labor categories for each year of the seven-year contract.”

24. In Section L.6 (b), it states that “All graphs and charts must be included in the annexes.” Can the technical proposal’s executive summary and/or technical approach sections include graphics?

Answer: No. Graphs and charts must be included in annexes.

25. Would USAID consider removing the following language under Section F.6.17 ‘The inventory and plan for maintaining the inventory must account for, as applicable, in-kind procurements for grants’? Items procured in-kind and donated to the grantee vest with the grantee upon acquisition as per the Mandatory Standard Provisions, and therefore are not required to be on a project inventory list and subsequent disposition request.

Answer: This language will not be removed as it is intended for tracking purposes.

26. RFP Section B.3.(c) Payment of Fixed Fee states: “Contractor’s fixed fee is tied to the accomplishment of the deliverables under each CLIN,” yet goes on to say that for CLIN 1 “Payment of fixed fee will be made upon receipt of a proper invoice and must directly correspond to the percentage of allowable costs being paid” and for CLIN 2, “Payment of the corresponding fixed fee…must directly correspond to the percentage of allowable costs being paid.” Note also that, Section B.6 states that “The fee set forth in B.3 is based upon furnishing the level-of-effort specified in paragraph (a).” Can USAID please clarify how fixed fee should be budgeted for each CLIN under this contract?

Answer: The sentence, “The Contractor’s fixed fee is tied to the accomplishment of the deliverables under each CLIN and all terms and conditions of the award” has been removed from Section B.3 (c). Additionally, on the same Section under CLIN 002, it has been clarified that payment of fixed fee under this CLIN must directly correspond to the percentage of allowable costs being paid and the level of effort furnished, so that it is consistent with section B.6.

27. RFP Section H.5.(a)(1) requires the establishment of salary ranges and further states that an individual’s salary must be negotiated within the established range, based on his or her certified salary history and the conditions stated further in this paragraph.” This section further states:

“Nor may any individual salary or wage, without approval of the Contracting Officer, exceed more than a 8% increase over the candidate’s previous salary or wage with the exception of assigning the rate at the bottom of the applicable salary range.” These restrictions may preclude offerors from complying with AIDAR 752.7007, incorporated by reference in RFP Section I.1, which states that “Direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract.” We respectfully request that USAID allow offerors to follow their established policies and procedures when negotiating salaries.

Answer: Please note that section H.5 of the base Natural Wealth Solicitation corresponded to

“USAID IMPLEMENTING PARTNER NOTICES (IPN) PORTAL FOR ACQUISITION

(JULY 2014)”. It seems that the question referred to Section H.9. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONNEL COMPENSATION” of the base solicitation, which is now H.6 on the amended version. The 8% cap included in the solicitation reflects a reasonable escalation factor that is consistent with the market and therefore the expectation is that it is also consistent with the Contractor’s policies and procedures.

28. RFP Section H.5.(d) limits offerors to annual salary increases not to exceed the maximum end of the certified salary range referenced in H.5.(a). This restriction may preclude offerors from complying with AIDAR 752.7007, incorporated by reference in RFP Section I.1, which states that “Direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract.” We respectfully request that USAID remove this language from the RFP and allow offerors to issue annual salary increases in accordance with their policies and practices.

Answer: Please see the answer to Question No. 27.

29. RFP Section H.5.(e) states that for consultants, “compensation must be within the pay scale specified and must not, without approval of the contracting officer exceed: 1) 8% over the highest rate of annual compensation received by the consultant during the immediately preceding three years.” This restriction may preclude offerors from complying with AIDAR 752.7007, incorporated by reference in RFP Section I.1, which states that “Direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract.” We respectfully request that USAID allow offerors to follow their established policies and procedures when negotiating salaries for consultants.

Answer: Please see the answer to Question No. 27.

30. RFP Section L.7.A.(12) states: “USAID will not agree to allow the GUCs to be included in the calculation of fixed fee.” There is considerable contractor effort and risk involved in the management of a grants program, especially a program of this size. A high degree of professional and managerial skill is required to oversee a large grants program and despite a contractor’s due diligence, they must assume liability for unauthorized grantee expenditures and the cost of financing grant disbursements. We therefore respectfully request that USAID consider removing this language in Section L to allow offerors to propose a modest fee on grants.

Answer: The sentence “USAID will not agree to allow the GUCs to be included in the calculation of fixed fee.” has been removed from section L.7.a.(12). However, when proposing the fixed fee, please note that fixed fee is an aspect of an offeror’s proposal that affects competitiveness and therefore, the Agency expects a reasonable rate to be proposed.

31. Regarding RFP Section H.9.2., contractors usually cross-reference their own market value research against the mission’s local compensation plan to help establish compensation rates and salary ranges for project personnel. Can USAID please provide a copy of the latest USAID/Colombia local compensation plan?

Answer: The U.S Mission Colombia Local Compensation Plan salary ranges have been included as Attachment 14 to the solicitation.

32. RFP Past Performance Section L.6.4(d)(B) states “To supplement the narrative summary in (A), provide a list of the contracts for which you submitted subcontract reports to eSRS (FAR 52.219- 9(d)(10) over the past three years and a copy of any similarly recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS.” As some offerors submit a large number of individual subcontracting reports per year, a three-year submission could result in hundreds of subcontracting reports submitted in the proposal. To facilitate the evaluation, would USAID consider revising the requirement to 10 of the most recent subcontract reports of contracts of similar in size and/or scope?

Answer: Section L.6.4(d)(B) has been revised to read as follows: “(B) To supplement the narrative summary in (A), provide a copy of the three (3) most recent SF 294 “Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts” reports submitted to eSRS (FAR 52.219-9(d)(10) over the past three years or a copy of any similarly recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS.”

33. In the event that the SAM certification process is still underway for subcontractors when the proposal is submitted, is it acceptable for offerors to commit to providing SAM certifications for subcontractors prior to entering into subcontracts in lieu of including these certifications in the cost volume?

Answer: Please follow the instructions in Section L.7, Part3. Offerors and all proposed subcontractors must ensure they are registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) (www.sam.gov) per FAR part 4.

34. Could USAID please clarify how offerors should budget CLIN 2 as it relates to the budget template provided in Attachment 9? Specifically:

a. The budget template provides seven yearly columns for CLIN 2, yet RFP Section L.7 instructions on page 118 state: “the offeror must propose costs for a total of 800 person days equally distributed across all labor categories for each year of the five-year contract.” Could USAID clarify what costs, if any, should be presented in Years 6 and 7?

Answer: Please see the answer to question No. 23.

b. The LOE sheet in the budget template asks offerors to present CLIN 2 LOE broken down for short-term and long-term expatriates and local staff as well as home-office staff.

Given that RFP Section L.7 instructions on page 118 direct us to distribute 800 person days equally across only five labor categories, and that ceiling daily rates will be proposed per labor category irrespective of long-term, short-term, local, expatriate, or home-office designations, could offerors instead present the CLIN 2 LOE in accordance with RFP instructions?

Answer: Thank you for pointing this out. Spreadsheet “LOE” of ATTACHMENT 9 – BUDGET TEMPLATE has been revised to list the illustrative positions requested for

CLIN 0002.

c. The CLIN 2 budget template’s “detail budget” tab, line item F. is for Subcontracts and Subgrants but the total for that line item is marked as Indirect Costs. Would USAID like offerors to present both subcontracts and subgrants as well as indirect costs for CLIN 2 and adjust the line items accordingly? Please advise.

Answer: Thank you for pointing this out. ATTACHMENT 9 – BUDGET TEMPLATE has been revised to make this distinction in order to allow offerors to present these line items separately.

35. RFP Section L.7 (page 118) states that offerors must propose ceiling daily rates for each of the five illustrative positions and goes on to state that “labor costs should be proposed for the above listed categories supported by daily rates and specified labor escalation, with supporting documentation.” Could USAID please clarify what supporting documentation is required to substantiate these ceiling daily rates?

Answer: Consistent with Section L.7.A.(1) applicable to CLIN 0001, the Offeror’s personnel policies are considered supporting documentation to the extent they serve to substantiate daily rates.

36. RFTOP Section L.6 (p. 103) notes that “the text in any text boxes included within the technical proposal must not be less than 12 points in size.” However, the same paragraph notes that “text in graphs and charts may be less than 12 points in size but no less than 8 points and must be legible.” Would USAID consider revising the permitted font size for text boxes in the technical proposal to less than 12 points, so long as the text is no less than 8 points in size and legible, similar to the requirement for graphs and charts in annexes?

Answer: Thank you for pointing this out. This section of the solicitation has been revised to reflect that text in graphs, charts and text boxes may be less than 12 points in size.