RFP_MLED_II_SOL-523-16-000005_Amd_2_with_Q A_document_FINAL.pdf

RFP No. SOL-523-16-000005

MEXICO LOW EMISSIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM II (MLED II)

QUESTION AND ANSWER DOCUMENT

1. P. 11, Section C.4 Coordination between other USAID and USG Projects. The opening paragraph indicates that “MLED II is the primary vehicle for USAID/Mexico Clean Energy program and must ensure that actions carried out by other USAID implementing partners are coordinated and integrated into the overall USAID/Mexico Clean Energy Program”. Will the program also coordinate with other USAID implementing partners working under the Sustainable Landscapes Pillar? If so, could USAID kindly specify the programs?

Response: The MLED II program should identify and utilize opportunities, when they arise, for coordination with the Sustainable Landscapes activities. The two key Sustainable Landscapes activities are: (1) Mexico’s Reduced Emissions from Deforestation & Degradation, implemented by a consortium led by The Nature Conservancy (this is a cooperative agreement that ends in August 2017), and (2) Forest

Resource Management program, implemented by the US Forest Service (this is an on-going activity).

2. p. 17, C.5 under Task 2.1.2, Required Results states- “In coordination with USAID, SEMARNAT, INECC, SENER, and other relevant GOM entities, assist two or more sub-national governments (state or municipal) with designing or updating climate and/or energy action plans, and ensuring their linkage to

Mexico’s NDC.” Page 23 later indicates that “The project will work with key stakeholders to identify activities in four to six states in Mexico.” Please confirm whether the contractor should work with two or more or four to six subnational governments.

Response: The project should work with two or more sub-national governments. Section C.6 of the RFP will be amended to reflect this.

3. On page 97, Section L.10, the RFP says “Contractor is instructed to include a plug figure for the Clean

Energy Solutions Fund (discussed in Section C) not to exceed more than $6,000,000 over the life of the activity.” Will USAID please confirm that “Clean Energy Solution Fund” should be used in the following two instances:

a. On Page 2, B.4, under summary budget: replace “Grants Fund” with “Clean Energy Solutions fund”

b. On Page 100, section N, in the cost element breakdown: replace “Grants under contract” with “Clean

Energy Solutions Fund”

Response: Yes, in both instances the term should be “Clean Energy Solution Fund”. The RFP will be amended to reflect this.

4. Will the current MLED project government property be transferred, or will the successful offeror be expected to purchase all new property/equipment?

Response: USAID/Mexico does not expect MLED I property to be transferred; therefore, offerors should expect to purchase new property/equipment and must include in their budgets so that all offers are evaluated fairly. Should it be determined that government property is available post award, the award will be modified and reduced to take into consideration property that is transferred.

5. Page 23, Section C.6 indicates that one of the state selection criteria is “senior state energy officials willing to provide written commitment to implementing work under the program”. Can USAID please confirm that written commitments from senior state energy officials will be obtained after award?

Response: Yes, these will be obtained after award.

6. The cover page and section L.10 both indicate that USAID/Mexico expects offerors to be within the lower to middle range of the $10-24.99M contract value range. Can USAID please provide a narrower contract value range to ensure that it receives and evaluates comparable bids?

Response: We are not able to provide the specific targeted budget for this award. We feel if the information is taken literally offerors should have a good understanding of the more narrow targeted range.

7. There is a discrepancy in the RFP with the proposal submission date. Section L.8 indicates proposal submittal on May 26, yet the SF33 cover indicates a May 23 rd date. Can USAID please confirm that the proposal submittal date is May 26 th at 3:00pm local Mexico time?

Response: The new revised due date is June 10, 2016, at 11:00 am (Mexico City local time). SF-33 is being revised through solicitation amendment No. 1.

8. P.105, Section M.E 3) Institutional Capabilities and Past Performance, indicates that “if sub awardees/partners will be implementing significant portions of the activity, the proposal must include the primes evaluation of the proposed sub awardees/partners past performance. This is described in detail in section L”. Can USAID please define “significant portions”?

Response: As “significant portions” is a subjective term which includes not only the dollar amount but the importance of the work to be included, it is up to the offeror to determine, but the standard test to use would be what would the average person consider to be significant?

9. Is subcontractor past performance included in the limit of 5 activities?

Response: Yes. The five (5) evaluated activities may have been undertaken by either the Offeror or a sub-awardee; however, no more than five activities will be evaluated.

The Past Performance and Institutional Capacity section has been expanded to ten (10) pages, and will include relevant information on past performance and institutional capacity for both the Offeror and any sub-awardees. All relevant information on the Offeror and any sub-awardees should be included in this section – all within this ten (10) page limit.

Note that “Additional information on proposed sub-awardees or sub-contractors” and the “Past

Performance Summary Table” are now included within the ten (10) page limit for the Past Performance and Institutional Capacity section.

The overall page limit on the proposal has hereby been expanded from forty (40) to forty-five (45) pages.

The RFP will be amended to reflect this change.

10. P. 95, Section L.9 4) “Institutional Capacity and Past Performance” requests that offerors include information on past performance for five activities in a table. Page 94 lists “Past Performance Summary

Table” as one of the recommended attachments not included in the 40 page limit. Could USAID kindly confirm that the offeror may include descriptive information on past performance and institutional capacity within the technical proposal, under the section “Institutional Capacity and Past Performance” and will include the provided table for five projects to be included in an annex, exclusive of the 40 pages limit?

Response: Please see Question No. 9 for a response to this question.

11. Cover letter: USAID frequently provides a more precise estimate than that given in the USAID Business

Forecast, and here a more precise range is hinted at. Can USAID provide offerors with their desired budget range?

Response: This is a competitive procurement. We do not provide our targeted budget goals. The range as provided in the cover page is the range found within the USAID Business Forecast. For this procurement we have been more than generous in further narrowing this limit. Offerors are expected to take the information as found in the cover page literally.

12. Cover letter; Section A, page 1; and Section L.8, page 93: The cover letter and Section L.8 both state that the proposals are due on May 26, 2016, however, in Section A – SF 33, Box 9 states that the proposals are due on May 23 rd

. Can USAID please clarify and please provide offerors with an updated SF 33, since these are submitted as part of the Cost Proposal? USAID’s signature and date in the award section of SF

33 would also need to be removed.

Response: Please see Question No. 7 for a response to this question. The new due date is June 10, 2016.

13. Section B.4, page 2; Section C.5, page 19; Section L.10, page 100: Section B.4 and Section L.10 both refer to the $6 million Clean Energy Solutions Fund only by “Grants Fund” and “Grants under Contract,” respectively. However, the description of the Fund in Section C.5 describes it thusly: “Effective use of the

Fund is key, and as such, there may be different mechanisms, for example through sub-grants, sub-contracts or other appropriate mechanisms.” In our experience in operating such funds on USAID projects, we agree that versatility of contracting mechanisms is key to best achieving USAID’s project goals. Can USAID confirm that the Fund will be accessible through subcontracts as well as grants? If yes, we request that the line items in Section B.4 and Section L.10 be renamed to Clean Energy Solutions

Fund, instead of referencing only grants, which may lead to audit problems for the implementer down the line if we use the fund for subcontracts or other uses.

Response: Yes, Section B.4 and Section L.10 reference the Clean Energy Solutions Fund. The RFP is being modified to reflect this standard terminology.

14. Section L.9, page 94: Could USAID please describe what it would like to see in the attachment for

“Additional information on proposed sub-awardees or sub-contractors” outside of the page limit? Would this be past performance information similar to what the prime contractor is showing in the Past

Performance Summary Table?

Response: Yes, past performance of sub-contractors would be useful to see. Please also see Question

No. 9 for a response to this question.

15. Section L.9, page 95: Would a table describing all of our non-key personnel and their roles be allowed as an additional attachment outside of the page limit?

Response: No. Please also see Question No. 9 for a response to this question.

16. Section L.9, page 94-96: The Past Performance Summary Table is referenced as both an attachment outside of the page limitation, as well as part of the Institutional Capacity and Past Performance Section, which has a five page limit. Can USAID please confirm that the summary table is to be included as an attachment, and is not part of the five page limit for this section?

Response: The Past Performance Summary Table should be within the new ten (10) page limit for the

Institutional Capacity and Past Performance section. Please also see Question No. 9 for a response to this question.

17. Section L.9, page 95: Can USAID confirm that the five projects shown in the Past Performance Summary

Table are to be only from the prime contractor?

Response: Please see Question No. 9 for a response to this question.

18. In light of the difficulty for local organizations and small businesses to receive an approved NICRA from

USAID or to directly bill all components of indirect costs, would USAID consider fixed-price and/or time-and-materials type subcontracts that can meet the definition of FAR 2.101 as a commercial item?

According to FAR 2.101, Standalone Commercial Services is a service of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace based on established catalog or market prices for specific tasks performed.

Response: It is always the US Government’s preference for firm fixed price contracting and therefore it should always be the mechanism of choice when subcontracting. Time and materials is the least favored and therefore time and material contracting would require specific justification as to why it is the only method available.

19. In order to have comparable prices between offerors, could USAID please provide an exchange rate to use for the purpose of this proposal?

Response: Normally the offeror will provide exchange rate information as part of their budget notes which USAID then takes into consideration when doing cost analysis. To simplify matters, offerors will use an exchange rate of 17 pesos to one US dollar (we realize this is high but the Mexican peso has not been stable and has been steadily increasing and by rounding it up it should help calculations).

20. Can USAID share with us the most recent mission compensation plan? And will USAID consider waivers of the compensation schedule given that the waiver is consistent with the contractor’s personnel policies and provided Biodatas?

Response: The mission’s compensation plan is a Sensitive but Unclassified document which cannot be shared. Additionally to this, it has absolutely no relationship to any environment other than as a market basket for US government employees. The mission compensation plan is based on a mix of salaries and benefits that are unique to employees with the US Embassy in Mexico City. Yes, salary and benefits must be based on the contractor’s personnel policies. The only restriction is that local salaries must not exceed the highest base salary rate on the mission’s compensation plan which is currently $47,332.90

USD. Any salary over this limit will require special authorization.

21. Where are the CLINS stated in Section B? Section L.10 (b) – INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE

PREPARATION OF THE COST/BUSINESS PROPOSAL, page 98, reads: “The detailed budget must be rolled up in summary fashion into the CLINS in Section B, as well as provided in the Excel budget worksheet.”

Response: The offeror is able to propose the CLIN structure which makes most sense to their proposal.

CLIN could be based on specific deliverables that are being proposed with subline items for the standard budget line items of Salaries, Benefits, Travel and Transportation, Supplies and Equipment, and other costs. Or it could be one CLIN with the aforementioned budget line items.

22. Can a proposal which does not use Indirect Cost Rates to determine Indirect Cost amounts be considered for award because the offeror does not have an executed NICRA nor a cognizant Government Audit

Agency nor established indirect cost rates?

Response: Yes, but they would need to directly bill for any indirect costs. For example if a Director’s salary would be part of the indirect costs, the offeror would need to estimate a percentage of the

Director’s time that would be spent on the project and then calculate what that would be in a dollar amount.

23. In Section C.5 Scope of Work Objective 1, Component 1.1 Task 1.1.1 under Required Results (page13) it reads: "● GOM possesses state-of-the-art capability for data storage, processing, and analysis for strategic energy planning" with the related Suggested Activities to develop a database and build and deliver partner agency data storage and processing capabilities.

How detailed will the data be and how will the decision be taken?

Response: We expect the offeror to make a proposal, based on their knowledge of Mexico and best practices.

24. In Section C.5 Scope of Work Objective 1, Component 1.2 Task 1.2.1 under Required Results (page14) it reads: “● Technical Advisory Committee and Modeling Working Group established and trained with necessary tools."

Which Model and on what basis will it be used to carry the suggested activities?

Reason for asking: Planning models (medium and long term) differ with operational models regarding renewable energy, while both are important, the data that is used, and the objectives differ considerably between each other. It appears undefined in the RFP as to which kind of model is needed.

Response: It is an operational model. We expect the Offeror to build on existing modelling and software capabilities in existence with GOM and other stakeholders.

25. In Section C.5 Scope of Work Objective 1, Component 1.2 Task 1.2.2 under Required Results (page15) it reads: "● Variable renewable energy forecasting incorporated into system operations."

Because forecasting can have a long and a short term horizon component (long term has a focus on new capacity installation and short term is aimed to optimize dispatch), can the USAID please indicate which will be the focus of the deliverable?

Response: The focus will be on short-term forecasts, which will be used to optimize electricity grid system operation.

26. In Section C.5 Scope of Work Objective 3, Task 3.1 under Required Results (page 20) it reads:

● One (1) system flexibility approach demonstrated and adopted by GOM.

● At least two (2) additional pilots demonstrated and adopted, including but not limited to the suggestions below."

Will the demonstration of the pilots be theoretical or practical?

Response: The pilots should be practical approaches that lead to scaling up clean energy and/or energy-related GHG emissions in Mexico.

27. Can you please confirm that the budget amounts referenced in the RFP are American dollars?

Response: Yes, they are in US Dollars.

28. Can you please clarify the budget? The cover page makes a reference to $10-24.99 million but the section

B.4 on page 2 lists the budget as $6 million in grant funding.

Response: The $6 million is a plug amount for the offeror to provide subawards and is included within the $10-24.99 million total estimated range for this procurement.

29. Can you please explain how the proposals will be scored or how the scoring system is weighted? Please confirm whether there will be points awarded to minority or women owned businesses as either subcontractors or prime contractors.

Response: How offerors will be rated can be found in Section M.

30. Can you identify the types of data contained in the renewable energy inventory?

Response: There are a variety of publicly available sources of information on Mexico’s renewable energy activities.

31. Will the contractor have access to transmission system design data?

Response: It is anticipated that the successful offeror will work closely with the Government of Mexico

(including the transmission operator, CENACE), which will provide relevant data at its disposal, in order to advance agreed-upon work.

32. Will the contractor have access to electric load data on various portions of the transmission and distribution system?

Response: Please see Question No. 31 for a response to this question.

33. Are the costs of pilot programs to be included in this proposal?

Response: Yes.

34. Is the pilot program costs included in the projected $6 million project cost, if that is the correct budget?

Response: Yes, it is included in the Clean Energy Solutions Fund. And, yes, $6 million is the correct budget.

35. What is the estimated cost for conduction pilot programs included in the program budget?

Response: Both Task 3.1 (Energy Sector Pilots) and Task 3.2 (Applied Analyses and Technical

Assistance) are included within Clean Energy Solutions Fund. It is up to the Offeror to propose how to use the $6 million allotted to the Clean Energy Solutions Fund.

36. What marketing and development costs were included in the budget?

Response: It is not clear what is being asked in this question. If there are marketing and development costs, they should be included in the estimated budget.