SOL-514-17-000005_-_Q&A.pdf

SOL-514-17-000005 – CDLO Q&A

1) Section L.8.3 Technical Approach, item a) on page 109 requests that offerors propose a list of maximum 12 indicators to measure and monitor progress. Should those indicators be listed and described in the Technical Approach section of the proposal, or in Annex F.

Draft Activity MEL Plan?

Response: In accordance with (IAW) Section M.2.1. a), the proposed list of indicators is part of the evaluation criteria. These indicators have also been included in the instructions on Section L.8.3 a). Since the Activity MEL Plan is required as an Annex and will not be evaluated, the proposed list of indicators can also be included in it, but failure to include the list and description of the indicators in the Technical Approach will have negative results in the evaluation of M.2.1.

2) Section L.8.3 on page 110 the description of the required contents for Annex F states the offeror should provide a list of up to 10 indicators. Will USAID please clarify as to whether a maximum of 12 or of 10 indicators should be provided?

Response: On page 36, Section F.7.1 c) and on page 110, Annex F, delete “ten (10)” and replace with “twelve (12)”

3) Will USAID please clarify plans for baseline data? Section L.8.3 on page 110 of the RFP asks for an explanation in the draft Activity MEL Plan on how baseline data will be collected. However, Section C.4.1, Required Result 1.1, on page 18 of the RFP states that USAID, via a separate mechanism, will establish the baseline.

Response: On Page 110, Annex F, delete “how baseline measurements will be established and”. The baseline will be determined by USAID via a separate mechanism as stated on page 18 of the RFP. Baseline information requested on page 36, Section F.7.1 c) will have illustrative information in Annex F, to be updated upon contract award with the information from the separate baseline determination mechanism from USAID.

4) In reference to RFP Section L.7, page 106, would USAID consider allowing the offeror to submit hard copies of the technical and cost volumes of the proposal within seven days of the electronic submission?

Response: No. IAW Section L.7., “The proposal (both Volumes I & II) must be submitted both in hard copy and on electronic media via email […] by the date and time set forth in the cover letter of this solicitation.”

5) Section L.8.2, page 108, states both 12 point and 8 point for text box font size. Will USAID confirm that text boxes may be no smaller than 8 points?

Response: On page 108, Section L.8.2, delete “The text in any text boxes included within the technical proposal must not be less than 12 points in size.”

6) Section L.8.2, page 108, states that “all graphs and charts must be included in the annexes.” Can USAID please clarify if offerors may include select figures in the technical proposal as well as Annex G?

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

7) Will USAID please confirm that the EBDs requested as part of Annex A should be included in the cost proposal, and not the technical proposal?

Response: On page 108, L.8.2. Format, Page Limitation and Content – Annex A, delete “USAID 1420-17 Biographical Data Sheet &” and “, in addition to the 1420-17 format”.

Employee’s Biographical Data (EBD) sheets must be included in the cost proposals, IAW

PART 2 – PROPOSED COSTS/PRICES/ DETAILED BUDGET NARRATIVE – CLIN

001 (2).

8) Will USAID please confirm that Key Personnel references are not part of the two-page limit for CVs?

Response: Key Personnel references are not part of the two-page limit for CVs.

9) Attachment 13, page 150, presents a template for position requirements for key personnel. Will USAID please clarify where these are to go, and confirm that they do not count against page limit?

Response: These documents are to be included in Annex A. Annex A and all related documents will be used to evaluate the requirements for Key Personnel as defined in Section F.8. As such, they are to be included in the Technical Proposal and do not count against the Technical Proposal page limit.

10) Section F.9, page 47, states that, “Supplemental technical assistance is intended primarily to respond to emerging, unanticipated priorities on biodiversity conservation work by the GOC and/or USG...” Given the CDLO’s technical focus, will USAID please clarify the focus on biodiversity conservation in this context?

Response: On Page 47, Section F.9, delete “on biodiversity conservation work”.

11) Section L.8.2, page 108, lists under four subparts to the Technical Proposal Body: a)

Technical Approach, b) Draft Procurement Strategy, c) Coordination and Partnership Strategy, and d) Management Approach and Capability. Items a, c, and d are described in sections L.8.3, .4, and .5 respectively. Item b) Draft Procurement Strategy is not similarly explained. Can USAID provide an explanation of what this sub-part should describe?

Response: On Section L.8.2 b), delete “b) Draft Procurement Strategy”.

12) Similarly, Technical Approach, Coordination and Partnerships Strategy, and

Management Approach and Capability are provided with evaluation criteria in sections M.2.1, .2 and .3 on pages 123 and 124, but no evaluation criteria is described for Draft Procurement Strategy. Can USAID explain the evaluation criteria for this area?

Response: See answer to Question # 11

13) Section L.7 on page 118 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.

Response: 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.9.(ii).(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.

14) Section C.4 on page 20 refers to infrastructure activity should be 25% of the budget;

however, Section B.4 on page 10 lists a $14M plug figure. Can USAID confirm which figure offerors should use with the proposal?

Response: On page 20, Section C.4.1. b) delete “25% of the entire CDLO budget will be spent on infrastructure activities” and replace with “About 25% of CLIN 1 budget will be spent on infrastructure activities”. Offerors must use the $14,000,000 plug figure.

15) Section L.9 on page 121 states that “the Offeror must propose costs for a total of 3,400 person days equally distributed across all labor categories for each year of the five year contract.” However, in Attachment 4, the budget template provides for a total of 7 years.

Could USAID confirm that no costs should be budgeted in years 6 and 7?

Response: Language in page 32, Section F.2. Period of Performance (POP) has been updated as follows:

“F.2. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

(a) The period of performance for CLIN 001 is five years from [TBD] to [TBD].

(b) The ordering period for TOs (CLIN 002) is five years from [TBD] to [TBD].

(c) TOs may be issued at any time during the ordering period for TOs and must end by

[TBD, two years after the Ordering Period].

Although TOs under the CLIN 002 may be issued during the ordering period provided in paragraph (b) above, the maximum period of performance for any individual TO will be no more than five years and will not exceed the end date provided in paragraph (c) above.

For example, TOs issued during Years 1 and 2 may have a five-year period of performance, whereas TOs issued during Years 3, 4, and 5 will have less than a five-year period of performance given the end date provided in paragraph (c) above.” Costs may be budgeted in years 6 and 7, but only for CLIN 002 TOs that are issued during the ordering period included in Section F.2. (b).

16) Section L.9 on page 121 states that the Offeror must propose costs for a total of 3,400 person-days equally distributed across all labor categories for each year of the five-year contract. However, multiplying 3,400 person-days by five years does not equal the specified maximum of 24,000 person-days. Could USAID clarify how Offerors distribute the person-days for CLIN 002?

Response: As per page 120, PART 12 – CLIN 002 PROPOSED COSTS AND PRICES/ DETAILED BUDGET NARRATIVE, “the Government has specified a maximum of 24,000 person-days of labor, to include subcontractor and consultant hours, as the maximum LOE that may be required during the contract period for performance for authorized work under IDIQ CLIN 002”; IAW Section F.2 (c) “Task order performance may continue up to 2 years after the expiration of the ordering period”. 3,400 days for seven years equals 23,800 days, which complies with the 24,000 maximum days’ restriction.

Yearly totals can be modified to better adjust to the proposed Technical Approach, but in no case there will be an authorization to exceed the 24,000 days.

17) Section L.8.2 of the RFP (p. 108) requests a “draft procurement strategy” as part of the 35-page body of the technical proposal. However, no subsequent subsection of L mentions this piece, nor is it mentioned in Section M. Please confirm a draft procurement strategy is not required as part of offerors’ proposals.

Response: See answer to Question # 11

18) Section L.8.2 (p. 108) 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 later states that “text in graphs and charts and text boxes may be less than 12 points in size but no less than 8 points and must be legible.” Please confirm that text boxes in the technical proposal may less than 12 points in size, so long as they are legible and not less than 8 points.

Response: See answer to Question # 5

19) Section L.8.2 (p. 108) requires biodatas for key personnel as part of Annex A in the technical proposal. Would USAID kindly remove the biodata requirement from the technical proposal as it references pricing data? As stated in Section L.7 (p. 106), “technical proposals must not make reference to pricing data so that the technical evaluation may be made strictly on the basis of technical merit.”

Response: See answer to Question # 7

20) Section L.8.2 of the RFP (p. 109) requests that the “offeror must address crosscutting areas – science and technology, partnerships, GVP and empowerment and environmental management – and special considerations…” as part of the technical approach. Earlier in the RFP, as part of the Activity MEL Plan description (p. 36), “special considerations” are noted as being listed as part of Section C. However, Section C does not list any crosscutting areas or special considerations, only general organizing principles as Section C.6, nor are these terms used elsewhere in the RFP. Would USAID please clarify what is classified as a special considerations and/or crosscutting areas? Please also clarify whether the four crosscutting areas are in fact considered general organizing principles.

Response: TEC – On Section F.7.1 c) delete “the Special Considerations in” and replace with “Section C.4.1”; on Section L.8.2., delete “Special Considerations” and replace with “and the principles listed on Section C.6. through the entirety of the Technical Proposal.”

21) Section L (p. 110) notes that offerors must provide up to 10 illustrative performance indicators, but on the very next page (p. 109) requests a maximum of 12. Earlier in the RFP, in C.4.1, however, the expected results for CDLO CLIN 001 include 10 specific predefined metrics (pp. 17-18). Please confirm that only 10 indicators are required and that we should use the predefined metrics that USAID provided.

Response: See answers to Questions # 1 & 2

22) Section L.8.5(c) on page 111 of the RFP states: “The Offeror must provide five (5) references for each Key Personnel. The references must include a description and include the name, title, email, and phone number of the person being contacted.” Later on the same page, the RFP states: “In Annex A – USAID 1420-17 Biographical Data Sheet & CV/Resumes for proposed Key Personnel, include sufficient information to allow USAID to evaluate all the requirements for Key Personnel as defined in Section F.8…Emails and telephone number of three professional references are required.” Please clarify whether the Offeror should provide three or five references for Key Personnel, what information is required from each reference, and whether the references should be included in the Management Approach and Capability section or in Annex A.

Response: On page 111, Section L.8.5 c), has been edited for clarity”; IAW Section L.8.5.

dash 1, “The Offeror must provide three (3) references for each Key Personnel. The references must include a description and include the name, title, email, and phone number of the person being contacted. The references information will not count against this Annex page limit.” IAW the same section, this information must be included in Annex A.

23) In Section L.9 on pages 113-114, USAID specifies Part 2 as “proposed costs and prices/detailed budget narrative” and Part 12 as “CLIN 002 proposed costs and pricing/detailed budget narrative”. However, under the section for Part 2 (p. 114), the RFP states that “offerors must submit a CPFF completion – IDIQ contract type detailed budget.” Please confirm that Part 2 should include only a CPFF completion-type contract for CLIN 001, given that Part 12 will include the IDIQ portion related to CLIN 002.

Response: Yes. Part 2 should include only a CPFF completion-type contract for CLIN 001 and Part 12 will include the IDIQ portion related to CLIN 002

24) Section L.9 (p. 118) states that “USAID will not agree to allow the GUCs to be included in the calculation of fixed fee.” This appears to be inconsistent with FAR 15.404-4 and ADS 302.3.6.9, which state, inter alia, that pre-negotiation fee objectives must be determined according to a structured approach that considers contractor effort, risk, and other special factors. Even with an advance payment mechanism in place, grants still require significant effort to administer and carry risks for the contractor. Given this, and the fact that grants are expected to constitute a major portion of the costs to be incurred under the contract, would USAID please clarify whether the Agency is willing to reconsider this element? In the alternative, could the offeror propose a cost recovery charge to cover effort and risk?

Response: See answer to question # 13

25) In F.2(c) (p. 32), USAID states that “Task order performance may continue up to two years after the expiration of the ordering period.” Would USAID confirm that the period of performance for the CLIN 0002 task order could extend into a sixth or seventh year of implementation?

Response: See answer to Question # 15

26) Section L.9, Part 12 (pp. 120-121) states that the Government has specified a maximum of 24,000 person days of labor for CLIN 002 but also states that “for estimating purposes, the offeror must propose costs for a total of [3,400] person-days equally distributed across all labor categories for each year of the five-year contract.” Budgeting 3,400 person days per year over a five-year period is equivalent to 17,000 person days of labor.

Section F notes that the period of performance for CLIN 2 can continue up to two years after the expiration of the ordering period, and therefore have seven years of implementation. Would USAID confirm that offeror should budget 3,400 over the seven-year period?

Response: See answer to Question # 16

27) Section H.4 of the RFP (p. 58) states that GUC to partner government entities have not been authorized, but under ADS 302.3.4.13, no authorization is required. Would USAID please confirm that per ADS 302.3.4.13, solely in-kind grants to government entities are allowed and that non in-kind grants to partner government entities may be authorized if they meet the conditions stated therein?

Response: Grants under Contracts authority for this procurement only includes conflict-affected communities and Non-Governmental Organizations. It is also open to private foundations, universities and other Civil Society Organizations (CSOs). It specifically states that “[t]he authority to award [GUCs] will not be used to provide sub-awards to the Government of Colombia public entities e.g. GOC ministries, regional governments or municipalities.” In-kind GUCs to the GOC are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and require prior written Mission Director Approval.

28) The RFP references AIDAR 752.7007 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.” However, Sections H.6 and H.22 reference pay scales and salary ranges that will need to be established and proposed, even though Section L.9 does not require them to be submitted.

Would USAID please consider removing the requirement to use pay scales and salary ranges so that the offeror can propose salaries and wages per our personnel policies, per

AIDAR 752.7007?

Response: Pay scales and ranges are to be included in the budget for each individual position proposed, but this requirement does not contradict AIDAR 752.7007, as those ranges are proposed by the offeror/contractor IAW their own internal policies and procedures

29) Section H.6.(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…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” (pp. 58-59). 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.” The 8 percent increase cap could be too restrictive, particularly in cases where a candidate is being promoted and is assuming a higher level of responsibility than held in a previous position. We respectfully request that USAID allow offerors to follow their established policies and procedures when negotiating salaries.

Response: 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. Offerors still have the possibility to propose increases in excess of 8% over past salaries. In order to do so, written approval from the Contracting Officer must be secured before any contracts are signed.

30) Section H.6.(a)(2) (p. 59) states, “All Cooperating Country Nationals (CCNs) and Third Country Nationals (TCNs) salaries must not exceed the Local Compensation Plan (LCP).” The most recent version of the LCP available online is dated 2009. Would USAID confirm this is the most recent version available?

Response: The most recent U.S Mission Colombia Local Compensation Plan salary ranges have been included as Attachment 11 to the solicitation.

31) Section B.3(c), Other Direct Cost Limitations under CLIN 002 (pp. 9-10), states that “the amount of ordered Other Direct Costs will not exceed $1,000,000.” These limitations on all non-labor costs, not including indirect costs and fee, would make implementation under CLIN 002 very difficult and could substantially limit flexibility in implementation, depending on the type of work USAID will require. This could be especially significant in post-eradication communities that may require a broad range of potential interventions.

Accordingly, would USAID consider raising the ceiling for non-labor costs under CLIN 002?

Response: IAW USAID Procurement Executive’s Bulletin NO. 2014-01 – 4. B., “supplemental technical assistance may be ordered by only CPFF Term (LOE) Task Orders under the IDIQ CLIN of the contract.” Since CLIN 002 is a Level-of-Effort (LOE) CLIN, it is required to keep ODCs to a minimum; therefore, a raise in this ceiling is not being considered at this time.

32) The RFP (p. 26) cites FAR 2.101 and ADS 303 to restrict the use of grants for construction of infrastructure. Yet USAID is requiring as a result “[a]t least 1,000 public and productive infrastructure projects implemented and/or overseen/supervised by the benefiting communities” (p. 17). These two requirements may work against each other, because many of the community-based organizations in CDLO’s geographic scope are nascent and arguably too fragile to receive a construction subcontract. Relying solely on subcontracts for infrastructure will require the contractor to identify larger, more established firms to implement public works, which tends to relegate the community to a more marginal role and greatly increases costs. In contrast, using grants for small infrastructure project allows for the community to take the lead in the identification, design, and execution of the infrastructure project, as page 17 also requires. Would USAID consider granting a waiver to use grants for small infrastructure works under this project, thereby applying an important lesson learned from earlier rural and alternative development programs in Colombia?

Response: Waivers to perform construction activities under grants are not being considered at this time.

33) Objective 2 of the RFP focuses heavily on improvement and maintenance of infrastructure, implying a focus on existing works. Yet the RFP also emphasizes rapid response and small-scale productive infrastructure, both of which may benefit from supporting new infrastructure. Can the $14 million infrastructure subcontract pool be used for the construction of new productive, connective, and social infrastructure works, or should it be used only for improvement and maintenance of existing works?

Response: The use of the resources implies both the construction of new infrastructure and the improvement and maintenance of the existing one.

34) There is no reference to attachment 14 – SFF-LLL in Section L. Would USAID please confirm if SF LLL - Certificate of Lobbying Activities (Attachment 14) should be included as part of the Cost Proposal?

Response: Yes. The language on Section L.9, Part 3 - Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors has been revised to reflect this.

35) Would USAID please clarify where in the technical volume we should include Attachment 13: Position Requirements for Key Personnel?

Response: See answer to Question # 9

36) Clause B.3 of the RFP states: “CLIN 002: Payment of the corresponding fixed fee for each Task Order will be negotiated at the task order level upon receipt of a proper invoice.” This appears to suggest that fixed fee will be negotiated after the issuance of a task order, rather than at the time of negotiation of the task order. Please clarify how fixed fee will be negotiated for task orders issued under CLIN 002.

Response: IAW page 10, Section B.3. (d), “The Total Estimated Cost and Fixed Fee will be established in the individual Government-issued Task Order and will not exceed the amounts set forth in Section B.4.” The paragraph mentioned in the question refers to “Payment of the corresponding Fixed Fee” not the establishment of same.

37) Clause H.19 of the RFP suggests that all reports, data, findings, conclusions, and recommendations produced under the resultant contract may not be used by Contractor for any purpose without express written approval of USAID. This would appear to preclude the Contractor from using any of this data for educational purposes or business development purposes to describe corporate capabilities. Please clarify if this is the intention of this clause.

Response: This clause does not preclude the contractor to use the information in such ways, but requires the contractor to secure USAID approval before doing so.

38) Clause H.39 of the RFP states that written CO approval is required before mobilizing long-term expatriate personnel. Can USAID please clarify the explicit approval required, whether it is international travel, professional qualifications, proposed salary, or a combination of the foregoing?

Response: IAW page 81, Clause H.39 “All long-term expatriate personnel are required to obtain written CO approval before mobilizing to Colombia.” This means international travel to the country.

39) On page 108 of the RFP under L.8.2., “Format, Page Limitation and Content”, the solicitation states that “the text in any text boxes included within the technical proposal must not be less than 12 points in size.” In the sentences following, it is then stated that “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.” Would USAID please confirm the text size required for the text boxes within the technical proposal?

Response: See answer to Question # 5

40) Thank you for providing the reports in Attachment 7 of the RFP. We have been unable to find more recent reports (beyond 2015) of the CELI programs and any reports from the

Regional Governance Program, the Rural Financial Services program, the LRDP program, and the OTI program on the Development Clearinghouse. Would USAID kindly make other reports available to all offerors or otherwise encourage contractors to submit this information?

Response: USAID is providing the link within the DEC for each one of these reports. 2016 reports are not available yet.

CELI Central:

- Annual Report 2015: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00m33d.pdf

- Annual Report 2014: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00k9qg.pdf

- Annual Report 2013: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00kb3b.pdf

- Annual Report 2012: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00k9qd.pdf

CELI N/S:

- Annual Report 2015: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00m3dw.pdf

- Annual Report 2014: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00K8QC.pdf

- Annual Report 2013: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00JPW1.pdf

- Annual Report 2012: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00HXR3.pdf

LRDP:

- Annual Report 2015: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00kth2.pdf

- Annual Report 2014: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00kmkw.pdf

RGA:

Annual Report 2016: It has not been approved yet. However, there are some documents that could provide some insights about the type of work RGA is doing:

- Gender And Vulnerable Populations Integration Strategy:

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00m48c.pdf

- Assistance To Government Of Colombia Agencies To Strengthen Electoral Corruption Controls: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00m48h.pdf

RFI:

Electronic version is uploaded as a separate Portable Document Format (.pdf) file at http://www.fbo.gov/ (Keyword: SOL-514-17-000005) with this solicitation announcement

OTI

- Fact sheet and infographic:

https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/content/Detail.aspx?ctID=ODVhZjk4NWQtM2YyMi00Yj RmLTkxNjktZTcxMjM2NDBmY2Uy&rID=Mzg0NjMy

- First Report to Congress:

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/OTIReporttoCongress_Col ombia.pdf http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00m48c.pdf http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00m48h.pdf http://www.fbo.gov/ https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/content/Detail.aspx?ctID=ODVhZjk4NWQtM2YyMi00YjRmLTkxNjktZTcxMjM2NDBmY2Uy&rID=Mzg0NjMy https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/content/Detail.aspx?ctID=ODVhZjk4NWQtM2YyMi00YjRmLTkxNjktZTcxMjM2NDBmY2Uy&rID=Mzg0NjMy https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/OTIReporttoCongress_Colombia.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/OTIReporttoCongress_Colombia.pdf

41) On page 108, Section L.8.2 lists a “Draft Procurement Strategy” as part of the Technical Proposal Body, however this section is not mentioned further in Section L or Section M.

Would USAID please confirm that offerors are not required to submit a Draft Procurement Strategy as part of their technical proposal? If it is a required element of the Technical Proposal, please provide a detailed description of this requirement.

Response: See answer to Question # 11

42) On page 108 Section L.8.2 requires offerors to include USAID1420-17 Biographical

Data Sheets in Annex A of the Technical Proposal. Since technical proposals should not make reference to pricing data (per the instructions on page 106), would USAID consider allowing offerors to include the Key Personnel biodatas in the Cost Volume instead of the Technical Volume? If so, please indicate where in the Cost Volume they should be featured.

Response: See answer to Question # 7

43) In Section L.8.5.c (page 111), the RFP states that the Offeror must provide five references for each Key Personnel, and include “a description and include the name, title, email, and phone number of the person being contacted.”

o Could USAID please confirm that these references should only be listed in Annex A with the proposed Key Personnel’s CV, rather than within the Management Approach and Capability section of the technical proposal, as indicated in L.8.5 subpart (c)?

o Also on page 111, the RFP states that “three professional references are required.”

Would USAID please clarify if three or five references are required?

Response: References must be included in Annex A. Also, see answer to Question # 22

44) Page 111 of the RFP indicates that “Individuals proposed for the Key Personnel positions must be available immediately upon contract signature to initiate the assignment in the Activity.” Given that candidates might need to provide notice to current employers before beginning a new assignment, would USAID please amend this language to allow candidates a reasonable amount of time to transition to Colombia CDLO?

Response: USAID expects the selected offeror to comply with Section F.7.1 a) Rapid Mobilization Plan; this plan allows the offeror to demonstrate how it will handle such issues efficiently. In case any unforeseeable events affect the proposed RMP, these situations will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, upon contract award and within reason.

45) Would USAID please clarify if Attachment 13 is a required annex. If so, should offerors place this document within Annex A?

Response: See answer to Question # 9

46) Does use of the term "Market driven alliances" described in Required Result 3.3 on page

22 indicate PPPs, or is USAID referring to other mechanisms?

Response: USAID is referring to alliances with the private sector that respond to the needs of the market rather than create new market opportunities.

47) Under L.8.3 (p 110), it states that "The draft Activity MEL Plan must include the underlying assumptions on which the achievement of activity goals depends and the relationships between activities, outputs, and outcomes (i.e. the framework)." Is USAID requesting the inclusion of a Results Framework or Logical framework with the proposal and if so, does that count towards the 5 page limit for the MEL plan?"

Response: It is expected that the 5 page draft activity MEL plan follows a logical line on activities, outputs, outcomes, results and impacts. It is up to the Offeror how to present it as far as it keeps the clearness and technical soundness defined under section L.8.3.a).

48) On p. 36 it states that "The contractor will use the Theories of Change and Results Chains (RC) methodology as the basis to develop a comprehensive MEL plan." It further states that "Guidance on the development and use of TOC and RC are listed in the Special Considerations in Section C." We are unable to find guidance under Section C titled "Special Consideration" or guidance on the TOC and RC. Can that be provided?

Response: On page 36, Section F.7.1 c), delete “and Results Chain (RC)”. TOC is described on page 16, Section C.4.1. Finally, see answer to Question # 20.

49) Would USAID please clarify if offerors should propose up to 10 performance indicators, as stated on page 110, or a maximum of 12, as stated on pate 109 under L.8.3(a)?

Response: See answer to Question # 2

50) On The RFP states on p. 18 “USAID will define the baseline information for all expected results through a separate mechanism and the data will be shared with the Contractor as the basis for the Activity MEL Plan.” However, further references to the Activity MEL Plan (p. 37, #9”) and Summary Activity MEL Plan (p. 110) place the impetus for baseline design and collection on the Offeror. Would USAID please confirm which party is responsible for the baseline?

Response: See answer to Question # 3

51) The sub-objectives (a, b, c, d) listed on page 16 under Section C.4.1 are worded differently than in Section C, on pages 18-23. Would USAID please clarify which is the definitive wording?

Response: Wording from page 16, Section C.4.1 is replaced to follow the wording defined on pages 18-23 as in this section concepts are further developed and sub-objectives are also defined.

52) In order to facilitate the legibility of the hard copy submission of the budgets, would USAID consider allowing budgetary information to be submitted on 11”x17” paper instead of 8.5”x11”?

Response: If necessary, offerors may use a larger paper size for the budget pages only to guarantee legibility. A footnote has been included in the solicitation to allow for this.

53) Would USAID specify where in the Cost Volume Attachment 5 (Certification Regarding Trafficking in Persons Compliance Plan) and Attachment 14 (Disclosure of Lobbying Activities) should be placed? May offerors include these within Part 3-Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors?

Response: See answer to Question # 34

54) As Attachment 11 to the RFP, USAID included a summary of the U.S. Mission Colombia Local Compensation Plan Salary Ranges. Would USAID please provide the expanded plan including all grades and steps so that Offerors may better gauge their compensation plans?

Response: Attachment 11 is provided as a tool for offerors to analyze and propose their own compensation plans.

55) On page 115, the RFP indicates that “Narratives for the individual cost items must provide a discussion of any estimated rates where applicable.” For the sake of brevity, may offerors address their methodology for estimating rates at the beginning of the budget narrative section rather than in every single line item description?

Response: No. Offerors must follow the instructions provided on page 114, L.9. PART 2 – PROPOSED COSTS/PRICES/ DETAILED BUDGET NARRATIVE – f).

56) On page 117, the RFP indicates that “The offeror must include costs of M&E Staff, data collection, analysis, and reporting as a separate line item in their budgets to ensure that adequate resources are available.” Rather than presenting this information as a separate line item in the budget, would it be sufficient to summarize the budgeted costs in another tab and/or the budget narrative? Compiling all potentially related costs into one section of the budget would not conform with [sic] the provided budget template’s detail budget tab.

Response: M&E costs must be included as a separate line item within the appropriate cost category and have their corresponding budget narrative.

57) On page 118, the RFP similarly indicates that “Security costs must be clearly identified in the cost proposal in a separate budget line.” Rather than presenting this information as a separate line item in the budget, would it be sufficient to summarize the budgeted costs in another tab and/or the budget narrative? Compiling all potentially related costs into one section of the budget would not conform with [sic] the provided budget template’s detail budget tab.

Response: Security costs must be included as a separate line item within the appropriate cost category and have their corresponding budget narrative.

58) Page 118, Section L.9 Part 2 states that “USAID will not agree to allow the GUCs to be included in the calculation of fixed fee.” To offset the cost of financing associated with GUCs, would USAID consider financing the grant pool through a Letter of Credit (and amend Section H accordingly)?

Response: See answer to Question # 13. USAID may consider financing the grant pool through a Letter of Credit (and amend Section H accordingly).

59) Would USAID please clarify if Letters of Commitment should be submitted by major subcontractors only, as indicated in the title of Part 10 (page 120), or by “each” subcontractor, as indicated in the description of Part 10?

Response: this is a requirement for major Subcontractors. Language in Part 10 description has been updated to reflect this.

60) Attachment 4 Budget Template – In the provided budget template USAID included a Subcontracts tab with a budget format that did not conform with the Detail Budget tab.

Please confirm that subcontractors may use the Detail Budget tab to ensure consistency.

Response: Yes. Subcontractors may use the Detail Budget tab.

61) On pages120 and 121, USAID instructs offerors to “propose costs associated with the above number of person-days of LOE (24,000). Later, on page 121, the RFP states “For estimating purposes, the Offeror must propose costs for a total of [3,400] person-days equally distributed across all labor categories for each year of the five-year contract.”

Please indicate whether USAID is expecting offerors to budget for the entire anticipated 24,000 days of LOE to be provided under CLIN 002 or if USAID is asking offerors to provide a sample task order CPFF-term budget with a total of 3,400 person-days per year?

Response: See answer to Question # 16

62) If the latter, please confirm that USAID is expecting offerors to then estimate the full value of CLIN 002 based on the proposed total cost of CLIN 001, such that CLIN 002 is 20% of the total combined cost.

Response: Yes. It is expected that CLIN 002 is based on the proposed total cost of CLIN 001.

63) Please indicate whether offerors should use the $1M ODC ceiling referenced on p. 10 and 121 as a plug figure for ODC costs in the development of their CLIN 002 budgets or if offerors should cost out these expenses as anticipated per the LOE budgeted?

Response: Offerors must cost out these expenses as anticipated per the LOE budget, not to exceed the $1,000,000.00 limitation.

64) To ensure consistency across bidders, would USAID please define “labor categories” as used in the sentence cited above? Does “labor categories” refer to the “illustrative positions” listed within the LOE tab of the Budget Template? Or does it refer to general classifications for labor, such as long-term or short-term, expat, CCN, or HQ labor?

Response: It refers to general classifications for labor, such as long-term or short-term, expat, CCN, or HQ labor.

65) Given that the specific scope of these illustrative task orders won’t be determined until program implementation, can USAID please provide plug figures for the following line items for the sake of an equitable comparison across offers and consider adjusting the 20% requirement for CLIN 002 as appropriate:

a. Travel, Transportation, and Per Diem (Line 90 in the budget template)

b. ODCs (Line 94 in the budget template)

c. Subcontracts (Line 96 in the budget template)

Response: These costs will be contingent upon technical requirements of the Activity implementation for each TO, so no plug figures may be provided at this time.

66) Page 108, Section L.8.2. Format, Page Limitation and Content states, “The text in any text boxes included within the technical proposal must not be less than 12 points in size.

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.”

Question: The Offeror requests that USAID allow offerors to use a font of no less than 8 points for text boxes, graphs, and charts in both the technical proposal and annexes.

Response: See answer to Question # 5

67) Page 111, Section L.8.5 Management Approach and Capability, part c) states, “The

Offeror must provide five (5) references for each Key Personnel,” but in the following paragraph states, “Emails and telephone number of three professional references are required.”

a. Question: The Offeror requests that USAID please clarify the number of professional references required for Key Personnel.

Response: See answer to Question # 22

b. Question: The Offeror also respectfully requests that USAID exclude the professional reference information from the two-page limit on CVs for Key Personnel.

Response: See answer to Question # 8

68) Page 113, Section L.8.7, Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan, requires submission of a draft BIP with the technical proposal. Question: Considering that the BIP will not be evaluated and is required at the time of on award, we respectfully request that the BIP not be required with initial submission of proposals.

Response: This request is not being considered at this time

69) Page 118, L.9, Part 3: Representations and Certifications, requires all proposed subcontracts complete the section. Question: Offeror respectfully request that only major subcontractors be required to complete the reps and certs.

Response: In order to secure Consent to Subcontract, all proposed subcontractors must provide this information (as well as all required information IAW FAR 44.2) before any subcontracts are awarded to them.

70) Page 17, C.4.1, Goals and Objectives states, "at least 500 community organizations monitor and/or support comprehensive rural development, reduction in coca production, and alternative development.” Question: Offerors respectfully requests that USAID clarify the type of organization that would qualify as a "Community Organization" - in regards to degree of formalization, scope, and scale in the context of the targeted communities and CDLO activity.

Response: For this end USAID has considered as Community Organizations all types of local civil society groups that actively participate in promoting the implementation of the rural and alternative development aspects of the GoC’s peace strategy. Such groups are not necessarily formal at the initial stage, but they are already formed. As an illustration these groups could be, but are not limited to, Communal Action Boards, Producer Organizations, Women groups, Youth groups, indigenous cabildos, Afro-Colombian Organizations, etc.

71) Page 17, C.4.1, Goals and Objectives states, "Percentage increase (from the current baseline) in the number of citizens receiving public services provided by municipalities receiving support". Question: Offerors respectfully request USAID clarify "public services" - in regards to type and provider of service which would qualify for measurement under this result.

Response: USAID considered a public service those that must be provided either/both by the local or/and national government. These services could be provided directly or through a service provider that is paid by the responsible government. Some illustrative examples are education, health care, electricity, transportation, water supply etc.

72) Page 25, C.6.C, Local Systems Development promotes capacity development of local organizations, particularly those considered for, or receiving a sub-award so as to "enable them to become eligible to receive a direct award from USAID or other donors in the future." As USAID knows, capacity development of local partners to receive direct awards from USAID is an important activity investment, which requires significant time and assistance through technical assistance, mentoring, and advising. Question: Offerors respectfully request USAID to clarify the desired number of local organizations which USAID would like to see investments in capacity development to become eligible for direct award from USAID or other donors.

Response: IAW page 25, “The Contractor will identify and maximize the use of Local Solution Partners (LSPs) for the implementation of this Activity.” There is no suggested number of instruments or partners under this principle.

73) On page 108, Section L.8.2, the RFP states that “The text in any text boxes included within the technical proposal must not be less than 12 points in size.” Later in the paragraph, the RFP states that “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.” Please confirm that text in text boxes, charts, and graphs may be 8 points.

Response: See answer to Question # 5

74) On page 108, Section L.8.2, the RFP states that the Technical Proposal Body should include a “Draft Procurement Strategy.” Could USAID please provide information on what should be included in the Draft Procurement Strategy, similar to the information provided on pages 109-111 on the other sections of the Technical Proposal Body (the Technical Approach, Coordination and Partnerships Strategy, and Management Approach and Capability).

Response: See answer to Question # 11

75) On page 109, Section L.8.3, under “Technical Approach” the RFP states that “The Offer must propose a list of maximum 12 indicators that will be used to measure and monitor progress […].” On page 110, under the “Activity MEL Plan” the RFP states that “the Offer must provide up to 10 illustrative performance indicators […].” On pages 17 and 18, the RFP provides 10 performance metric indicators with targets.

a. Please confirm that the Offerer may submit up to 12 indicators.

Response: See answers to Questions # 1 & 2

b. Please confirm that of the 12 indicators that the Offerer should use the 10 performance metric indicators given on Pages 17 and 18, Section C.4.1.

Response: See answers to Questions # 1 & 2

c. Please clarify if the indicator list should be provided under the Technical

Approach or the MEL Annex.

Response: See answers to Questions # 1 & 2

76) On page 110, Section L.8.3, the RFP states that “the summary Activity MEL plan will describe how baseline measurements will be established.” However, on page 18, Section C.4.1, the RFP states that “USAID will define baseline information for all expected results through a separate mechanism and the date will be shared with the Contractor as the basis for the Activity MEL Plan.” Could USAID please clarify if the Contractor should conduct a baseline study post- award, or if USAID intends to conduct a baseline study?

Response: See answer to Question # 4

77) On page 109, Section L.8.3, under the RFP states that “The Offer must propose a list of maximum 12 indicators […] including units of measure, targets by year, and a succinct explanation of how data will be collected.” Because Offers do not currently have access to baseline data, could USAID confirm that the Offerer is not required to provide baseline or yearly target information for indicators if a target is not already provided by USAID?

Response: See answer to Question # 4

78) On page 20, Section C 4.1 as part of Result 2.2, the RFP states that “Completion of these activities will increase the GOC’s capability and credibility in the eyes of the community;

facilitate land titling; expand access to potable water and rural energy; provide technical assistance and training to design, build, maintain and finance roads and transportation networks; improve competitiveness and reduce business transaction costs; and work with communities, the private sector, and local governments to improve the availability of, and access to, technologies promoting connectivity”. In addition, on page 18, Section C 4.1 as part of Result 1.1, USAID expects that “ CDLO will deliver specific capacity building technical assistance and training primarily to the organizations that will serve as implementing partners for both immediate and future activities related to land and alternative rural development”. Would USAID please clarify if the CDLO Activity is expected to provide technical assistance to local or departmental-level governments or entities?

Response: No, community groups are the primary target group of CDLO. However, it is expected to work very closely with local and national governments and with other USAID programs so that efforts can be complementary.

79) USAID provided a budget template in Attachment 4. May the Offeror modify the budget template to ease USAID’s cost evaluation provided all the categories in the Attachment are included?

Response: It is possible to do minor modifications, provided that all the categories in the Attachment are included

80) Is the LOE table only for the prime offeror’s LOE?

Response: It must include all LOE required to substantiate the Technical Approach, including subcontractors, if any.

81) On page 10, B.4, could USAID clarify if the Activity Costs include all direct and indirect costs except for Grants under Contracts, Constructions subcontracts and Fixed Fee?

Response: Activity Costs include all direct and indirect costs; Pages 10 & 11, Section B.4 is modified to clarify this.

82) On page 11, B.4, could USAID clarify if the Maximum Fee under CLIN 002 could exceed the Fixed Fee under CLIN 001?

Response: IAW B.3 (e) “In no event, the fixed fee of the Task Orders under CLIN 002 can exceed the negotiated fee under CLIN 001”

83) On page 117, L.9, CLIN 0001, (10) Other Direct Costs: For costs associated with the Branding and Marking Plan, Communications and Outreach Plan, Environmental Compliance and the Monitoring and Evaluation plan, may the offeror include the LOE associated with these activities in the “labor” section of its budget?