Answers to RFP Questions.pdf

Q.1. On pages 9, under Objective 1, there is reference to “…purchase of equipment for Peruvian government agencies and contracting with local organization.” On page 10 under Other, it states, “… provide procurement services for equipment needed by national, regional or local forest and environmental authorities.”, and again on page 121,”….acquisition of equipment, imagery, base maps….” supposedly in reference to an improved system for timber tracking and updating Peru’s forest inventory. Should proposals include a cost estimate for the procurements or will they be financed directly by the Government of Peru agencies?

A.1. Yes, proposals should include cost estimates for necessary equipment.

Q.2. Result indicators and targets for Task 2.1 regarding number of policies, laws, agreements, or regulations promoting sustainable natural resources management and conservation are considerable and spread across several GoP ministries. Are these illustrative targets and can we propose specific and adjusted targets in our proposal?

A.2. There is no indicator for number of policies, laws etc. under Objective 2.

The indicator for number of policies, laws, agreements, or regulations promoting sustainable natural resources management and conservation under Objective 3 is meant to focus on those promulgated by the entities mentioned under Objective 3, specifically The Ministry of Environment, the National Service for Natural Protected Areas (SERNANP), the Environmental Evaluation and Investigation Organization (OEFA), the Ecological Police, local and regional governments. Offerors are encouraged to propose specific targets in their proposals.

Q.3. The forestry annex to the Free Trade Agreement mentions big leaf mahogany to be considered for CITES implementation. Is big leaf mahogany a pilot species and the only species to be considered?

A.3. Caoba is a priority species because of its special status in Peru’s efforts to comply with CITES. MINAM is beginning the process of defining other priority species for CITES implementation.

Q.4. What is the role of the Environmental Cooperation or Environmental Secretariat? Where will this office be located?

A.4. The Secretariat for Environmental Enforcement Submissions will accept public submissions on environmental enforcement issues. This office will be housed in Washington, D.C. at the Organization of American States.

Q.5. Can USAID provide examples of high priority projects described in the Environmental Cooperation Agreement 2011-13 work plans (specific activities to be identified by USAID in late 2010)?

A.5. These projects will be identified through a bilateral and interagency process starting late in calendar year 2010. In terms of budgeting for these activities, Offerors should know that the 2011-13 Work Plan will seek to provide continuity to unfinished activities from the 2009-10 ECA Work Plan and be of similar annual cost.

Q.6. Performance Standard 1.2.2. Peru already has a legal and mandatory managing and awarding concessions' system. Moreover, the new forestry law proposes a very similar one. We understand there will be no space for designing a new one. Please confirm that the contractor’s role will be focused on the implementation and enforcement of this existing system.

A.6. Yes, the contractor’s role is to focus on implementation of the new forestry law and regulations. This will include working with regional governments, under the new national legal and regulatory structure, in the design and implementation of the next round of the decentralized forest concession process.

Q.7. Regarding Indicators from Objective 1, please clarify that only Forest Concession Annual Operating Plans are being considered under these objectives?

Should the Management Plans and inventories (highly relevant for CITES compliance) mentioned under Performance Standard 1.3.3 also be included?

A.7. Inventories are mentioned under Performance Standard 1.3.2. Existing Inventories and Management Plans are documents completed before the Annual Operating Plan and are therefore considered already included as a part of the Annual Operating Plan for purposes of meeting the Objective 1 target. New Inventories and Management Plans supported by the contractor, however, may be considered toward meeting the Objective 1 target. In addition, the Objective 1 indicator may also consider Forest Permits for Native Communities.

Q.8. Regarding Indicator 4 from Objective 3, Management Plans are only mentioned under this Indicator. The number mentioned on this Indicator is a total of 50. As this number appears low, please confirm the number 50 is accurate.

A.8. Please see the answer to Question #2. Indicator 2 from Objective 1 is significantly higher than Indicator 4 from Objective 3 because it is meant to include the numerous Annual Operating Plans for concessions and permits for Native Communities. Indicator 4 from Objective 3 is meant to include environmental but non-forestry related policies, regulations, and management plans promulgated by the Ministry of Environment, the National Service for Natural Protected Areas (SERNANP), the Environmental Evaluation and Investigation Organization (OEFA), the Ecological Police, and local and regional governments.

Q.9. Is there a minimum number of Past Performance References that should be submitted by the Prime Contractor?

A.9. There is no minimum. We generally ask for references from the past three years of similar activities.

Q.10. Could USAID provide the full IEE document that is referenced in the Environmental Threshold Decision, particularly as Offerors are meant to describe how they will implement “all IEE conditions” as part of the EMMP (p. 13). Also, could USAID make available to Offerors the list of recommended mitigation measures of the Forestry and Biodiveristy Multi-Project Programmatic Environmental Assessment.

A.10. Please see attached documents.

Q.11. Is the Performance Monitoring Plan to track progress of the EMFG program only or of the broader set of USG-funded programs supporting the Peruvian Forestry sector?

If the latter, how will indicator targets be attributed to the different programs, e.g., number of people receiving USG supported training could be supported by the Offerors program, but also by other USG entities such as the USFS.

A.11. The USFS program has its own PMP which tracks the number of people it will train. The contractor will be responsible for tracking the number of people trained that are funded under this contract. The COTR will ensure that there is close coordination between USFS and this contract.

Q.12. Are similar indicators across Objectives (e.g., number of policies, laws, agreements) additive?

A.12. In no case are indicators additive across Objectives.

Q.13. Section C.3, Performance Indicator 1 for Objective 1 refers to a percentage of administrative units in the system of forest sector governance…”. Could USAID please define what is meant by ‘administrative unit’ in this context.

A.13. Administrative units include: the national offices of DGFFS, OSINFOR, and the Ecological Police, regional offices for Forestry and Wildlife, OSINFOR, and the Ecological Police, subregional offices for Forestry and Wildlife, and control posts for Forestry and Wildlife and the Ecological Police.

Q.14. Section F.2.9 requires the draft PMP to include baseline data. Yet, section C.6

(p. 12) states that the ‘contractor and USAID will define the activity’s starting point by establishing a performance baseline.” Could USAID please clarify.

A.14. We expect that baselines and the core of the PMPs will be proposed by the Offerors and agreed to after negotiations but before award.

Q.15. Section C.4, Other (p. 10) states that the Offeror will provide procurement services for equipment needed by national, regional or local forest and environmental authorities. Could USAID provide a plug figure for these commodity procurements.

Similarly for ‘logistic services’.

A.15. USAID does not provide plug figures.

Q.16. Section M.2.3, Management Plan. Could USAID clarify what documents are meant to be included in support of the Level of Effort matrix (p. 160).

A.16. Please submit either bio-data sheets and/or resumes for technical staff listed on the LOE matrix. Also, please refer to A.33.

Q.17. Please clarify whether Offerors may include full-page charts, tables, and graphics (i.e., organizational charts, LOE matrix, etc.) on unnumbered pages within the body of the technical proposal which would not count against the 40-page limit, or whether all full-page charts, tables, graphics must be submitted in an annex.

A.17. Yes, Offerors may include full-page charts, tables, and graphics on unnumbered pages within the body of the technical proposal.

Q.18. As evidence of our performance, may we include quality awards and certifications in the Past Performance annex, which will not count against the page limit?

A.18. Yes.

Q.19. Section L.7. (e) 13.and 14. state that Contractor Performance Report-Short Forms and narrative summaries of up to 5 of the most recent and relevant contracts—five (5) page limit—are not included in the 40 page limit. Should the narrative summaries describe the same five projects that short forms are included for? Given that the short forms contain fields for project descriptions way we include other project experience within the narrative?

A.19. The CPR short forms and narrative summaries should describe the same five projects. Please limit your comments in the project description fields on the CPR short forms to the subject projects.

Q.20.1. May we include PPRs for subcontractors? If so, are we limited to up to 5 overall or 5 for the prime and 5 for each major subcontractor.

Q.20.2. May Offerors submit Past Performance References for subcontractors? If so, how many?

A.20. Yes, Offerors may include PPRs for subcontractors. The limit is five for the prime and five for each major subcontractor.

Q.21. Page 5, Objective 1 Performance Indicators and Targets: The first indicator described has a target of 75% of national, and 90% of Amazon regional administrative units in the system of forest sector governance at national, regional, and local levels fully operationally effective... as measured by adequacy of staffing, training, budget, equipment, information resources, legal authority, implementing regulations, and operating manuals.” Factors such as budget, staffing, legal authority (for example awarding concessions), and implementing regulations seem to be outside the authority and manageable interest of any USAID implementing partner and solely within the authority of the Peruvian Government. Can USAID please clarify how it expects the contractor for this project to be responsible for the aspects of this work that are outside of its manageable interest, and or suggest other indicators that are within the manageable interest of the contractor?

A.21. Please replace the first indicator for Objective 1 with the following:

“Percent of administrative units in the system of forest sector governance at national, regional, and local levels fully operationally effective with respect to PTPA and other international obligations (as measured by adequacy of staffing, training, equipment, information resources, and access to and knowledge of implementing regulations and operating manuals).” USAID intends that the contractor focus its efforts on meeting shortfalls in training, equipment, information resources, and access to and knowledge of implementing regulations and operating manuals. Where the contractor has identified a critical gap in staffing, USAID will, in consultation with Peruvian authorities, allow the contractor to provide temporary staffing.

Q.22. Page 9, 3rd paragraph, states that: “A major part of the work activities presented above will be provided to support the work of the Peru Forest Sector Initiative. Can USAID please clarify the structure of the institutional relationship between the contractor, and the USFS as the lead USG agency in the Peru Forest Sector Initiative? For example, would the contractor be directly responsible to the USFS in any way, and what role would the contractor’s Chief of Party have, if any, in decision-making and technical direction of the Peru FSI?

A.22. The contractor is directly responsible to the USAID Contracting Officer and the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative. The USFS is the lead technical advisor to USAID/Peru. USAID will ensure that there is close coordination between the USFS and the contractor’s teams.

Q.23. Item 5 in the list of authorized attachments, in RFP Section L.7(e), asks for “roles and responsibilities of the core team”; item 6 asks for “statements of work for proposed subcontractors and supporting documents.” Could USAID please clarify the difference between these two items?

A.23. A statement of work is a detailed description of a subcontractor's role.

We will not pre-judge whether a subcontractor is part of the core team or how detailed an Offeror would make its roles and responsibilities of the core team.

Q.24. In Section C.3, under Task 1.1, Performance Standard 1.1.4 references a “technically sound timber verification system and tracking system” that the contractor shall assist the Peruvian Government agencies to put in place. In section J of the RFP, on page 121, with regard to the timber tracking and verification system, USAID states that “such support may include but will not necessarily be limited to acquisition of equipment and services, installation, training, user support and review and evaluation of system performance.” Given the potentially expansive range of costs associated with the acquisition and implementation of timber tracking and verification systems, does USAID have a plug figure or cost estimate for the timber tracking and verification system that it would be willing to provide to contractors to guide proposal development?

A.24. USAID does not provide plug figures.

Q.25. In Section C.3, under Task 1.3, Performance Standard 1.3.2 references forest inventories that the contractor shall assist the Peruvian government agencies to conduct to increase compliance with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). In section J of the RFP, on page 121, with regard to these forest inventories, USAID states that “such support may include but will not necessarily be limited to acquisition of equipment, imagery, base maps and services, training of field crews, assistance in management and analysis of field data, and review and evaluation of progress towards inventory objectives. Given the potentially expansive range of costs associated with the acquisition of equipment, imagery, base maps, and services does USAID have a plug figure or cost estimate for forestry inventory equipment and assistance that it would be willing to provide to contractors to guide proposal development?

A.25. USAID does not provide plug figures.

Q.26.1. On page 153, under L.9, by “expatriate time” is USAID referring to full-time salaries, or a mix of full-time and short-term technical assistance?

Q.26.2. On page 153, under L.9, “expatriate time” costs could vary widely depending if based on US, TCN or a combination of expatriate types. Can USAID either

(a) explain which of these was used in its estimate, or (b) what average daily rate it ascribed to the 66 years?

Q.26.3. On page 153, under L.9, in making its estimate of 66 person years, did USAID use labor dollars only, or did it include expatriate allowances appropriate for Peru?

Q.26.4. On page 153, under L.9, in making its estimate, did USAID use labor dollars only, or did it include estimated indirect burdens.

Q.26.5. In section L.9 (page 153), the RFP states that “USAID has estimated the total cost of the required activity under the contract to be equivalent to approximately 66 person years of expatriate time over the life of the project, including base period and the two one-year option periods”. Does this estimate of 66 years of expatriate LOE take into consideration the burdened cost of labor, allowances, and other direct costs associated with expatriate LOE?

A.26. The RFP indicated that no further information concerning this estimate would be provided. USAID/Peru understands that different approaches to the use of personnel have different cost implications. Offerors are invited to propose the most cost effective approach to achieve the technical results that they propose."

Q.27. In regards to education requirements for Key Personnel (L.7, B.1 (i-v), p150- 152), it is frequently a USAID practice to recognize years of relevant work experience for academic requirements. Can USAID confirm that equivalent experience can be substituted for academic requirements? For example, would 15 years of professional experience be considered in lieu of an advanced degree?

A.27. USAID will consider additional quantity and quality of experience for Chief of Party and Deputy Chief of Party in lieu of a Master’s Degree. Key Personnel will be evaluated on the sum total of their demonstrated skills, technical expertise, experience, language abilities and education.

For the Alternative Development Specialist, 15 years of experience in lieu of a Masters degree, provided that those 15 years are related to the position requirements, will be considered.

Q.28. Sections L.9(f), (g) and (h) (p. 156) request that the Offeror submit balance sheets and profit and loss statements; personnel policies in place at the time the offer is submitted; and travel policies in effect at the time the offer is submitted, respectively. Is this documentation required of Offerors currently doing business with USAID or could this information be submitted in electronic form only?

A.28. The required documentation is not necessary for contractors currently doing business with USAID. Yes, the required information may be submitted electronically.

Q.29.1. Section L.7.C(a) (p. 152) requests that as part of the draft Annual Work Plan, Offerors include “(d) projected expenditures by month”. Given that cost information is not permitted in the Technical Proposal, could USAID please clarify what is required?

Q.29.2. In Section L.7.C of the RFP, instructions for the Management Plan and Institutional Capacity, item (d) requests “projected expenditures by month.” Given the RFP’s requirement to keep technical and cost proposals separate (page 146), will USAID consider removing this request from the instructions for the technical volume?

A.29. Section L.7.C(a) (d) should read: personnel allocation by month.

Q.30.1. On page 152, in Section L.7.C Instructions for Management Plan and Institutional Capacity, the RFP states that “Offerors shall provide a narrative section that demonstrates the Offerror’s clarity and appropriateness of overall organizational structure and staffing plan (including salary structure)….” Given the RFP’s requirement to keep technical and cost proposals separate (page 146), will USAID consider removing the request for salary structure information from the management plan and institutional capacity section of the technical volume.

Q.30.2. Section L.7.C (p. 152) requests the Offeror to include in the technical proposal a “staffing plan (including salary structure)…”. Given that cost information is not permitted in the Technical Proposal how should Offerors address this requirement (e.g., Senior, Mid, Junior)?

A.30. Disregard the words “including salary structure”.

Q.31. Does USAID envision the prime contractor working with local implementing partners through grants under contract? If so, would USAID please include the appropriate ADS provision in the RFP to allow prime contractors to issue grants under contract during project implementation?

A.31. The Contractor will not award or administer grants.

Q.32. Section L.9(b).11 (p. 155) requests the Offer to include in the budget the “plug figure for “Grants” line item as shown below.” This plug figure is not provided in the RFP. Could USAID please clarify whether Grants Under Contract are authorized for this program? And if so, could USAID please provide the plug figure for grants to be included in the cost proposals of Offerors?

A.32. Last sentence on Section L.9(b).11 (p. 155) was included inadvertently.

Please disregard as there will be no grants under this contract.

Q.33.1. Section M. 2, p 159 states “The offeror will be evaluated on its proposed administrative, monitoring and evaluation support and the roster of short-term specialists submitted by the offeror, as well as how well the offeror has matched part-time, full-time and short-term candidates with the skills needed to implement the Environmental

Management and Forestry Support Activity.” Is the offeror required to submit resumes for administrative support?

Q.33.2. With reference to Key Personnel, the RFP states (L.7, B.1, p149) “Complete resumes for each position shall be included in the attachment.” May the offeror also submit resumes for long term, non-key personnel?

A.33. Resumes are required for all Key Personnel, as well as for all other personnel, long or short-term, who will be providing technical expertise to the project. Resumes are not required for purely administrative staff.

Q.34. Section M.2 states “References must be provided for the proposed staff.” Please confirm that references are only required for Key Personnel.

A.34. References are only required for Key Personnel.

Q.35. Should Offerors submit resumes, letters of commitment, and 5 references for Non-Key Long-Term personnel or only for the five Key personnel?

A.35. Please see A.33. and A.34., above.

Letters of Commitment should be submitted for all long-term personnel with responsibilities in the field. They are not required for short-term personnel, or for purely administrative staff who work solely in the US-based office.

Q.36.1. Will USAID accept Technical Proposal submissions in PDF format to ensure correct pagination, sequence, etc?

Q.36.2 Section L.6 (a) on page 144 of the RFP states that “Electronic versions must be compatible with MS Word and/or MS Excel in a MS Windows environment.” May Offerors submit files in Adobe PDF to retain the formatting and page length and reduce file size to facilitate transmission of the electronic files?

Q.36.3. Section L.6 of the RFP requests electronic submissions in Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel-compatible formats. Due to the unavailability of certain documents (e.g, documents containing signatures) in those formats, may we submit such documents in PDF, accompanied by a proposal narrative in Microsoft Word and cost budget in Microsoft Excel?

A.36. All Offeror’s must submit an electronic version of their proposals that is compatible with MS Word and/or MS Excel. This is the version that USAID will work with. If the Offeror would like to submit a PDF version for any reason, this may be done, but only in addition to submitting the MS Word and/or MS Excel version.

Q.37. The last paragraph of Amendment 1 makes reference to guiding principles and themes that Offerers need to incorporate in their technical proposals. Could USAID please provide these as they are not included in the RFP (or as part of Amendment 1).

A.37. Please disregard the final paragraph of Amendment 1.

Q.38. Section L.7(c) on page 147 of the RFP states that “The use of Text Boxes shall comply with this format: single spaced, font 12.” May Offerors use a font smaller than 12

pt. for tables, charts, and graphics?

A.38. Font smaller than 12 pt. is acceptable for tables, charts, and graphics.

Q.39. Page 4, 2nd paragraph mentions “Additional information... appears in an annex at the end of this section.” However the referenced annex is found at the end of Section C 9 or at the end of the RFP). Can USAID please provide the annex?

A.39. Please disregard the referenced passage. The additional information can be found in Section J.

Q.40. Page 9, paragraph 3, mentions information about the Peru Forest Sector Initiative contained in “the Annex, Section 3.1. This annex was not found in the RFP.

Can USAID please provide this annex?

A.40. The referenced “Section 3.1” can be found in Section J (Page 120).

Q.41. Section H.2 (a) of the RFP (page 26) states that the “authorized code for procurement is geographic code 935….” Section H.7 of the RFP (page 30) states that the authorized geographic code for procurement of goods and services under this contract is 000. Could USAID please clarify the correct geographic code for procurement?

A.41. The authorized geographical code for USAID/Peru activities is 000.

Q.42. The USAID Mission Forecast published July 22, 2010 shows a budget estimate of $35-50 Million. Please confirm this remains the government’s estimate.

A.42. We have no information beyond what was published on July 22, 2010.