Amendment No. 06 to Sol-521-12-000021 FINAL EXECUTED 04-Apr-2012.pdf

U.S.-Haiti Feed the Future Partnership: Northern Corridor Solicitation No. SOL-521-12-000021

Amendment No. 06 o Section C: 1) C.4 – STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES;

2) C.4.1 – GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS;

3) C.5.3 – PROJECT CORE PRINCIPLES FOR SUSTAINABILITY;

4) C.6.4 – INTERMEDIATE RESULT 4: CAPACITY OF LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS

STRENGTHENED;

5) C.8, ―SUBCONTRACTS AND GRANTS UNDER CONTRACT TO THE U.S.-HAITI

FEED THE FUTURE PARTNERSHIP: NORTHERN CORRIDOR PARTNER

IMPLEMENTERS;

o Section F.4 – PERSONNEL;

o Section H: 1) H.7(f) – Initial Salaries;

2) H.8 – AUTHORIZED GEOGRAPHIC CODE;

3) H.19 – AIDAR 752.225-70 SOURCE, ORIGIN AND NATIONALITY

REQUIREMENTS (FEB 1997);

4) H.20 – GRANTS UNDER CONTRACT (GUCS);

o Section I.1 AIDAR 752.225-71 – LOCAL PROCUREMENT;

o Section L: 1) L.5 – GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS;

2) L.6 – INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL

PROPOSAL;

3) L.7 – COST PROPOSALS;

o Section M: 1) M.2 – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA;

2) M.3 – COST PROPOSAL EVALUATION;

4. Post ATTACHMENT J.1.15 to FedBizOpps; and

5. Post ATTACHMENT J.1.16 to FedBizOpps

Accordingly, changes are as follows:

I. ―Submitted Questions and Answers,‖ posted to FedBizOpps on March 22, 2012 as

Amendment No. 04 is hereby annulled in its entirety and replaced with the following:

“U.S.-Haiti Feed the Future Partnership: Northern Corridor

Revised Submitted Questions and Answers Friday, March 30, 2012

1. We respectfully request that the Cover Page, Executive Summary, Table of Contents, Acronym list, as well as full page graphics, charts, and tables be excluded from the page limitation.

A Cover Page, Table of Contents, Acronym List, and dividers—or any other contents included purely for organizational purposes—are excluded from the 40-page limitation.

The Executive Summary and graphics, charts, and tables—unless otherwise specifically excluded—are subject to the page limitation.

2. Please confirm that Table 2 of Section F.2, ―Results,‖ is included in Annex with the

Schedule of Deliverables and excluded from the page limitation.

Yes, Table 2 of Section F.2 should be included in an Annex and is excluded from the 40-page limitation.

3. In Section L.6.3, the RFP notes that the Management Plan should also include an Implementation Plan with Gantt chart, in addition to Project organizational charts. Please confirm that the Implementation Plan is included as an Annex along with the Management organizational chart, and is excluded from the page limitation.

The Implementation Plan—including Gantt chart—may not be included as an Annex and is not excluded from the 40-page limitation.

4. In Section L.6.2., the RFP notes that the staffing plan should also include a “representative sampling of personnel proposed to perform short-term work.”

Please confirm that an STTA matrix may be included in an Annex along with the Staffing organizational chart, and is excluded from the page limitation.

An STTA matrix – or any other description or materials related to non-Key Personnel, with the exception of the staffing chart— may not be included in an Annex and is not excluded from the 40-page limitation.

5. Please confirm that resumes for Other Required Personnel may also be included in an Annex and are excluded from the page limitation.

Resumes for Other Required Personnel may not be included in an Annex and are not excluded from the 40-page limitation.

6. In order to encourage the participation of Haitian Diaspora and given the wide spectrum of language ability in Haitian Creole, please clarify if it is acceptable to propose candidates without a working ability in Haitian Creole for positions where less than fluency is required per the RFP.

It is not acceptable to propose candidates without a working ability in Haitian Creole for positions where less than fluency is required.

7. Section H.8. notes that ―The authorized geographic code for procurement of goods and services under this contract is 935,‖ while the Procurement Plan notes that ―Goods and services provided by the Offerors under this USAID-financed award are expected to be subject to the 000 Geographic Code except for local procurement which may be conducted in accordance with 22CFR228.40.‖ Please confirm that the Procurement Plan is also subject to the 935 geographic code.

The authorized geographic code for procurement of goods and services under this contract and any such references made under Sections H.8, ―AUTHORIZED

GEOGRAPHIC CODE,‖ H.19, ―AIDAR 752.225-70 SOURCE, ORIGIN AND

NATIONALITY REQUIREMENTS (FEB 2012),‖ and L.7, ―COST PROPOSALS‖ is 937.

8. In Section L.6, Past Experience, Past Performance, and Achievements, the RFP asks Offerors to provide ―a copy of the most recent SF 294 ‗Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts‘ for each contract against which you were required to report for the past 5 years,‖ as well as ―the names and addresses of three SB concerns‖ and a ―brief summary of the type of work each SB concern provided to your organization.‖ Our SF 294 report submissions for the past five years constitute more than 800 pages and 30 MB, and would require seven separate e-mails to submit given the 5 MB limit per e-mail. May we instead submit 10 of the most recent and relevant SF 294 reports, as well as the requested information in (e)(2) and (e)(3), which include the contact information for 3 SB concerns and brief summary of the type of work performed by these three SB concerns, within an Annex? If so, please confirm that this documentation would be excluded from the page

Yes, in lieu of the most recent SF 294 report (i.e., Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts) submissions for the past five years, Offerors may submit 10 of the most recent and relevant SF 294 reports, as well as the requested information in (e)(2) and (e)(3), which include the contact information for 3 SB concerns and brief summary of the type of work performed by these 3 SB concerns, within an Annex. Thus, the submitted documentation will be excluded from the 40-page limitation.

9. In Section L.6.5., on pg. 86 under Past Experience, Past Performance and Achievements, the RFP notes: ―Describe any quality awards or certifications that indicate exceptional capacity to provide the service or product described in the statement of work. This information is not included in the page limitation.‖ Please confirm that these descriptions, as well as official certifications, can be included in an Annex and are excluded from the page

These descriptions—and official certifications—can be included in an Annex and

10. At the end of Section L.6, Technical Approach, the RFP requests ―Please submit branding and marking as per ADS 320.3.1.2.‖ Could USAID please confirm the need for a BIP/MP, and if so, confirm that this can be included in an Annex and will be excluded from the page

In accordance with ADS 320.3.1.2, ―…offerors respond by preparing the Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan.‖ Nevertheless, complete branding and marking plans/strategies are not required, only a general approach to branding and marking, which can be included in an Annex and excluded from the 40-page limitation.

11. Section H.7 subparagraph (f) notes that that TCNs will be authorized packages similar to US Nationals consistent with Contractor approved policies and procedures. Could USAID please confirm that subparagraph (f) grants approval for the Contractor to pay TCNs in USD and provide the applicable allowances, provided this policy aligns with the Contractor‘s established policies and procedures?

Yes, if Third-Country Nationals (TCNs) are authorized packages similar to U.S.

Nationals consistent with Contractor USAID approved policies and procedures, then the Contractor may pay TCNs in U.S. Dollars.

12. Section B.6 of the RFP states that ―Indirect costs shall not be allowed for local organizations. All costs for local organizations shall be budgeted and billed as direct costs.‖ We request that USAID provide Offerors with the flexibility of entering into Cost-Plus-Fixed- Fee (CPFF) or Time and Materials (T&M) type subcontracts with local organizations and that indirect costs on standard and fixed obligation grants with local organizations be allowed when the following conditions are met:

A local organization can provide evidence that it has an accounting system capable of administering a CPFF or T&M type subcontract;

A local organization is committed to undergoing annual audits of their indirect cost rates in accordance with the cost principles of FAR Part 31;

The prime contractor has the appropriate subcontract management systems in place to ensure a CPFF or T&M subcontract with a local organization is administered properly; and, A local organization has established indirect cost rates and the use of indirect cost rates is an integral part of their cost accounting standards.

With strong prime contractor oversight and the requirement for local organizations to undergo annual audits in accordance with the cost principles of FAR Part 31, these contracting mechanisms serve as a tool to build the capacity of local organizations so they can eventually have the financial and administrative to receive direct funding from USAID.

Furthermore, managing direct cost allocation subcontracts typically results in higher financial and administrative burden for prime contractors and reduces overall cost control due to monthly costs varying significantly depending on the services being provided by the subcontractor. Indirect cost rate ceilings (under CPFF subcontracts) and fixed multipliers (under T&M subcontracts) reduce the government‘s cost risk of potential indirect cost rate increases and allow for a higher level of cost control and financial and administrative oversight by the prime contractor.

Should Offerors propose such eligible local organizations, then USAID shall evaluate and determine whether indirect cost rates can be negotiated.

13. Section B.3 of the RFP states that the sub-awards management fee shall apply to "the actual amount of subgrants awarded under the contract for Base Period and all Option Years." A fee that is paid as a variable percentage of actual costs incurred appears to constitute a cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost arrangement, which is inconsistent with FAR 16.102 and its statutory underpinnings at 41 U.S.C. 254(b), which state that "The cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost system of contracting shall not be used." We respectfully request that USAID rephrase this section of the RFP to clarify that the sub-awards management fee is fixed as a percentage of estimated cost, which may be adjusted as a result of changes in the work to be performed but which will not vary directly with actual cost.

USAID has conducted a thorough review of the sub-award structure, including the management fee, provided under Sections B.3, C.6.4, C.8, F.4, L.5, L.6, L.7 and M.2. Please see revisions to Sections B.3, C.6.4, C.8, F.4, L.5, L.6, L.7 and M.2 below.

14. Ref: C.6.4 (p. 22)

“Note that an organization cannot be counted toward the target of five eligible organizations by Base Period Year 3 if 1) the organization has already met the requirement above, i.e., it has undergone a pre-award survey and been determined eligible to receive USAID funding without outside oversight or 2) has already received an award directly from USAID.

Q: Would USAID provide a list of Haitian organizations that have already been determined eligible to receive USAID funding and the Haitian organizations that have already received an award directly from USAID and thus cannot be counted toward the target of five eligible organizations?

Given that determination of which local organizations are eligible to receive direct USAID funding is a key component of the contract, please refer to a list of local Haitian and Haitian-American organizations with whom USAID has directly partnered at the following link:

http://haiti.usaid.gov/opportunities/haitian_partners.php. Additionally, please see revisions to Section C.6.4 with regard to organization eligibility below.

15. Ref: C.6.4 (p. 25)

―The Contractor shall strengthen the capacity of these and other types of local organizations to operate in a business-oriented, sustainable fashion. In order to ensure that support is demand-driven, it is anticipated that beneficiaries will contribute in some way—in money or in kind—to the support they are given.‖

Q: Does ―beneficiaries‖ include all of the following types of organizations that the Offeror will build the capacity of: 1) organizations that become eligible for direct USAID funding, 2) organizations that become eligible to receive a FOG, and 3) other organizations that we build the capacity of but do not make eligible to receive direct funding or FOGs?

http://haiti.usaid.gov/opportunities/haitian_partners.php

Yes, ―beneficiaries‖ includes, but is not limited to, all of the types of organizations described above.

16. In addition to the items listed that can be placed in annexes, would USAID also allow front matter to be excluded from the 40 page limitation, including the cover page, table of contents, acronym list, and dividers?

Please see the answer to question No. 01 above.

17. Are we correct that Table 2: Results also in Section F.2 may also be placed in an annex that does not count against the 40-page limitation?

Please see the answer to question No. 02 above.

18. Should Offerors submit Technical and Cost proposals via e-mail to Mr. Jack M. Adrien at jadrien@usaid.gov with copies to oaahaiti@usaid.gov?

Offerors shall submit Technical and Cost proposals as separate documents via e-mail to oaahaiti@usaid.gov with copies to Mr. Jack M. Adrien at jadrien@usaid.gov.

19. RFP Section L.5, General Instructions to Offerors, lists among the annexes that are excluded from the 40-page limit an annex titled ―Relevant Organizational Experiences to this Contract (Prime Contractor and partner organizations).‖ RFP Section L.6, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, includes in the suggested outline for the technical proposal a Section 5, Past Experience, Past Performance, and Achievements.

Are Offerors permitted to put all past experience, past performance, and achievements information in the annex that does not count against the 40 page limitation, or is the narrative required in a separate section of the proposal (Ref M (5), pg 92)?

Offerors shall ―highlight credentials, area of expertise and past experiences for implementing similar programs‖ (L.6.5) in the body of the Technical Proposal, not in an Annex and subject to the 40-page limitation. In the annex, Offerors shall list ―5 of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal,‖ including descriptions and contact information as indicated.

20. Ref: L.6.1 (p.83)

―Please submit branding and marking as per ADS 320.3.1.2.‖ a: Are Offerors required to submit a branding and marking plan with the proposal?

b: If a branding and marking plan is required with the proposal, may Offerors place it in an annex that does not count against the 40 page limitation?

Please see the answer to question No. 10 above.

21. Ref: C.6.1.4 (p. 14) mailto:oaahaiti@usaid.gov mailto:oaahaiti@usaid.gov mailto:jadrien@usaid.gov

“The Contractor shall construct and rehabilitate primary, secondary, and tertiary irrigation systems.”

C.6.3.1 (p. 18) “The Contractor shall improve road transportation from strategic production areas in the targeted watersheds as well as strategic secondary roads where needed.”

Q: What is the estimated length of irrigation networks and roadways? Is there any estimation on number of public works required (dams, diversions, drainage structures)?

Please see revisions to Sections B.3 below.

22. Ref: L.6.3 (p. 85) ―The Management Plan should also include an Implementation Plan that, in general terms, describes what is going to be done and when, including a Gantt chart that shows the overall plan graphically. The Implementation Plan should illustrate a detailed sequencing of events for project start up and first year activities and a more general sequencing of events for the life of the project.‖ Q: In order to graphically present the level of detail requested for the Implementation Plan in an easy-to-read format, a: May Offerors place the Gantt chart in an annex that does not count against the 40 page limitation? b: May Offerors use larger than 8x11.5 paper for the Gantt Chart?

a. Please see question No. 03 above.

b. No, Offerors shall use only 8.5-inch by 11-inch (210mm by 297mm) paper, single-spaced, 12 point font with each page numbered consecutively. All page margins shall be at least one inch. Any pages over the 40-page limitation, with the exception of the items permitted in an Annex under Section L.5 and herein, will not be evaluated.

23. Ref: L.6.5.(b) (p. 86)

“Offerors (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself and each sub-Contractor whose total estimated cost exceeds 10% of the total proposed offer.”

Q: May Offerors provide past performance information for sub-contractors whose total estimated cost fall below 10% of the total proposed offer?

Offerors are encouraged to provide any information that demonstrates their expertise and experience in designing a technical approach that will best achieve the objectives described in the SOW. Nevertheless, past performance information for sub-contractors whose total estimated cost falls below 10% of the total proposed offer may not be included as an Annex and is not excluded from the 40-page limitation.

24. Ref L.6.5.(e) (p. 86)

Q: Are we correct that information regarding Offerors‘ Performance in Using Small Business (SB) Concerns may be placed in an annex that does not count against th e 40 page limitation?

Please see the answer to question No. 08 above.

25. Ref: L.6, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal (p. 82) ―A clear connection between the Offeror‘s proposed approach and proposed level of effort and staffing plan must be demonstrated.‖

Ref: L.7, Cost Proposals (p. 88) ―A detailed level of effort estimate with a separate line item for each proposed individual identifying each individual by name and title as well as a consolidated LOE chart, including subawardee, LOE must be provided.‖ a: Are Offerors required to include an LOE chart in the technical proposal, or only in the cost proposal? b: If an LOE chart is required as part of the technical proposal, may it be placed in the annex with the staffing chart?

A consolidated level of effort (LOE) chart is only required for the Cost Proposal, not the Technical Proposal.

26. Ref: M.2 (2) Staffing Plan

―Evaluation under this sub-factor includes the overall staffing plan and approach, as well as the capabilities of specific key personnel and other required personnel.‖

Q: If USAID is evaluating other required personnel, will they allow for short resumes for the required personnel?

Please see the answer to question No. 05 above.

27. Ref: M.2 (2) Staffing Plan “The proposal shall include specific position titles for all long-term technical staff”.

Q: Will USAID allow for a small sampling of resumes to be included in the proposal annex for the long-term technical staff that are additional to the key and required personnel?

Offerors are free to submit a small sampling of resumes for the long-term technical staff that are additional to the key and required personnel; however, long-term technical staff resumes may not be included as an Annex and is not

28. Page 6 of the RFP refers to an Annex I that ―provides a discussion of the background of

USAID in sustainable agriculture in Haiti…‖, whereas Annex I (Field Instruments - Individual and Community Interview Formats) provided in the RFP does not contain this information.

Q: Can USAID please provide the document referenced on page 6 of the RFP.

Please disregard the reference of ―Annex I‖ on page 6 of the RFP. ATTACHMENT J.1.11 (i.e., Annex I), ATTACHMENT J.1.12 (i.e., Annex II), and ATTACHMENT J.1.13 (i.e., Annex III) posted on FedBizOpps were intended to serve as references only and do not ―provide a discussion of the background of USAID in sustainable agriculture in

Haiti with a particular emphasis upon market-driven production and marketing systems that both increase productivity and protect productive lands.‖

29. Ref: C.4.1 Geographic Focus (page 6)

“Communes (local government units) involved include Acul du Nord, Bas-Limbe, Cap Haitien, Caracol, Ferrier, Fort-Liberté, Limbé, Limonade, Milot, Ouanaminthe, Plaine du Nord, Quartier Morin, Terrier Rouge, and Trou du Nord. Note that in some cases only portions of the listed communes will be in the target watershed.”

Q: Can USAID provide digital or other higher resolution maps of the target region so that Offerors can plan accordingly?

No, USAID cannot provide digital or other higher resolution maps of the target region. The area of intervention includes all of the watersheds listed under Section C of the RFP. Please see revisions to Section C.4.1 below.

30. Ref: C.5.4 Target Crops (page 11)

First paragraph: ―These target crops will be maize, rice, and plantain/banana, as well as complimentary investments in beans.‖ Third paragraph: ―The Contractor shall also work in cocoa, with the vision of doubling export volumes for supported farmers in five years.‖ Fourth paragraph: ―Of the project budget that is crop-specific, a minimum of 80% shall be invested in focus crops, leaving a maximum 20% to be invested in support crops.‖

Q: Please confirm that cocoa is both a target crop and a focus crop, and that the costs of supporting its growth should also be included in the ―minimum 80%‖.

Yes, cocoa is both a target and focus crop, and the costs of supporting its growth should also be included in the ―minimum 80%‖ figure. The terms ―target crops‖ and ―focus crops‖ were used synonymously.

31. Ref: Section C.6.1 Subresult 1.2 (page 14)

“There is currently an effort initiated by USAID, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the World Bank, and the IDB to rebuild the GOH’s agricultural education and extension system.”

Q: This “effort” would appear to be extremely relevant to the work of the Contractor.

Can USAID release more information about the goals, objectives and expected timing of this effort?

No, additional information about the goals, objectives and expected timing of this effort is not currently available. Nevertheless, the discussions between the donor community and the GOH’s Ministry of Agriculture are ongoing and the Contractor will be expected to engage in the process.

32. Ref: Section C.6.1 Subresult 1.2 (page 14)

―In line with supporting FTF key objectives relating to nutrition, the U.S.-Haiti Feed the Future Partnership: Northern Corridor shall integrate nutrition education with agricultural extension services, focusing on improved nutrition for women and children, particularly pregnant women and children under 2. Tools have been developed by USAID and the Ministry of Health that will be used for this purpose.‖

Q: Can USAID release a summary of what these tools are, and how they are being used in Haiti. In order to ensure coordination across the USG and with the GOH, it would seem important to have this information.

The tools, which the RFP has made reference, are simple flipcharts and posters being rolled out by the Ministry. Additional information will be provided after the Contract is signed.

33. If any USAID projects contractors/grantees, or USAID itself, have procured remote sensing data for the Northern Corridor, or parts of it, could that GIS data be made available for use by bidders?

All public reports by USAID and its implementing partners are available on the USAID website (www.usaid.gov) and the Development Experience Clearinghouse (dec.usaid.gov).

34. Ref: Section C.6.4 Intermediate Result 4: Capacity of Local Organizations Strengthened

(page 22) ―An organization generally may be found responsible if the LOPAS indicates that the organization is able to manage USAID funding and generally possesses the capacity and credit necessary to be awarded a contract or assistance agreement not to exceed $5 million.‖ a: Would an organization that is eligible to receive an assistance agreement in the form of a Standard Grant be counted as one of the five required ―eligible‖ local organizations? b: Would organizations eligible to receive assistance agreements in the forms of Limited Scope Grant Agreements or Simplified Grant Agreements be counted as one of the five required ―eligible‖ local organizations?

a. Yes, any organization that is eligible to receive an assistance agreement in accordance with USAID’s policies and procedures may be counted as one of the five required ―eligible‖ local organizations.

b. Yes, if a USAID pre-award assessment/review determines that such an organization is eligible to receive direct USAID funding not to exceed $5 million.

35. Ref: C.6.4 Intermediate Result 4 – Capacity of Local Organizations Strengthened (page 20-

21) ―Currently, there are not a large number of Haitian organizations that have the corporate capabilities or experience to manage USAID grants and contracts. The Contractor shall identify at least five local organizations that it shall recommend as eligible to receive direct USAID funding and carry out agricultural development activities. These organizations will most likely require local capacity development.‖

Q: Given the scarcity of Haitian organizations that have the necessary corporate capabilities and experience to manage USAID grants and contracts, and recognizing the limited pool of potential candidate organizations that could have their capacity built to be eligible for such awards, would USAID/Haiti consider requiring only non-exclusive teaming arrangements with local organizations in response to this RFP, as has been the chosen strategy by other USAID Missions faced with similar constraints?

After careful consideration, USAID/Haiti does not require any teaming arrangements and is open to all teaming arrangements, exclusive or non-exclusive, with local organizations.

36. RFP Section B.3 Budget, provides a table footnote ―*Sub-awards Management Fee, which is not considered profit, is 2% on the actual amount of subgrants awarded under the contract for Base Period and all Option Years. Nevertheless, the Sub-awards Management Fee is not an allowable cost for grants under contract sub-awards.‖ Q: Please confirm that Offerors are allowed to apply their current USAID NICRA rate approved for handling Subcontract/grant costs.

Please see the answer to question No. 13 above.

37. Section C.6.4 Intermediate Result 4 of the RFP describes that the eligibility determination of Contractor recommended local organizations to receive direct USAID funding will be conducted by use of LOPAS and FOG or similar tools, as applicable, by USAID/Haiti or a third party. Page 22 (last paragraph) also states that ―A fee structure will be put in place such that the Contractor is encouraged to achieve this sub-result by early within Base Period Year 3‖.

a. Would USAID clarify the length of time between submitting a candidate organization‘s request for certification and the actual granting of that certification (assuming it meets the basic requirements)?

Assuming the candidate organization meets the basic requirements, USAID will make a good faith effort to make eligibility determinations in a reasonable period of time, but not later than 90 days after submission of the request for certification.

b. Will the certification contractor/grantee be required to adhere to specific turn-around times, particularly from the time of application to the time when certification is either granted or disapproved?

Yes, 90 days as stated above.

38. Section H.7 Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation, item (3) states that TCN and CCN labor costs shall not exceed the thresholds in the local employee compensation plan.

Q: Could USAID please provide the most current Haiti Local Employee Compensation Plan

(LCP)?

The most current Haiti Local Employee Compensation plan is not available for public distribution. Offerors must conduct their own market research to determine the TCN and CCN labor costs.

39. Please confirm that the authorized geographic code for procurement of goods and services under this contract is 935 as established in Section H.8, (and not 000 as stated on page 89 within the procurement plan paragraph under Section L.7 Cost Proposals).

Please see the answer to question No. 07 above.

40. RFP section H.12 references requests for CO consent to Subcontract, whereas it is not listed within Section L.7 Cost Proposal instructions.

Q: Please confirm Offerors are not required to address FAR 52.244-2 requirements for ―consent to subcontract‖ in the cost proposal submission.

No, Offerors are not required to address FAR 52.244-2 requirements for ―consent to subcontract‖ in the cost proposal submission; however, if the Offeror submits a request to subcontract after award of the contract, then the Offeror must comply with FAR 52.244-2 requirements for ―consent to subcontract.‖

41. The RFP suggests that we incorporate the lessons-learned from both the DEED and

WINNER projects. Can the Mission direct us to the documents that discuss the lessons-learned from these two projects?

Please see the answer to question No. 33 above. Note that USAID has recently taken measures to ensure that key documents from these projects are publicly available.

42. On page 15 of the RFP, there is a discussion of the subsidy policy that is being developed by Ministry of Agriculture. Can USAID please confirm whether the USG has been working with MARNDR on this policy, and if so, make that information available?

To date, the U.S. government (USG) has not yet worked with Ministère de l’Agriculture des Ressources Naturelles et du Développement Rural (MARNDR) on this policy. Nevertheless, the discussions between the donor community and the GOH’s Ministry of Agriculture are ongoing and the Contractor will be expected to engage in the process.

43. In the draft RFP, the Grande Riviere du Nord watershed was not included as one of the target watersheds, however, in this latest SOW it is. Can USAID please confirm that the current RFP will work in the Grande Riviere du Nord watershed as well?

In accordance with Section C.4.1, ―GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS,‖ ―There are six watersheds in the northern corridor: Limbé, Zone du cap Haitien, Grande Rivière du Nord, Trou du Nord, Marion/Maribaroux, and Jassa. These—along with additional areas where cocoa is grown (see below)—represent the geographic area for the U.S.-Haiti Feed the Future Partnership: Northern Corridor.‖ Please see revisions to Section C.4.1 below.

44. Given the relatively ―thin‖ market for local firms (acknowledged by the RFP on page 21), would USAID consider issuing instructions to local firms, to not sign exclusive bidding arrangements with Offerors?

Please see the answer to question No. 35 above.

45. On Page 6, USAID makes reference to an Annex 1 to the RFP. Is this the same annex 1 that was in the previously released Production Plus draft RFP? If not, can the Mission please make that Annex available?

Please see the answer to question No. 28 above.

46. On page 8, the RFP makes reference to USAID‘s current nutrition activities. Can the Mission please provide additional and detailed information on what these activities are doing in the Northern Corridor?

Please see the answer to questions No. 32 and 33 above.

47. On page 14, the RFP mentions the multi-donor effort to reinforce the capabilities of Damien. Can the Mission please provide additional details on this activity, and to what extent will this project have an impact with the U.S.-Haiti Feed the Future Partnership:

Northern Corridor?

Please see the answer to questions No. 33 above.

48. Is it permissible for Offerors to submit proposals in PDF format to retain formatting and page length?

Yes, Offerors may submit electronic copies of Technical and Cost proposals as a Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the instructions provided under Section L and the answer to question No. 22 herein.

49. Section L.5 of the RFP (page 81) provides the following list of limited annexes that

Offerors are allowed to include in the Technical Proposal:

Annex:

Schedule of Deliverables (see Section F.2; pages 34-36) Relevant organizational Experiences to this Contract (Prime Contractor and partner organizations) Resumes of Key Personnel with three references (full contact information to be provided:

name, position, relationship, e-mail address, telephone number) Letters of commitment from Key Personnel and consortium organizations Management organizational chart Staffing chart

Please clarify where Offerors are to include the following required documents – whether in the text as part of the 40-page limit, or in additional annexes:

Implementation Plan - detailed start-up and first year plan and more general five-year plan (requested on page 85 of the RFP) [please see the answer to question No. 03 above] Table 2: Results from Section F.2 (requested on page 85; table on pages 37-40 of

RFP) [please see the answer to question No. 02 above] Table 3: Funding by Intermediate Result and Year (included in Section F.2, page 41 of the RFP) – Is this to be included in the Technical or the Cost Proposal Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan (requested on page 83 of RFP)

[please see the answer to question No. 10 above]

Table 3 under Section F.2, DELIVERABLES AND RESULTS, should not be included as part of the General Technical Approach under Section L.6, INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL. In accordance with Section L.7, COST PROPOSALS, ―Offerors are required to demonstrate how their costs are roughly in line with the approximate IR budgets outlined in F.2 Table 3.‖ Moreover under Section L.7, ―The cost proposal shall be submitted under separate cover from the technical proposal.‖ Thus, Table 3 shall be submitted as part of the Cost Proposal to demonstrate how the Offeror’s costs are roughly in line with the approximate IR budgets separately from the Technical Proposal and is not be subject to the 40-page limitation. See previous answers to questions No. 02, 03 and 10 above with regard to the other required documents.

50. Given the importance of small livestock and poultry in rural Haitian farming systems, will

USAID support grants to Haitian organizations to work with animals as part of a larger, integrated response to improve household incomes?

See Section C.5.4. In designing a technical approach that will best achieve the objectives described in the SOW, Offerors are free to propose the best allocation of the maximum 20% of the remaining project budget.

51. Page 11: One of USAID/Haiti‘s objectives is to ‗increase the export volume for cocoa produced by supported farmers. However, on p. 25, the objective is stated in terms of the ‗value of exports of targeted agricultural commodities (cocoa) in from targeted corridors as a result of USG assistance. Could USAID please clarify its intent with regards to this objective?

USAID wishes to increase both the volume and value of cocoa exports. Given that prices are subject to fluctuation, USAID’s overall goal in the Northern Corridor—to which Feed the Future North is the primary—is to double cocoa volumes over the course of its five year strategy.

52. Page 28: The RFP mentions that ―the Contractor shall strive for – but shall not exceed – using GUCs to implement 25% of the total contract value and that total sub-awards (i.e.

sub-contracts and GUCs combined) must make a minimum of 50% of the contract value during the base period‖. Are FOGs and investments at the local level included in the 50% figure?

Yes, grants under contract (GUCs) – including fixed obligation grants (FOGs) awarded by the Contractor – and sub-contracts are the only values included in the 50% figure.

53. Page 79: Is the Section K Certification (Annual Representations and Certifications) required to be completed by only the Prime or by the Prime and all partners in the consortium?

Only the Prime Offeror is required to complete the Section K. ―REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS OR

RESPONDENTS,‖ not all partners in the consortium.

54. Page 81: In Section L.5. no e-mail address is provided for proposal submission. Please provide email addresses for the submissions of the technical and the cost proposals.

Please see the answer to question No. 18 above.

55. Page 81: Please clarify in the Relevant Organizational Experiences to this Contract refers to the list of PPRs

Please see the answer to question No. 19 above.

56. Page 81: Please clarify if the management organizational chart referred to on this page is the same as the project organizational chart referred to on page 85?

Yes, the Management Organizational Chart and the Project Organizational Chart are the same document.

57. Page 84: In Section L.6.2. Staffing Plan, the RFP states that as part of the technical narrative, the offerer should include in this section ―…at least three references (phone number and email) for each Key Personnel member.‖ On Page 81, L.5 Length and Format/Annex, the RFP indicates that ―Resumes of Key Personnel with three references…‖ are required. Would USAID consider having three references for each Key Personnel only required as part of the Resumes in the annex?

References for Key Personnel shall be included along with the resumes in the annex.

58. Page 85: Please clarify if the life of the project for the Implementation Plan includes the base year and the option years.

The Implementation Plan should include both Base Period and Option Years.

59. Page 85 Would USAID consider accepting illustrative indicator tables in the annex?

No, USAID will not accept illustrative indicator tables in the annex. Offerors must consider all indicators in line with the guidance provided by the RFP.

60. Page 86: Please clarify if a total of 5 PPRs are to be submitted or 5 PPRs for each partner/sub-contractor whose total estimated cost exceeds 10% of the total budget.

Five Performance Planning Reports (PPRs) for each partner shall be submitted.

61. Page 86: Please clarify if the narrative summary of contractor‘s use of small business concerns should be included in an annex to the Technical proposal only?

62. Page 86: Please clarify if the most recent SF 294 should be included in an annex to the

Technical proposal.

63. Please provide the 2011 or the most current FSN Scale and the local compensation plan for Haiti.

The FSN Scale and local compensation plan for Haiti are not available for public distribution. Offerors must conduct their own market research to determine prevailing in-country salaries for similar positions.

64. Page 41: The percentage for Table 3 Funding by Intermediate Results and Year totals

99% instead of 100%. Please clarify.

This discrepancy is due to numerical rounding.

65. Page 57: H.8 Authorized Geographic Code is listed as 935, however, on page 89 last paragraph regarding The Procurement Plan, the Geographic Code listed is 000 (US).

Please clarify.

66. What government institution(s) will be the ―implementing agency‖?

The RFP makes no reference to an ―implementing agency‖.

67. Can a proponent bid for a component or sub-component of the project? (e.g., can an

Offeror bid for the Agricultural Productivity and the Watershed Stability components only?)

No, Offerors must bid on the entire contract.

68. Can a foreign entity (non-Haitian organization) be tapped as project consultant? Can foreign experts be hired?

Yes, a foreign entity (non-Haitian organization) can be tapped as project consultant. Yes, foreign experts can be hired.

69. Can the main proponent sub-contract sub-components of the project to a non-Haiti company?

Yes, the main proponent can subcontract sub-components of the project to a non-Haiti company.

70. The RfP refers twice on page 11 (under C.5.4 and C.6) to doubling exported volumes of cocoa produced by supported farmers. On page 25 states that as an objective level ―Value of exports of targeted agricultural commodities (cocoa) from targeted corridors as a result of USG assistance‖(i.e. farmers in the watershed are lumped together).

a. Is the cocoa objective measured in terms of volume, or of value (Both vary considerably from year to year).

b. Does the objective concern production by U.S. assisted farmers only?

c. Are all cocoa exports from each watershed included in the objective?

Please see the answer to question No. 51 above. The target is for U.S.-assisted farmers only and includes all exports of cocoa under the activity, regardless of watershed.

71. On page 11, please confirm that the complementary investments in beans are considered to be within the 80 percent of project budget invested in focus crops.

Yes, beans are considered a focus crop.

72. Please confirm that the investment aimed at increasing cocoa production is in addition to the crop-specific budget invested in target crops and support crops.

Please see the answer to question No. 30 above.

73. USAID recommends in the RfP that either experimental or quasi experimental evaluation design be used for impact evaluations. Experimental design is, however, notoriously difficult in real-life environments primarily because it is hard to set up artificial situations (as controls) involving human subjects. In addition the large number of intervening variables (such as rainfall) outside of the program‘s manageable interest, are apt to cause distortions. Will USAID consider also recommending the use of mixed methods, or other methodologies that use qualitative methods, in the design of impact evaluations?

USAID is aware of the difficulties involved in conducting impact evaluations and looks to Offerors to propose innovative, rigorous, and realistic approaches using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods.

74. Ref: Pre-award conference, topic of discussion: mobile money

Q: In light of only two existing mobile network operators in Northern Haiti, would USAID consider requiring that any teaming arrangements between them and Offerors be non-exclusive?

USAID does not require any exclusive or non-exclusive teaming arrangements between the Offerors and existing mobile network operators in Northern Haiti.

75. In the interest of providing a level playing field for all U.S.-Haiti Feed the Future

Partnership: Northern Corridor offerors, would USAID provide satellite information of watersheds in the north procured under the DEED project?

Please see the answer question No. 33 above. Additionally, the SERVIR satellite monitoring system funded by USAID, NASA, and other partners, provides satellite images for the region.

76. Ref: Section K.1 (b) (2) (ii) (page 79)

―[ ] (ii) Paragraph (c) does not apply and the Offeror has completed the individual representations and certifications in the solicitation.‖

Q 1.a: Are U.S. subcontractors required to submit representations and certifications in response to this RFP?

Please see the answer to question No. 53 above.

Q 1.b: Please provide the individual representations and certifications for this solicitation

The individual representations and certifications for this solicitation will be posted to FedBizOpps as ATTACHMENT J.1.16.

77. Ref: Section L.7 Cost Proposals (page 87 - 88)

―Direct Labor Salaries and Wages: […] Salaries for non-US personnel must be reflected on the bio-data form in local currency.‖ a: In the budget, can the Prime Offeror‘s labor salaries for non-US personnel be reflected in U.S. Dollars only?

Yes, Prime Offerors must reflect labor salaries for non-U.S. personnel in U.S. Dollars only.

b: If salaries for non-US personnel must be reflected in local currency in the Prime Offeror‘s budget, is it required to be shown only for Unit price, or also yearly total cost columns?

Prime Offerors must reflect salaries for non-U.S. personnel in U.S. Dollars only.

78. Ref: Section L.7 Cost Proposals (page 88) ―Subcontracts/Subgrants: […]All costs for local organizations and local personnel MUST be denominated in local currency. A US$ equivalent column should be included using the exchange rate of ___Haitian Gourde to $1USD.‖

Will USAID prescribe an exchange rate to be used in the proposal?

No, all costs for local organizations and local personnel MUST be denominated in U.S.

Dollars only.

Is the US$ equivalent column needed for the Unit Price, Annual totals, Section totals, Budget total ceiling, or a combination of several or all of the above?

Yes, the US$ equivalent column is needed for all of the above.

79. Ref: Section L.7 Cost Proposals (page 88) ―Subcontracts/Subgrants: […] Indirect costs are not allowed for indigenous awards to local organizations.‖ Q: Will indirect costs be allowed for local organizations, if supported by appropriate financial documentation and justification?

Please see the answer question No. 12 above.

80. According to the IMF financial reports, the consumer price inflation in Haiti has experienced significant fluctuation in the last 10 years, varying up to 24 percentage points.

Q: For purposes of setting a level evaluation field for Offerors, would USAID/Haiti consider prescribing an annual escalation rate for local labor and Other Direct Costs?

Yes, USAID/Haiti would consider prescribing an annual escalation rate for local labor and Other Direct Costs.

81. Ref: Section C.6.4 Intermediate Results 4 (page 22)

“A fee structure will be put in place such that the Contractor is encouraged to achieve this sub-result by early within Base Period Year 3. If all organizations are eligible by the end of Base Period Year 3 Quarter 1, the Contractor shall continue to receive its full fee for the remainder of the year. If not, the fee will be reduced by 25% in the second quarter, and by 25% each subsequent quarter until all five firms are deemed as eligible for direct USAID funding.”

Q: Could USAID please further clarify this fee structure, including:

a: If all organizations are eligible by the end of Year 3 Quarter 2, 3 or 4, can full fee be claimed retroactively for invoices submitted at the reduced fee rates?

Yes. In accordance with Section C.6.4, ―If all five organizations are deemed eligible to receive direct USAID funding by the end of Base Period Year 3 Quarter 1, the Contractor shall receive its full apportioned 25% of the total contract fee in accordance with the Payment Schedule for the remainder of Base Period Year 3.

If all five organizations are not deemed eligible to receive direct USAID funding by the end of Base Period Year 3 Quarter 2, the apportioned 25% of the total contract fee will be reduced by 25% in Quarter 2. If all five organizations are not deemed eligible to receive direct USAID funding by the end of Base Period Year 3 Quarter 3, the apportioned 25% of the total contract fee will be reduced further by 25% (i.e., 50%) in Quarter 3. If all five organizations are not deemed eligible to receive direct USAID funding by the end of Base Period Year 3 Quarter 4, the apportioned 25% of the total contract fee will be reduced by an additional 25% (i.e., 75%) in Quarter 4.‖ Thus, the full apportioned 25% of the total contract fee cannot be claimed retroactively for invoices submitted by the end of Base Period Year 3, Quarter 2, 3 or 4. Please see revisions to Section C.6.4 below.

b: If all organizations are eligible by the end of Year 3, month 4, can full fee be claimed for invoices submitted in month 4, or will a reduced fee (by 25%) be in effect for month 4, or will a reduced fee be in effect for the entire second quarter of Year 3?

No. In accordance with Section C.6.4, ―If all five organizations are deemed eligible to receive direct USAID funding by the end of Base Period Year 3 Quarter 1, the Contractor shall receive its full apportioned 25% of the total contract fee in accordance with the Payment Schedule for the remainder of Base Period Year 3.

If all five organizations are not deemed eligible to receive direct USAID funding by the end of Base Period Year 3 Quarter 2, the apportioned 25% of the total contract fee will be reduced by 25% in Quarter 2. If all five organizations are not deemed eligible to receive direct USAID funding by the end of Base Period Year 3 Quarter 3, the apportioned 25% of the total contract fee will be reduced further by 25% (i.e., 50%) in Quarter 3. If all five organizations are not deemed eligible to receive direct USAID funding by the end of Base Period Year 3 Quarter 4, the apportioned 25% of the total contract fee will be reduced by an additional 25% (i.e., 75%) in Quarter 4.‖ Thus, if all organizations are not deemed eligible until the end of Base Period Year 3, month 4 (i.e., Base Period Year 3, Quarter 2), then a reduced fee will be in effect for the entirety of Base Period Year 3, Quarter 2. Please see revisions to Section C.6.4 below.

82. Ref: Section C.6.4 Intermediate Results 4 (page 22)

“(Note that the fee will reset in Option Years 1 and 2 as the U.S.-Haiti Feed the Future Partnership: Northern Corridor activities will be reduced substantially to a support function.)”

Can USAID confirm that Offeror’s fee will not be reduced in Option years 4 and 5, even if all organizations are not determined eligible for direct USAID funding?

In accordance with Section C.6.4, INTERMEDIATE RESULT 4: CAPACITY OF LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS STRENGTHENED, ―Note that the fee will reset in Option Years 1 and 2, if exercised, as the U.S.-Haiti Feed the Future Partnership:

Northern Corridor activities will be reduced substantially to a support function.‖ Thus, given that the Contractor’s role will be reduced to that of a support function in Option Years 1 and 2, the Contractor shall propose a reduced fee in Option Years 1 and 2. Please see revisions to Section C.6.4 below.

83. Ref: Pre-award conference, topic of discussion: ―fee will be based on how Offeror achieves its proposed deliverables‖

Q: Please specify any other incentive or dis-incentive fee structures intended to be negotiated with the awardee in relation to deliverables and achievements, other than as described in the RFP Section C.6.4 Intermediate Results 4.

There are no other incentive or dis-incentive fee structures anticipated to be negotiated with the…