SOL-514-16-000024_(01)_-_Attachment_2_-_Questions_ _Answers_Document.pdf

SOL-514-16-000024 – PARAMOS AND FORESTS

Attachment 2 – Request for Proposals Questions and Answers

COST QUESTIONS:

1. RFP Section B.3.3 Payment of Fixed Fee (page 10) states, “The Contractor’s fixed fee is tied to the accomplishment of the deliverables under each CLIN,” yet goes on to say for CLIN001 “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 002, “Payment of the corresponding fixed fee…must directly correspond to the percentage of allowable costs being paid.” Also, section B.3.2.b.B states that “The fee set forth in B.3.2 is based upon furnishing the level-of-effort specified in paragraph A.” Would USAID please clarify how offerors should budget fixed fees for each CLIN under this contract?

ANSWER: The first sentence of Section B.3.3, “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.

Additionally, on the same Section under CLIN 002, the paragraph has been modified to read:

CLIN 2: Payment of the corresponding fixed fee for each Task Order will be negotiated at the Task Order level; made upon receipt of a proper invoice, and must directly correspond to the percentage of allowable costs being paid and the level of effort being furnished. In no event, the fixed fee of the Task Orders under CLIN 0002 can exceed the negotiated fee under CLIN 0001.

2. Would USAID consider removing the following language under Section F.6.17 (46): “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; therefore, they are not required to be included on a project inventory list and subsequent disposition request.

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

3. To ensure budgeting accuracy, would USAID please confirm whether task order proposal preparation costs are billable to the contract, given the preparation requirements put forth in Section F.9(c) on page 48?

ANSWER: Yes, task order proposal preparation costs are billable to the contract.

4. RFP Section H.5.(a)(1), on page 57, 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, “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: The 8% cap included in the solicitation reflects a reasonable escalation factor that is consistent with the market (in Colombia) and therefore the expectation is that it is also consistent with the Contractor’s policies and procedures.

5. RFP Section H.5.(d), on page 58, 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, “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: See answer to No. 4.

6. Section L.9.2, on page 110, limits resumes for key personnel in Annex A to two pages. In addition, Cection L.9.5 requires that CVs include three references for each key personnel candidate. Given the two-page limit for resumes, may we include references on a third page?

ANSWER: Yes, a third page may be added in order to include the three references.

7. RFP Section L.9.2 (page 110) states: “All graphs and charts must be included in the annexes.” However, the list of annexes does not include an annex specifically for graphs and charts that might be included in the technical proposal. Would USAID consider adding an annex to accommodate relevant graphs and charts or allow offerors to include graphs and charts within the technical proposal?

ANSWER: Yes, in Section L.9.2, Annex G has been added to accommodate relevant graphs and charts.

8. RFTOP Section L.9.2 (p. 110) notes, “the text in any text boxes included within the technical proposal must not be less than 12 points in size.” However, the same paragraph states, “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 and legible, similar to the requirement for graphs and charts in annexes?

ANSWER: Yes, Section L.9.2 has been modified to read:

“The proposal must be written in English and typed on standard 8.5” x 11” paper (216mm x 297mm), single spaced, Times New Roman font not less than 12 points in size, with margins no less than one inch of each border. Number each page consecutively. All graphs and charts must be included in the annexes. Text in graphs, charts and text boxes may be less than 12 points in size but no less than 8 points and must be legible.”

9. On page 115 under L.9.6.2.B PAST PERFORMANCE the RFP states, “(B) To supplement the narrative summary in (A), provide a list of the contracts for which you submitted subcontract reports to eSRS (FAR 523.219-9(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 a total of more than 800 pages and more than 40 MB. To facilitate the evaluation, would USAID consider revising the requirement and request copies of 10 of the most recent subcontract reports of contracts similar and size and/or scope?

ANSWER: Section L.9.6(d)(3)(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.”

10. On page 120, RFP Section L, Part 2.A.(12) states, “USAID will not agree to allow the GUCs to be included in the calculation of fixed fee.” Considerable contractor effort and risk are involved in managing a grants program, especially one of this size. A high degree of professional and managerial skill is required to oversee a large grants program and, despite the contractor’s due diligence, it 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.10(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.

11. 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.10, Part 3. Offerors and all proposed subcontractors must ensure they are registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) (www.sam.gov) per FAR part 4.

12. Would USAID please clarify how offerors should budget for CLIN 2 as it relates to the budget template provided in Attachment 4? Specifically:

a. The budget template provides seven yearly columns for CLIN 2, yet the instructions in Section L.B on page 123 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.” Would USAID clarify what costs, if any, should be presented for Years 6 and 7?

ANSWER: Labor is to be included in years 6 and 7. In L.10(B) CLIN 0002, the referenced sentence has been modified 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.”

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

Given that the instructions in Section L.B, on page 123 direct offerors to distribute 800 person-days equally across only three 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, may offerors instead present the CLIN 2 LOE in accordance with the RFP instructions?

ANSWER: Spreadsheet “LOE” of ATTACHMENT 4 – BUDGET TEMPLATE has been revised to list the illustrative positions requested for CLIN 0002.

13. RFP Section L.B (page 123) states that offerors must propose ceiling daily rates for each of the three 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.” Would USAID please clarify what supporting documentation is required to substantiate these ceiling daily rates?

ANSWER: Consistent with Section L.10.A.(1) applicable to CLIN 0001, the Offeror’s personnel policies are considered supporting documentation to the extent they serve to substantiate daily rates. Other supporting documentation could include Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet (AID 1420-17) forms.

14. Will any property, such as furniture, equipment, or vehicles, be made available from another project?

ANSWER: No furniture, no equipment or vehicles will be made available.

15. Section C.6.O, Security Strategy (page 28) states that “it is required for the Contractor to develop a security strategy which carves in flexibility in order to be able to respond efficiently” to an increasingly complex security situation. Can USAID confirm that the security strategy referenced must be developed upon contract award and not at the proposal stage?

ANSWER: See Section L.A(14), which reads “Offerors are not required to submit the security plan as part of the proposal. However, offerors are required to submit a budget for security costs as part of the overall Offeror’s cost proposal.”

16. Section F.2, Period of Performance (page 32) states that the period of performance for the contract is seven years, the period of performance for CLIN 0001 is five years, and the period of performance of TOs under CLIN 0002 must not exceed the contract period of performance of seven years. Could USAID please provide additional information on the management (staffing, office space in Colombia) that it expects Offerors to provide in years six and seven of the contract, once CLIN 0001 is complete?

ANSWER: The level of management of a task order activity (CLIN 0002) will be determined at the task order level and will require approval from the Contracting Officer.

17. Section L.9.2., Format, Page Limitation and Content (page 110) states that “all graphs and charts must be included in the annexes.” Can USAID please confirm that Offerors may include Annex G: Graphs and Charts?

ANSWER: Please see answer to question #7.

18. Section L.9.5, Key Personnel & Staffing Plan (page 113) states that “emails and telephone number of three professional references are required” for each proposed Key Personnel.

Would USAID allow Offerors to include Key Personnel references on a separate page, not included in the 2-page CV limit?

ANSWER: Please see answer to question #6.

19. Section L.9.5., Key Personnel & Staffing Plan (page 113) does not reference letters of commitment from Key Personnel. Can USAID please confirm that letters of commitment are not required for any personnel, including Key Personnel?

ANSWER: Letters of commitment are not required for Key Personnel. Section L.9.5 bullet #2 reads, “USAID discourages the use of exclusive agreements as this limits USAID’s ability to receive the best services.”

20. Section L.10.B, CLIN 0002 (page 123) states that “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, or 4,000 person-days. Section F.2, Period of Performance (page 32) states that the period of performance for the contract is seven years, not five. Can USAID please confirm that offerors should propose costs for each year of the seven-year contract, or 5,600 person-days in total?

ANSWER: Please see answer to question #12(a).

21. 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. Could USAID please confirm if a variance for CLIN 0002 is acceptable, within a certain percentage?

ANSWER: No fluctuation or variance is acceptable. As stated in Section L.10(B)., pg. 123, 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.”

22. In Section L.9.2 on page 110 (format, page limitation, and content), it is stated that, “all graphs and charts must be included in the annexes.” Could USAID please define “graphs and charts?” Could USAID also confirm that tables and illustrations are not graphs or charts and can be included in the main body of the technical proposal? For graphs and charts that must be included in the annexes, could USAID please specify which of the six named annexes (A- F) should contain them, given that page 110 of the RFP states that “USAID will not review and consider any additional annexes?”

ANSWER: Please see answer to question #7.

23. Please confirm that SF LLL - Certificate of Lobbying Activities (Attachment 8) should be included as part of the Cost Proposal.

ANSWER: Yes, Attachment 8 should be included as part of the cost proposal.

24. Please confirm that Certification Regarding Trafficking Compliance Plan (Attachment 5) should be included as part of the Cost Proposal.

ANSWER: Yes, Attachment 5 should be included as part of the cost proposal.

25. The authorized geographic code for procurement of goods and services under this contract is

Code 937. This excludes procurement of services, including consultants to provide STTA, from “advanced developing countries”, a category that includes many counties in Latin America that have significant experience related to the RFP scope of work. Also, the project requires work with the “Andean ecosystems” for at least one of the Key Personnel. We consider being able to draw talent from some of the “advanced developing countries” will be beneficial to achieving project objectives. Will USAID please consider assigning a different geographic code that would permit this, for example, 935?

ANSWER: The authorized geographic code for procurement of goods and services under this contract remains Code 937. 22 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 228.12 sets forth the applicable rules for nationality of suppliers of commodities and services. 22 CFR § 228.15 further states that “The rules set forth in §§ 228.10 through 228.13 of this part do not apply to the employees of contractors, or individuals providing technical or professional services to recipients or contractors. However, such individuals must not be citizens or lawful permanent residents (or equivalent immigration status) of countries which are prohibited sources.”

Therefore, consultants hired to provide technical or professional services may have nationality from advanced developing countries, provided that they are not citizens or lawful permanent residents of countries which are prohibited sources.

26. On page 114, Section L.9.6 Past Performance Information, the RFP states, “(a) The offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself and each major subcontractor (one whose proposed cost exceeds US$2,000,000.00)”. Could USAID please clarify if the aforementioned value applies to the dollar amount of the past performance award or if it pertains to the definition of a major subcontractor?

ANSWER: Performance information is requested from the offeror and each major subcontractor that is being proposed in this offer. A major subcontractor is defined as any whose proposed cost exceeds US $2,000,000.00. The dollar amount does not apply to the past performance award.

27. Could USAID please confirm if Section K – Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors is required of all subcontractors or only of those whose proposed costs exceeds $2,000,000 (as defined in section L.9.6(a) on page 114)?

ANSWER: Consistent with Part 3 – Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors”, the offeror and each proposed subcontractor must complete Section K, “Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors.”

28. On page 116, Section L.10 part 2(b), USAID refers to an approved “Accounting System.”

Could USAID clarify what is meant by an approved Accounting System?

ANSWER: Approved accounting system means approved by qualified independent auditors.

Guidance on accounting systems is available at FAR 31.002 for which reads: “Contractors needing assistance in developing or improving their accounting systems and procedures may request a copy of the Defense Contract Audit Agency Pamphlet No. 7641.90, Information for Contractors. The pamphlet is available via the Internet at http://www.dcaa.mil.”

29. Page 32, Section F2 mentions in Point A that the period of performance is seven years, but page 115, Section L.10 states that the period of performance is five years. Will USAID please clarify the period of performance?

ANSWER: Section L.10 first paragraph has been modified to read: “The Total Estimated Cost plus Fixed Fee for services under this contract (CLIN 0001 & CLIN002) is estimated to fall within the range of $38 million and $40 million for the period of performance identified in Section F.2.”

30. Section F.2, Period of Performance, states that CLIN 002 could be utilized over a seven-year period (as stated in point A); however, for estimating purposes, LOE should be evenly distributed over 5 years. 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.”

http://www.dcaa.mil/

31. On page 110, Section L.9.2 states in the instructions for the preparation of the technical proposal state that “All graphs and charts must be included as annexes.” Yet the list of annexes on page 110 does not include a place specifically for charts and graphs, and states that “Only those annexes listed above or specifically required in other parts of this solicitation can be submitted.” Can USAID please clarify if graphs and charts can be in a separate annex and will not count against the page limit?

ANSWER: Please see answer to question #7.

32. On page 123, Section L.10, Part B CLIN 002 states offerors must propose costs for a maximum of 4,000 person-days of labor, to include subcontractor and consultant hours, distributed across all labor categories. USAID states that labor costs should be proposed for three labor categories, an Agriculture Value Chain Expert; Conservation Finance Specialist;

and Water Management Advisor, which would account for 2,400 person-days of labor. Can USAID please guide offerors in how to present the remaining LOE?

ANSWER: Please see answer to question #30.

33. On page 121, Section L.10, Part 4, policies and procedures are required from the prime and major subcontractors if they do not have prior federal contracting experience. Could USAID confirm that cooperative agreements would count as experience?

ANSWER: Yes, cooperative agreements may count as relevant experience.

TECHNICAL QUESTIONS:

34. Section C.4.1.(a)(3) (page 16) states that this activity is expected to achieve the following:

“At least 500 farmers who have participated in multi-stakeholder decision making processes and have applied improved technologies or management practices for integrated water resources management as a result of USG assistance.” Please confirm that these are 500 individual farmers.

ANSWER: Yes, these are individual farmers. Multiple farmers from one farm will not count toward this target, but can be included in the multi-stakeholder decision making processes.

35. Section C.4.1.(a) (page 17) states, “This Cooperative Agreement [in reference to the Fondo Accion “Connected Landscapes” activity] will continue to support these specific value chains (acai, cacao, achiote (annatto) and coconut) and strengthen community organizations and their alliances with the private sector, aiming at leaving an established sustainable operation by the end of 2017.” Please confirm that the Connected Landscapes project will continue operations through the end of 2017.

ANSWER: The Connected Landscapes activity implemented by Fondo Accion goes beyond 2017, but its activities in the Pacific component will end in the first half of 2017. The language in the RFP states the aim of the Connected Landscapes agreement, not its end date.

36. Section C.4.1.(a) (page 18) states, “The proposed approach in the business plans, states that the private sector partner will own at least 51% of the partnership, while the communities must not own more than 49%.” Is this arrangement open to negotiation between the interested commercial parties, or is this a strict policy USAID wants applied for all business partnerships between the private sector and communities?

ANSWER: These proposed percentages aim at leaving the business decisions to the private sector partner, who must have expertise in its line of business. The 51%-49% ownership split is not a strict policy. Final percentages are to be negotiated among the two parties (communities and private partner). Ultimately, though, the final agreement must leave the communities owning less than 49% of the industrial/transformation component of the value chain.

37. Section C.4.1.(a) (page 19) states, “The Ministry of Environment has already prepared a draft REDD+ strategy that needs to be finalized and implemented.” Does USAID expect that the national REDD+ strategy will be approved or finalized by the time the activity begins, or will the activity be involved in finalizing the REDD+ strategy with MADS or support the government of Colombia in finalizing the broader National Climate Change Policy that includes REDD+?

ANSWER: USAID has no control over MADS timeframes. Offerors must be ready to work under either scenario.

38. Section C.4.1.(a) (page 22) states, “The Contractor must design its water-related actions with an Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) approach.” Are the Colombian “Planes de Ordenación y Manejo de Cuencas” — POMCA — considered an adequate equivalent for an IWRM approach?

ANSWER: The reference to the IWRM approach is made aiming at including the different planning and management tools considered under the National Policy for Integrated Water Resources Management (Política Nacional de Gestión Integral del Recurso Hídrico – PNGIRH). Offerors will need to propose which tool or tools they consider the most appropriate for the tasks to be implemented.

39. Section C.4.1.(a) (page 22) states, “It is expected at least a 20% emissions reduction by the end of the Activity life cycle in the targeted ecosystems, contributing towards the INDC made by Colombia at the Paris COP in 2015.” Can this expectation be adjusted to be dependent upon the viability of such a large reduction in the specific interventions sites selected for the target ecosystems, the timing of the finalization of an approved MRV methodology and baseline by IDEAM, and, whether this methodology needs to be verified by an external entity (as is the case with VCS)?

ANSWER: The 20% emissions reduction in the ecosystems targeted under objective 2 will be measured against the emissions baseline that the contractor will have to develop as part of this contract. USAID does not anticipate adjusting this target.

40. Section C.4.1.(a) (page 23) states, “Coordination with the Humboldt Institute is expected to build on the results of the ‘Colombia Anfibia’ (Amphibian Colombia) project. This is a key activity in the framework of the national MRV system and will contribute to achieving Required Result 2.2 of this Activity.” Is there a published final report that describes the results of the Colombia Anfibia project that USAID can share, since this is described as a key activity in the framework of the national MRV system?

ANSWER: Colombia Anfibia reports can be found at Humboldt’s web page. Please see:

http://humboldt.org.co/es/bibliotecaypublicaciones/publicaciones?searchword=Humedales% 20Anfibia&st=all&category_id=2 and http://humboldt.org.co/es/bibliotecaypublicaciones/publicaciones?searchword=Humedales% 20principios&st=all&category_id=2

41. With reference to Objective 1, when does USAID intend to first verify the eight REDD+ projects?

ANSWER: USAID is targeting end of 2017 for first verification. This target could be adjusted based on the updated project documents.

42. With reference to Objective 1, Result 1.1, Fondo Accion will support the implementation and verification of eight REDD+ projects through the end of 2017. The Contractor will begin work in 2017, work that will overlap with that of Fondo Accion. Can USAID provide further guidance on how responsibilities will be divided between Fondo Accion and the contractor during this period of overlap,?

ANSWER: USAID expects a short overlap. In close collaboration with USAID, Paramos and Forests will coordinate with Fondo Accion through activities agreed on at the work plan level, aiming at phasing out the Fondo Accion program in the Pacific.

43. With reference to Objective 1, Result 1.2, the contractor is required to follow up on current work with investment funds (Acumen, Bamboo Finance, Root Capital, Terra Bella Colombia) to structure the financing for those projects. Will USAID provide a summary of the status of this current work for each investment fund?

ANSWER: Yes. Since this is a work in progress, USAID will provide to the contractor the latest updates on negotiations after the contract award date.

44. With reference to Objective 1, Result 1.3, activities must be implemented in the framework of the SISCLIMA. SISCLIMA will include information tools that will allow the government of Colombia to track trends in emissions. It is clear that the contractor will support the design of these tools; however, it is unclear whether the contractor is required to develop these tools.

Would USAID please clarify the responsibilities of the contractor related to the support and development of information tools to track trends in emissions?

ANSWER: The contractor is expected to provide targeted support for the development of the tools, not to develop them. Close coordination with the relevant GOC entity and its full ownership are required.

http://humboldt.org.co/es/bibliotecaypublicaciones/publicaciones?searchword=Humedales%20Anfibia&st=all&category_id=2 http://humboldt.org.co/es/bibliotecaypublicaciones/publicaciones?searchword=Humedales%20Anfibia&st=all&category_id=2 http://humboldt.org.co/es/bibliotecaypublicaciones/publicaciones?searchword=Humedales%20principios&st=all&category_id=2 http://humboldt.org.co/es/bibliotecaypublicaciones/publicaciones?searchword=Humedales%20principios&st=all&category_id=2

45. With reference to Objective 2, will the GHG emissions reductions or carbon sequestration results from the mechanism require third-party verification, as is the case under the VCS?

ANSWER: When feasible, these emission reductions could be reported as a contribution to the NDC, but not necessarily transacted in voluntary or compliance carbon markets. That said, the contractor would need to follow GOC guidance on how to report these reductions as part of the NDC.

46. Under Results 2.1, a results-based system will be, ”designed and implemented through market-based opportunities.” However, the same section, includes a reference to UNFCCC guidance with respect to results-based finance for both market and non-market mechanisms.

Could this result then similarly consider market-based and non-market opportunities?

ANSWER: The results-based mechanism for GHG emission reduction must be designed through market-based opportunities. Non market-based incentives are welcome as a complement and part of the overall approach to working on the Objective 2 target ecosystems.

47. Under Results 2.3, “The Activity will also provide support to IDEAM on the national forest inventory for high Andean Ecosystems and will have an emphasis on MRV on Andean ecosystems.” Since the definition of páramo can encompass both high Andean forests and higher-elevation grasslands and wetlands, can this result be interpreted to mean that that MRV will extend to the entire “páramos” area with the support to IDEAM on the national forest inventory will focus on forested ecosystems?

ANSWER: No. Under Result 2.3, the Activity is expected to provide support to IDEAM on the national forest inventory for high Andean ecosystems which is defined as high Andean forest (bosque andino), páramo and high altitude wetlands).

48. Section F.5. requires either master’s or bachelor’s degrees for the different key personnel positions. May we substitute years of professional experience for the educational degrees on any of these positions?

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

49. Can USAID please clarify the anticipated start date for this Activity?

ANSWER: Anticipated start date for the Activity is March, 2017.

50. Section F.5.2, (page 34): Some of the requirements for the Deputy Chief of Party appear to encompass areas of management that are traditionally performed by an operations director (financial management, human resources, monitoring and evaluation). Could USAID consider revising the requirements to reflect either technical or operational criteria?

ANSWER: USAID will not revise the requirements. Note that the points in question are explicitly referred to as “preferred” in the RFP.

51. Section F.5 (pages 34-35): For the Key Personnel positions, would USAID consider equivalent years of experience in lieu of a graduate degree?

ANSWER: Please see reply to question #48.

52. Section F.5.4 (page 36): Can USAID please confirm that the primary responsibility of the Environment Expert will be to conduct PERSUAPs, IEEs, etc.?

ANSWER: The role of the Environment Expert is to ensure environmental compliance as stated in 22 CFR 216, mainly to prepare, support implementation and monitoring of the mandatory Environmental Management Plans (EMPs), as well as upload information on the Monitor system (www.monitor.net.co). The Environment Expert is the USAID Mission Environmental Officer (MEO) counterpart in the Activity.

53. Section F.5.4 (page 36): Does USAID anticipate that the Environment Expert will be a full time position?

ANSWER: This depends on qualifications and overall Contractor’s staffing plan.

54. Section L.9.3 #3 (page 111) does not appear to be complete, as the second part of it states, "...how IDEAM and MADS' capacity to use forest and terrestrial carbon monitoring methodologies and technologies as part of the MRV system." Can USAID please confirm that the sentence should read "...how the Activity will improve IDEAM and MADS' capacity to use forest and terrestrial carbon monitoring methodologies and technologies as part of the MRV system?

ANSWER: Language in the RFP has been adjusted. The updated paragraph reads:

The plan to engage with all the relevant GOC counterparts describing how the verification data from the 8 REDD+ projects will feed into the national MRV system and national REDD+ strategy, and how the Activity will improve IDEAM and MADS’ capacity to use forest and terrestrial carbon monitoring methodologies and technologies as part of the MRV system.

55. Section L.9.3 #8 (page 112) is listed under Objective 2. However, it seems to apply to Objective 1, as it states, "Description of financial instruments proposed to attract private and public finance to sell carbon credits, and improve livelihoods in the REDD+ territories..."

Can USAID please confirm that Section L.9.3 #8 belongs under Objective 1?

ANSWER: Yes, #8 is part of Objective 1. This paragraph in Section L.9.3 has been placed under Objective 1 and is now numbered #4.

56. Section M.2.1.8 (page 127) states "The extent to which the approach to financing is consistent with the requirements of the solicitation and is realistic to achieve objectives and results. The evaluation will analyze the implementation strategy to determine the extent to which funds will be used to maximize impact, enhance the likelihood of Activity success and attract partnerships with local and international organizations to support the established objectives." Could USAID please clarify if this evaluation factor applies to the approach to http://www.monitor.net.co/ financing under Result 1.2 (4 value chains financed by public and private finance) or Result

2.1 (results-based finance of GHG emission reduction), or both?

ANSWER: This evaluation factor applies to both Activity objectives.

57. In Section C.4.1, on page 16 (minimum achievements), it is stated that the P&F Activity must secure “at least $40 million of investment mobilized for climate change,” yet in Section C.6.1 on page 27 (mobilizing non-USAID resources) it is stated that there is “no required target level of resources to be leveraged.” Could USAID please clarify the minimum achievements sought by the Activity?

ANSWER: USAID expects at least $40 million of investment mobilized (in USD) for climate change by the end of the Activity. Section C.6.1(L) will be modified to read:

The Contractor must seek opportunities to mobilize non-USAID resources in support of the Activity’s objectives and to enhance the impact of the Activity results. A leveraging based approach must be a key consideration during implementation of the Activity. Any such mobilization during implementation must be tracked and reported based on an established, clear methodology. USAID/Colombia does have a standard indicator that will be required to be used to measure non-USAID resource mobilization.

58. In Section C.4.1, on page 18 (required result 1.2), USAID provides four value chains. Could USAID provide additional information on the criteria used to choose the four value chains?

May offerors propose new value chains beyond the sectors cited in the RFP (non-timber forest products and tourism)?

ANSWER: Proposed value chains were the result of extensive consultations with the communities, combined with feasibility analysis done under the Bioredd+ program.

Although the four value chains (cacao, achiote (annatto), acai, coconut) have received support and must be prioritized, the Contractor is required to remain open to new value chain opportunities with non-timber forest products or tourism that could be implemented at scale with positive impact on the 8 REDD+ project communities and beyond. However, the engagement in a new value chain will require written USAID approval.

59. In Section C.4.1., on page 19 under Required Result 1.3, what specific results would USAID like to see regarding the focus on community-level REDD+ work in forest lands administered by ethnic groups within national REDD+ initiatives?

ANSWER: The last sentence on the last paragraph under “Required Result 1.3” says: “The Activity will place special emphasis on community-level REDD+ work in forest lands that are administered by ethnic groups (Indigenous, Afro-Colombian).”

The aim of this language is to give preference to REDD+ by ethnic groups over private REDD+ initiatives. End results will be reduced greenhouse gas emissions and improved livelihoods for communities.

60. Section C.6.1, on page 24, states “The Contractor must build upon and learn from other projects already completed and relationships already established over the course of the past ten years with USAID support provided under the MIDAS, Connected Landscapes and BIOREDD+, including publications and materials produced … All relevant documents are available at the USAID DEC (https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/content/search.aspx), under the keyword “Bioredd.” The Final Report for BIOREDD+ is not currently available on USAID DEC: can USAID please provide this report to offerors?

ANSWER: The Bioredd+ final report can be found in this link:

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00m9n7.pdf

61. In Section C.6.1, on page 26 (environmental earmarks), the RFP states that “funds for this

Activity will come from funds earmarked for environmental activities.” Could USAID please name the earmarked funds used to support this Activity?

ANSWER: It is expected that the main funding source will come from the Sustainable Landscapes earmark.

62. In Section F.5 on page 36 (non-key personnel), USAID provides very broad position titles for the “environmental expert” and “communications expert” – positions that appear open to a wide range of interpretations. Can USAID provide additional information on what kind of profiles it is expecting for these positions?

ANSWER: The role of the Environmental Expert is described under answer #52. The Communications Expert will be responsible for the Communications and Outreach Plan, as described in Section F.6.4. of the RFP.

63. Section F’s degree requirements can limit the pool of candidates for key personnel. There are several candidates that offer multiple years of relevant practical experience and technical knowledge, and, except for an advanced degree, are highly competent professionals, capable of filling key positions on the program. The offeror respectfully requests that USAID allow additional years of experience in lieu of an advanced degree for key personnel.

ANSWER: Please see reply to question #48.

64. Please clarify the meaning of “magnitude” on page 114 in Section L.9.6.

ANSWER: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary defines “magnitude” as “the size, extent, or importance of something.”

65. Could USAID please confirm if we can substitute the science-related post graduate degree education requirement with relevant work equivalency if candidates meet and/or exceed all other qualifications?

ANSWER: Please see reply to question #48.

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00m9n7.pdf

66. Could USAID please advise if Quarterly Report Q 3 from the “Connected Landscapes” program can be made available to the public? Only Q1 and Q2 reports are currently available.

ANSWER: Q3 report from the “Connected Landscapes” is now available on the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC).

67. On page 38, Section F.6.3. Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (AMEP), paragraph 4, the RFP states, “the Contractor will provide ten (10) performance indicators with its correspondent Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) to describe data sources, methodologies, frequency of and people responsible for data collection, as well as baselines for each of the indicators and annual targets. However, page 25 of the RFP refers to three indicators/targets.” Could USAID please specify the number of indicators to present?

ANSWER: Section E on page 25, refers to the contributions the Paramos y Bosques Activity will provide to the USAID/Colombia Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS).

Offerors are requested to follow the guidance provided for the AMEP in section F of the

RFP.

68. On page 126, Section M.2.1. Technical Approach, 6, the RFP states, “the effectiveness of the strategy to achieve 20% reduction of carbon emissions in the target ecosystems over the life of the Activity.” Could USAID please provide additional clarification on the basis of this estimate in high Andean ecosystems?

ANSWER: The 20% reduction will be measured against the emissions baseline the contractor will develop for high Andean ecosystems.

69. Could USAID clarify how Required Results 1.3 and 2.3 integrate, or not, geographically?

How does USAID envision RR 1.3 and 2.3 complimenting or relating to each other?

ANSWER: Through Result 1.3 the program will Support the design and implementation of the national REDD+ strategy and its Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) component. This is focused on the national REDD+ strategy, led by MADS. Result 2.3 aims at improved capacity of IDEAM for Measuring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) and improved coordination with the Ministries of Environment and Agriculture, Humboldt Institute and Geographic Institute Agustin Codazzi (IGAC). Like this, these two results are connected, providing support at a higher coordination level to both IDEAM and MADS and support on the ground. RR 2.3 has an on the ground focus on high Andean ecosystems (high Andean forest (bosque andino), Páramo and high altitude wetlands)

70. Is USAID contributing to the National PES Fund?

ANSWER: USAID is not considering contributions to the National PES fund at this time.

71. On page 16, Section C.4.1, Result (3) states “At least 500 farmers who have participated in multi-stakeholder decision making processes and have applied improved technologies or management practices for integrated water resources management as a result of USG assistance.” Can USAID please clarify this result? Is Result (3) related to two indicators, i.e., Farmers who have participated in decision processes and 2. Farmers who have applied improved technologies or management practices? Or is it expected that one indicator measures both results, i.e., farmers’ participation and application of improved practices?

ANSWER: Please see reply to question #34. One indicator measures both results. Offerors are welcome to propose additional indicators needed to better present program results.

72. Page 22, Section C.4.1, states “20% emissions reduction by the end of the Activity life cycle in the targeted ecosystems, contributing towards the INDC made by Colombia at the Paris COP last year.” Can USAID please clarify if the expected target refers to results achieved from only Objective 2 or from overall results of the Activity (Objectives 1and 2).

ANSWER: The 20% emission reduction refers to activities under Objective 2. Emission reductions under objective 1 will come from the 8 REDD+ projects and are intended to be sold in the voluntary market, thus will not count against the NDC.

i. Further, can USAID please clarify how this 20% target is related to Result No. 1 on Page 16: “At least and after the second year 2.5 million/year of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, estimated in metric tons of CO2e, reduced, sequestered, and/or avoided as a result of USG assistance (#4.8.7)”?

It is expected that the Activity will reduce, sequester, and/or avoid at least and after the second year 2.5 million/year of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, estimated in metric tons of CO2e. This is a combination of results under Objectives 1 and 2 and the language here does not imply a commitment in percentage terms, per se.

73. On page 112, Section L.9.2, Element #8 (“Description of the financial instruments proposed to attract private and public finance to sell carbon credits…”) is listed under Objective 2 but seems more appropriately placed under Objective 1. Could USAID please clarify if this element is part of Objective 1 or Objective 2?

ANSWER: Please see reply to question #55.

74. Will USAID please confirm that references for Key Personnel will not count against the two-page CV limit?

ANSWER: Please see reply to question #6.

75. Section L.9.2., Format, Page Limitation and Content (page 110) includes Draft Grants Strategy (b) as a separate section within the Technical Proposal Body, separate from

Technical Approach (a). Section M.2., Technical Evaluation, does not provide evaluation criteria for a Draft Grants Strategy section. Could USAID please confirm that the Draft Grants Strategy should be a section separate from Technical Approach, and provide applicable evaluation criteria in Section M?

ANSWER: The technical proposal body must include a draft grants strategy, as stated in the RFP under L.9.2. There are no specific evaluation criteria for this draft strategy. It will be evaluated as an integral part of M.2.1 (8)