SOL-596-12-000004 Amd 2.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

PAGE OF PAGES

1 30

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

7/20/2012

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO

5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (IF OTHER THAN ITEM 6) CODE

Regional Office of Acquisition and Assistance

USAID/El Salvador

3450 San Salvador Place

Washington, DC 20521-3450

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State, and Zip Code)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

SOL-596-12-000004

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11) 7/3/2012

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

CODE:

FACILITY CODE:

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered, solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers, FAILURE OF YOUR

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If Required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO., AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify Authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43,103 (b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is NOT is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.

The above numbered solicitation, as previously amended, is hereby further amended to incorporate the attached Question & Answer document. Please note that this document includes additional information being incorporated to Sections of the RFP document.

All other terms and conditions remain in full force and effect.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

Luis A. Rivera (MAQ)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE

SIGNED

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

16C. DATE

SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Previous Edition Unusable Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

1. On pg. 17, last paragraph, first sentence, reference is made to "private sector." Does this refer to private sector associations, companies and/or individuals? Please specify.

It refers to private sector associations that have a strategic interest in promoting trade facilitation.

These private sector associations are normally group importers, exporters or manufacturers that seek transparency and efficient administrative procedures. It is encouraged that the program works with associations that seek to promote incorporation of small and medium businesses in regional trade.

2. Pg. 92 says that ―Proposals shall not exceed 25 pages... Any charts and tables must be numbered as part of the 25-page limit.‖ Can USAID please indicate if the Title Page, Table of

Contents and List of Acronyms are expected to be included in the 25 page limit, or excluded?

The title page, Table of Contents and List of Acronyms are excluded from the 25-page limit.

3. Can USAID confirm that this project is not a Feed the Future -funded program, but that it must coordinate with parallel bi-lateral Feed the Future programs being implemented in specific countries in the region?

Core Funding sources for this activity are under Economic Growth objective and Program

Element Trade and Investment Enabling Environment. As explained in the statement of work, this program will support the Feed the Future Initiative in Central America.

4. Pg. 102, Section M.2 Evaluation Criteria, indicates that the demonstrated approach should be‖ feasible, innovative, and appropriate to the culture, and context of El Salvador.‖ As a regional project, is the mention of El Salvador exclusively made in error? Can USAID please clarify if it meant instead that the approach should be ―feasible, innovative, and appropriate to the culture, and context of the Central America Region?‖

Reference to El Salvador is an error. The proposed approach must be feasible, innovative and appropriate to the context of the Central American region.

5. On pg. 18, the RFP indicates there are seven (7) countries involved in the ITFS program:

―It is anticipated that funds allocated for this purpose will at least total US$ 1,200,000 for seven organizations (one per country). Pg. 20 says ―The contractor shall identify, select, recruit, and implement a 12 months program to develop the skills and knowledge of six nationals of Central

American Countries (CA5 and Panama). Pg. 31 indicates the ―Countries of intervention: The

Value Chains development work will focus in countries where food insecurity is highest:

Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua. The rest of interventions will target the regional framework and targeted activities in all SIECA Member countries: Belize, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.‖ Section F10 says the

Place of Performance under the contract will be ―Central America and the Dominican Republic

(Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua), with duty base in San Salvador or Guatemala City.‖ Section H.8 on pg. 57 says ―The contractor is authorized to purchase goods and services in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, and Mexico.‖ Can USAID confirm in how many countries the ITFS program is expected to operate and indicate explicitly which countries?

Under component 1: Market access for critical food security value chains, the program will focus its work in countries where food insecurity is highest: Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and

Nicaragua. Under component 2: Trade Facilitation, the program will work under the framework of the Central American Economic Subsystem, and support activities in all countries engaged in the Central American Economic Integration process: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Panama.

As USAID has supported CAFTA-DR implementation and compliance in the Dominican

Republic it also seeks to give continuity to previous efforts, therefore seeks to work in 7 countries. In this line, the program will work with one private sector organization in each country. In reference to the leadership development program under SIECA, the program requires one national from each Member of SIECA. In this case the Dominican Republic is not a

Member of SIECA, therefore the program will sponsor six individuals, one from each Central

American country.

6. Regarding Grants Under Contract under Component 1, pg. 15 of the RFP says ―It is anticipated that this fund will at least total US$5,000,000 to provide matching funds of up to

US$500,000 per project of selected value chains…‖ Under Component 2, p. 18 of the RFP states ―It is anticipated that funds allocated for this purpose will at least total US$ 1,200,000…‖

Can USAID confirm therefore that the total Grants Under Contract for the ITFS program is anticipated to be a combined amount of $6,200,000?

The total anticipated for grants-under-contract is $6.2 million.

7. Pg. 98, Cost Element - Could USAID confirm that a line item for Grants should be included in the budget summary and detail and also provide the grants amount as a plug figure?

The $6.2 million plug figure for grants (line item) should be included and identified as such in the budget and budget summary.

8. On pg. 20, the RFP asks the contractor to implement a 12 month Trade Facilitation

Leadership Development Program in agreement with SIECA to develop the skills and knowledge of six nationals of Central American Countries (CA5 and Panama). The RFP says ―Selected individuals will work in technical areas of day to day activities in the Secretariat, support

COMIECO technical bodies, and pursue trainings technical areas identified as key to advance in the Central American Trade Integration and Facilitation Process…‖ Does USAID expect that

ITFS program funds will be used to fund the work of these selected six individuals over a 12 month period or is SIECA expected to fund their work?

Yes, work and training (to include all associated costs) will be funded by the program.

9. Can USAID provide any guidance on the expected value of the ITSF Program?

The Mission has elected not to disclose this information. Offerors are responsible for developing, based on their assessment of the specific needs, an efficient budget in accordance with their proposed approach and activity requirements. Please keep in mind that cost will be carefully examined and may become a determining factor for award.

10. Can USAID provide access to the current local Compensation Plans for El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama and Mexico?

Local Compensation Plans are not documents that the Mission releases.

11. On pg. 54 and 56, the Authorized Geographic Code for procurement of goods and services is listed as 937. On pg. 97 of the RFP, the code is listed as 000. Could USAID please clarify which code is intended for this proposal?

The authorized geographic code for this program is 937. Any reference to Geographic code 000 is an error.

12. On pg. 99 of the RFP, USAID asks for a consolidated level of effort (LOE) table. Under the LOE category in the table, it requests that the calculations for all staff are reflected in

―Person-Days‖. Considering the fact that some firms account for leave as an indirect cost, thereby reducing their direct billed days, would USAID consider changing this requirement to reflect ―Person-Years‖ rather than ―Person-Days‖. This would allow for a level evaluation across all firms irrespective of different indirect rate structures.

Level of effort must be reflected in person days.

13. On page 27, Section C.5.5. requires offers to include with their proposal an approach to achieving environmental compliance and management. Could USAID please advise whether this approach should be included as an annex to the technical proposal or as an annex to the cost proposal? This section also requires an illustrative budget for implementing the environmental compliance activities. Therefore, could USAID please clarify whether a separate budget dedicated solely to environmental compliance is required or if environmental compliance activity costs embedded in the overall detailed budget will be sufficient?

A general proposed approach to achieving environmental compliance must be discussed in the technical proposal. It is considered through that at this stage the Environmental Mitigation and monitoring Plan should not be included as it would depend on the value chains to be selected, to determine what type of activities would require an EMMP. However, the EMMP should be considered in the budget.

14. On page 28, Section C.7 the RFP states, ―The team may be a combination of an expatriate with strong Spanish capabilities and local permanent staff.‖ Could USAID please clarify if this means that offerors can only propose one expatriate for the team or if several expatriates may be proposed? Also, because this is a regional project, could USAID please clarify what constitutes ―local permanent staff?

The offeror may propose one or more expatriates in accordance with the required staffing plan which should be effective and efficient to implement the proposed approach.

Local permanent staff means citizens of any country benefiting from this program. Accordingly, even if employees are not citizens of the country where the office is located, they will be treated as local employees.

15. On page 94, Section L.8, the RFP states ―A major subcontractor is considered one whose proposed cost exceeds one (1) million US dollars.‖ Could USAID please confirm that detailed budgets are only required from the prime offeror and major subcontractors?

A detailed budget must be submitted which reflects all proposed costs, including all subcontracts.

16. The Disclosure of Lobbying activities form (SF-LLL) is included as an attachment to the

RFP, but is not required as part of the cost proposal under section L. Could USAID please clarify whether the SF-LLL form is required, and if so, please confirm that it is required from only the prime offeror?

An executed Disclosure of Lobbying Activities form is required for the prime contractor

(offeror) and all major subcontractors.

17. Could USAID please provide an approximate value for the Regional Integrated Trade and

Food Security Program?

Please refer to question 9.

18. Could USAID please confirm that in order to demonstrate a sound, private sector engagement strategy, offerors can continue conversations with and relationships with resource partners with whom we are already in contact, so long as letters of commitment are not requested.

USAID confirms that offeror can have conversations and relationships with potential resource partners as long as letters of commitment are not requested.

19. On page 93, Section L.7.4, the RFP, states ―Discuss past institutional performance and note achievements and results directly attributable to the organization. Discuss previous experience in dealing with similar activities, preferably in Latin America. However, on page 93, Section L.7.5 lists ―Past Performance Summary Table‖ as a ―Recommended Attachment.‖ Could

USAID please confirm that the discussion of past institutional performance and previous experience should be in narrative form up to the recommended 4 pages and that the Past

Performance Summary Table can be included as an annex and does not count against the 25 page limit?

Discussion of past performance/experience must be included as narrative in the technical proposal (4 pages recommended) and does count towards the 25-page limit. A past performance summary table as requested can be included as an annex.

20. Will USAID provide an estimated cost range or estimated level of effort?

21. Must the COP's 10 years of regional experience be in Central America or can the COP also have served elsewhere in Latin America?

Experience in Latin America is acceptable; experience in Central America is preferred.

22. Can the trade specialist be the COP or must this be the food security advisor?

The trade specialist position can be the chief of party as long as the individual possesses demonstrated experience to trade issues related to food security.

23. In Section M.2, The Evaluation Criteria on page 102, 1. Technical Approach, USAID requests a ―Demonstrated approach that it is feasible, innovative, and appropriate to the culture, and context of El Salvador.‖ Can USAID confirm that it seeks an approach appropriate to the context of Central America, not just limited to El Salvador?

Please refer to question 4.

24. Under Section M. 2. Institutional Capability and Past Performance, can USAID please confirm that experience in the Caribbean can be included as experience in Central America?

Although past performance/experience in the Caribbean can be considered, past performance/experience in Central American countries (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama or Nicaragua) is preferred.

25. On Page 93, Institutional Capability and Past Performance, USAID provides a summary table on past performance. Does USAID want actual PPR Short or Long Forms, or only information summarized in the table? If USAID wants PPR forms, please advise on how many for the prime contractor and for subs.

The completed summary table, to include all requested information is the requirement.

26. Page 92, Technical Approach, states that ―Proposals must include a time-phased Life of

Activity work plan in both narrative and graphic form….‖ Can the narrative and graphic form be included in an annex, or are they to be part of the 25 pages?

The life of activity work plan (narrative and graphic) may be included as an annex.

27. The recently issued Mission Forecast (dated June 27th 2012), estimates the total contract value of the Regional ITFS Program at $10 million - $25 million. Can the mission confirm that this estimate is still accurate? If so, can USAID confirm if this range is for the base or base plus option period?

The anticipated value of the contract, including both base and option periods, is within the stated range.

28. Would USAID consider additional years of experience in lieu of an advanced degree/

Master’s degree, per the education criteria for the Chief of Party?

No. We require the advanced degree/Master’s degree for the Chief of Party.

29. Would USAID consider changing the requirement that all full-time staff listed in the RFP

(p28- 30) have proficiency in Spanish and English at the FSI 4-5 levels?

All key personnel (Chief of Party, Agriculture Value Chain and Trade Specialists) are required to comply with the stated language requirements.

30. Component 1 expected result for the base period is "At least 1,500 small producer units participating in regional and export value chains." A footnote to "producer units" on Page 14 reads "Up to 1.05 hectares associated in small producers groups, associations or cooperatives.

Does this imply that only producer groups made up of producers with less than 1.05 hectares may be counted towards this expected result?

The purpose of the program is to benefit small producers which are associated or can participate as part of a cooperative or a producers association. The expected result is to incorporate mainly small producer units. While other producers may participate in and benefit from group activities they will not count towards the expected target.

31. Can charts and tables included in the 25 page limit be in a font smaller than Times New

Roman 12-point font?

Charts and tables within the 25-page limit must be in Times Roman 12-point font. For labels and footnotes Times Roman 10-point font may be used.

32. In Section C.4. ―Private Sector Engagement‖ USAID requests that offerors not approach resource partners to request any letters of commitment. Can USAID confirm that that by resource partners it means private sector partners and technology partners as described on page

22?

By resource partners USAID refers to those institutions (which could be private sector and technology partners) from whom resources (cash or in-kind) may be leveraged.

33. Section M.2. ―Institutional Capability and Past Performance‖ lists as an evaluation criteria ―Plan that demonstrates ability and commitment to mobilize activities within 30 days after contract execution.‖ However, under the ―Institutional Capability and Past Performance‖ section of section L (page 93) no request is made to include a mobilization plan. Can USAID please explain this discrepancy?

Capability of offerors to mobilize within 30 days after contract execution has to be demonstrated through a feasible/reasonable mobilization plan. This plan may be included as an annex to the technical proposal.

34. Section L.7 provides a list of recommended attachments, not part of the 25 page limit.

Under ―additional information on proposed sub-awardees or sub-contractors‖ can offerors include capability statements of proposed subcontractors and their letters of collaboration?

Yes, capability statements of proposed subcontractors and their letters of collaboration may be included as an annex to the technical proposal.

35. Can offerors include a skills matrix not part of the 25 page limit to demonstrate ―skills areas and provide candidates for both US and Central American short-term advisors‖ per the instructions in section L.7 on page 92?

Yes, a skills matrix may be included as an annex to the technical proposal.

36. Geographic Code 937 is noted in sections H.5 (a) and H.8, but section L.8 (b) 2 (D) indicates Geographic Code 000. Which is correct?

Please refer to question 11.

37. Section C.3, ―Statement of Work,‖ includes two separate grants-under-contract plug figures for Components 1and 2. Page 15 references $5 million in grants and page 18 references

$1.2 million. Please clarify that the $6.2 million total in grants-under-contract is plug figure and indicate whether it should be part of the Other Direct Costs budget line item or separately as a grants line item.

The $6.2 million for grants-under-contract is a plug figure and should be reflected separately as a

―grants‖ line item in the budget.

38. Section C.3 currently stipulates a ceiling of $250,000 for individual grants to non-U.S.

organizations. Please confirm that, in line with ADS 303, grants to individual non-U.S.

organizations will not be limited to a threshold.

For program purposes, under Component 2, grants to individual local organizations (meaning non-US) may not exceed $250,000.

39. Please confirm that the geographic code referenced in Section L.8(b)(2)(D), ―Procurement,‖ should be Code 937 — as indicated in Section H.8.

40. Consistent with the guidance in FAR 37.113-1 and considering that the anticipated contract will be performed entirely overseas, we respectfully request that USAID include FAR

52.237-9, ―Waiver of Limitation on Severance Payments to Foreign Nationals,‖ to prevent conflict with applicable local employment laws.

Per FAR 37.113-1 the Mission does not have authority to waive the 31.205-6(g) cost allowability limitations, hence, FAR clause 52.237-9 cannot be included.

41. Section F.10 of the RFP states that activities under this contract will be performed in

Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua.

Sections C.8(5) and H.10 make reference to Belize and Panama. Please clarify whether USAID expects activities to take place in Belize or Panama.

Activities under the resulting contract will be performed in Central America (Costa Rica, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua) and the Dominican Republic, with duty base in El Salvador or Guatemala City. Any reference to Belize is an error. No activities under this program will be performed in Belize.

42. Please confirm that the Life of Activity Work Plan may be included as an annex.

Please refer to question 26.

43. Page 27 of the RFP states that an ―approach to achieving environmental compliance and management‖ should be included. Please confirm that information may be provided as an annex to the technical proposal.

Please refer to question No. 13.

44. Based on our extensive experience recruiting in Central America, we have found that the number of candidates with the required technical skills and English-language ability is limited.

Would USAID be willing to consider modifying the RFP requirements for the agriculture value chain development specialist, trade specialist(s), and financial manager to say: "Ability to fully and effectively communicate, both orally and in writing, in Spanish is required. English proficiency is preferred"?

It is required that the Chief of Party and other key personnel possess the stated level of English and Spanish proficiency.

45. During our research and visits to the region, we learned from different stakeholders and private sector representatives that the USAID/BEAM project has conducted analysis on regional bottlenecks and trade facilitation within the region. We could not find such report in the

Development Experience Clearinghouse, and we believe that its content could be relevant and could assist offerors as they prepare their proposals. Will USAID make this report available to offerors so they can consider its information during the design and strategy of our proposals?

Under the USAID Partnership for trade facilitation USAID Bureau for Economic Growth, Environment and Education under Business Environment for Agile Markets (BEAM) has conducted a needs assessment for three countries: El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. The specific focus of these assessments in the ability of governments to implement commitments anticipated under the World Trade Organization (WTO) trade facilitation agreement: advance rulings, pre-arrival processing / early release of goods, appeals mechanism, internet publication, penalty disciplines, transit guarantee systems, expedited shipments. The country reports are currently under the review stage and they have not been shared with host governments. For that reason, we cannot release them at this point. These assessments will be the basis for specific country plans to implement trade facilitation activities and it is not expected that offerors elaborate a technical approach on this specific activity or include activities related to implementation of country plans in their proposals.

46. Under Component 2, ―Increased Number of Trade Facilitation Mechanisms Adopted‖

(page 16-17 of the RFP), USAID makes reference to the support and recommendations given by

USAID Partnership for Trade Facilitation to each country. Based on these recommendations, the contractor shall support country specific actions with SIECA. Are these country-specific recommendations available to offerors for the preparation of this proposal? Will the contractor be expected to cover the cost of assistance provided, or will USAID fund these activities through the Partnership for Trade Facilitation?

Implemented through this contract, USAID will fund these activities through the Partnership for

Trade Facilitation Fund. It is anticipated that the total amount for implementation of trade facilitation activities under this fund will total US 1,200,000 to cover the costs of country specific plans. This amount will be divided as follows: US 600,000 for Honduras, US $ 300,000 for El Salvador and US$ 300,000 for Guatemala.

47. Under Component 2, Increased Number of Trade Facilitation Mechanisms Adopted (page

17 of the RFP), USAID indicates that the program will promote the use of adapted information technology tools to streamline trade related administrative processes. Will the contractor be expected to cover IT costs? If so, could USAID provide an estimated amount of funding offerors should include in the cost proposal?

The relevance, specifications and subsequently cost of the information technology tools will relate to the overall proposed technical approach.

48. Under Section C.4, ―Private Sector Engagement‖ (page 23), USAID includes an important note to offerors for not requesting letters of commitments to resource partners. Could

USAID provide further clarification of the definition of ―resource partner‖?

Please refer to question No. 32.

49. Please confirm that USAID prefers non-exclusive partnership agreements with local/regional trade associations, educational institutions and/or government institutions given they will need to collaborate closely with the successful offeror?

Confirmed. Offerors should not approach resource partners to request any letter of commitment as resource partners unfamiliar with the USAID acquisition and assistance process may be confused by multiple applicant/proposal requests. This may damage the relationship between

USAID, the offeror and the partners after the award has been made. A sound private sector engagement strategy and approach is required for the proposal.

50. Does USAID see the need for the Program to prioritize food insecure areas in non-border territories where the bilateral Feed the Future programs are operating over other areas?

Under component 1: Market access for critical food security value chains, USAID expects to focus on food security relevant value-chains, rather than geographical areas. The work performed under this contract shall support small farmers producers groups from food insecure areas, especially in border territories of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, as well as small producer groups and cooperatives in Nicaragua. Market access should be expanded to the

Central American Common Market primarily, but also to other niche market as attractive to the targeted value chains. The program can focus in border territories, because these are very vulnerable, but is not limited to work with vulnerable groups in other areas.

51. Under Section C.3, Project Components (page 10) USAID indicates that the Intermediate

Result 1 is ―Increased Market Access for Critical Food Security Value Chains and private sector alliances‖ and Intermediate Result 2 is ― Increased Trade Facilitation and trade capacity building efforts at the national and regional levels‖; however, Attachment 3 defines Intermediate Result 1 as ―Consolidated regional market access for critical food security value chains‖ and Intermediate

Result 2 as‖ Increased Regional Food Security Policy Effectiveness and Sustainable

Agriculture‖. Additionally, under Attachment 4 Output 1 is defined as ―Increased regional market access for food security critical value chains, through trade facilitation, increased capacity and harmonization‖ and Output 2 as ―Increased regional food security policy effectiveness and sustainable agriculture‖. Could USAID please confirm that offerors should follow Section C.3 page 10 as the intermediate results to follow in the design of the proposal in lieu of those stated in Attachments 3 and 4?

The offeror shall focus on Project Components (page 10) USAID indicates that the Intermediate

Result 1 is ―Increased Market Access for Critical Food Security Value Chains and private sector alliances‖ and Intermediate Result 2 is ― Increased Trade Facilitation and trade capacity building efforts at the national and regional levels‖. Attachments 3 and 4 refer to USAID’s broader

Regional Trade and Food Security Strategy that included broader program objectives and activities. The present program is part of an overall regional strategy, that will contribute to

USAID’s goal to improve regional food security and promote inclusive agriculture sector growth.

52. Will USAID disclose to offerors the Government’s estimated cost range and/or level of effort estimate for this procurement?

53. Will USAID provide guidance as to the anticipated start date for implementation of the

Program?

It is anticipated that the program will start during the first quarter of calendar year 2013.

54. With respect to the electronic submission of proposals, will USAID identify which file types will be deemed acceptable for both the Technical and Cost/Business Proposals?

Pdf files (unzipped) are acceptable for both the technical and business proposal.

55. Section C.2 (page 8, ―Logistical Complexity‖): Does the term ―fast-track initiative‖ in the last sentence refer to a preferred trader or AEO program, or does it have a different meaning?

A fast-track initiative within the context of the scope of work for the program is intended to promote the adoption of mechanisms that reduce the time and costs of trading goods across borders. Illustrative examples of these mechanisms may include a preferential trading scheme, such as an Authorized Economic Operator. Please refer to component 2, where specific activities for trade facilitation are outlined. The ITFS is not expected to implement AEO programs in

Central American Countries, but to support the private sector awareness and participation in these programs.

56. Section C.3 (page 14, ―Base Period‖, item 1) states, ―Increased export sales value for participating groups and buyers, no less than 15%‖. Is this increase to be measured and expected at the end of Phase 1?

Yes. It is expected that the contractor will establish a baseline and monitor the increase in sales value. At the end of Phase 1, the increase in sales from participating groups shall have been no less that 15% during the Phase 1 period (base period), in relation to the baseline.

57. Section C.3 (page 15, ―Grants Under Contract‖) states, ―It is anticipated that this fund will at least total $5,000,000 to provide matching funds of up to $500,000 per project of selected value chains.‖ Please clarify. Is it USAID’s intention to provide funds for grants under

Component One totaling $5,000,000 for all grantees under Component One with the expectation that recipient grantees will provide matching funds of up to $500,000?

USAID is not requiring ―matching‖ or cost sharing. The total of $5 million is intended to fund grants of up to $500,000 each. It should be noted though that even though ―matching‖ from the recipient institutions is not required, it is encouraged (cash or in-kind) as means of leveraging strategic resources.

Clarification: USAID’s contribution is referenced as ―matching funds‖ in the statement above and a grant is referenced as ―project of selected value chains‖ in the statement above.

58. Section C.3 (page 15, ―Grants Under Contract‖): Does USAID anticipate a proportional use of the $5,000,000 fund between Component I’s first and second phases? That is, should all funds be expended in the first three years, or should a proportion be retained for the option period?

All funds are expected to be used proportionately during Phase 1 (base period).

59. Section C.3 (page 16, paragraph 2): Can USAID provide illustrative tasks to support

Panama’s Trade Promotion Agreement?

Given the recent conclusion of the Trade Promotion Agreement, the responsible ministries/departments of the governments of the United States and Panama have not yet provided USAID with specific requests. Activities to support the Panamanian government and the private sector in compliance and use of the preferential treatment of the agreement in areas related to Customs procedures, rules of origin and other modernization requirements of other border control agencies. During previous activities to support the implementation of CAFTA-DR in compliance of Rules of Origin (Chapter IV) and Customs Procedures (Chapter V) for Central

American countries and the Dominican Republic, USAID programs supported governments through trainings, workshops, drafting of manuals, and guides for implementation of procedures;

conducting analysis and technical expertise for trade related legislation to support countries to comply with CAFTA-DR provisions. A similar approach could support Panama in this field.

Specific activities supported by USAID for implementation of CAFTA-DR Trade provisions can be found in www.caftadr.net

60. Section C.3 (page 16): Was a Partnership for Trade Facilitation assessment conducted for

Central America, and if so will USAID provide a copy and/or the country-specific recommendations?

Needs assessments under USAID Partnership for Trade Facilitation were recently conducted for three countries: Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. The specific country reports are being reviewed by USAID and need to be consulted with Customs Administrations for these three countries to agree on country action plans. Please refer to question No. 5.

61. Section C.3 (page 18, ―Grants Under Contract‖) states, ―It is anticipated that funds allocated for this purpose will at least total $1,200,000 for seven organizations (one per country), or one regional organization.‖ Should the implementing contractor choose to award seven grants on a country basis as opposed to one regional grant, is it USAID’s intention that one organization in each of the following countries be awarded a grant: Belize, Panama, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Costa Rica?

This program will not implement activities in Belize. This means no grants will be issued in that country under this program. However, grants are required in Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama and Nicaragua. This program will not entail activities in Belize.

62. Section C.3 (page 20, bulleted list): Is the project responsible for all costs associated with training the six nationals – including salary compensation, daily per diem, lodging, transport, etc.? Is there a preference as to whether these to-be-identified individuals are from the public or private sector?

Yes, the program will cover the costs of implementing the leadership program, which includes salary, daily per diems, lodging, transport, attendance to trainings and workshops. USAID expects that the program will establish selection criteria for a competitive process that will be open to nationals of the six countries, members of the Central American economic sub-system.

Trade-related previous experience should be required, but no preference to current employment in the private or public sector. In other words, this activity is not intended to be limited to current public sector officials.

63. Section C.3 (page 21): Please provide further details on what is envisioned under a ―trade facilitation monitoring system‖.

USAID envisions strengthening the capacity of private sector organizations to monitor and provide feedback to customs and other border control agencies (for example Ministries of

Agriculture, and Ministries of Health) in the effectiveness of their procedures and service delivery to support a competitive business environment. Through this mechanism USAID seeks to provide sectors with a more precise and in-depth approach to monitor procedures that affect the costs and times of trading goods across borders.

64. Section C.4 (page 24, ―Adapted Information Technology‖): Please provide an estimated budget for the IT support to regional associations? Can IT support include procurement of hardware?

Trade facilitation, incorporates the modernization of procedures, which in many cases demands information technology that enables businesses to more effectively manage documents, records and electronic transmission of certificates. It is an option of the offeror to include or not information technology tools, as part of the proposal. USAID expects that any information technology solutions developed under this project have commercial appeal and are sustainable after the program ends. The offeror must ensure that proposed tools are consistent with IT quality standards, and that adoption by local and regional organization is sustainable over time. Given the case, it is expected that the beneficiary will be involved from concept stage in the development and testing phase of IT tools and that all intellectual property rights, functionality codes, and user manuals will be completely transferred to the beneficiary.

65. Relating to Section C.5.5 (page 26), please indicate if the amended IEE request for small-scale infrastructure has been completed. Otherwise, will USAID agree to provide an amendment to the RFP if the requested IEE amendment is completed prior to the proposal submission date?

LAC-IEE-06-05, LAC-IEE-08-68, LAC-IEE-10-90, LAC-IEE-11-75 have been amended to expand activities under IR 5, Enhanced Food Security, to include small-scale construction, remodeling, and reconstruction of facilities such as cold storage rooms, produce collection centers and other agricultural related infrastructure needed to improve value chains and access to markets.

A Negative Determination with Conditions is issued to small-scale construction activities in IR-5 as per 22 CFR 216.3(a)3(iii) which states that these actions are found to have no significant effect on the environment because the Agency has developed design criteria for such an action which, if applied in the design of the action, will avoid a significant effect on the environment.

Conditions include:

• Application of USAID/LAC Environmental Guidelines to small-scale construction activities through development of an Environmental Mitigation Plan which is subject to approval by the

Mission Environmental Officer and Regional Environmental Advisor prior to initiating any action.

• Implementing partners will prepare an Environmental Mitigation Plan (EMP) describing how they will, in specific terms, implement mitigation measures and standard design criteria that will significantly reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts on the environment that may occur as a result of their activities. The EMP will follow the attached guidelines and include a plan to monitor the implementation of mitigation measures and their effectiveness. This EMP will be integrated into the initial and subsequent work plans, making any necessary adjustments to activity implementation in order to minimize adverse impacts to the environment. EMPs shall be submitted to the AOTR/COTR and approved by the REA prior to initiating the activity.

Language reflecting this condition will be included in all agreements and contracts for implementing these components.

• The guidance on preparation of the EMP will be provided to the contractor as part of the

Request for Proposals. The EMP guidelines are attached to this IEE (Attachment 1).

• Implementing partners shall incorporate USAID's ―Environmental Guidelines for

Development of Activities in Latin America and the Caribbean,‖ especially Chapter 2, Environmental Issues and Best Practices for Small-Scale Infrastructure Activities, into their

EMPs. Spanish and English version of this document are available at the following website:

http://www.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean/environment/docs/epiq/epiq.html http://www.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean/environment/docs/epiq/epiq.html

66. Section C.5.5 (page 28) requests ―an illustrative budget for implementing environmental compliance‖. How should such a budget be presented? Should this ―illustrative budget‖ be a subset of the overall cost proposal or a budget that is pulled out separately from a pool of labor and ODCs that can perhaps be identified as a ―special activities fund‖? Please clarify.

Costs associated to environmental compliance must be included properly identified within the budget, not separately. Level of detail should be enough as to establish reasonableness (basis of calculation).

67. Section C.7 (page 28) states, ―The team may be a combination of an expatriate with strong Spanish capabilities and local permanent staff.‖

a. Is it USAID’s intention that there be no more than one expatriate in a permanent role on the team?

Please refer to question No. 14.

b. May an expatriate be defined as a non-US citizen, if that person does not come from Central America or the Dominican Republic, i.e. countries mentioned in the RFP as benefiting from implementation of this program?

An expatriate is an individual, either US or non- US citizen (TCN), who is not a citizen of any of the benefiting countries under the program.

c. May local permanent staff be defined as citizens of all countries mentioned in the

RFP as benefiting from implementation of this program, i.e. the Dominican Republic, Belize, Panama, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Costa Rica, or must

Central Americans and Dominicans from countries other than those where the implementing contractor chooses to have its office(s) be considered Third Country

Nationals (TCNs)?

Please refer to question 14.

68. Section C.7 (page 28, ―Food Security Advisor, Chief of Party‖) states, ―Candidates for this position shall be a senior level professional having a proven track of designing, implementing and successfully delivering trade and agriculture value chain programs in countries with socio-cultural and economic situation similar to CA.‖ USAID goes on to list the

―Minimum qualification requirements‖ to include, ―At least 15 years of progressively responsible experience in the fields relevant and related to this scope of work, with at least 10 years of experience working in Central American countries, managing multi country, and multi-institutional programs;‖. Is it USAID’s intention that a qualified Food Security Advisor, Chief of

Party must have at least 10 years of experience working in multi country, multi country programs in Central America, or would a qualified Food Security Advisor, Chief of Party also include a senior level professional with a total of 10 years experience in multi country, multi country programs in Central America and ―countries with socio-cultural and economic situation similar to CA‖?

10 years of experience in Central American countries, managing multi-country, and multi-institutional programs is required.

69. Section C.8 (page 31, item 5) states that ―… intervention will target the regional framework and targeted activities in all SICA Member countries: Belize, Costa Rica, Dominican

Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua.‖ This set of seven countries does not include Panama. Is Panama therefore excluded from the Component Two grant program that could be used for seven country organizations as noted in Section C.3, page 18 (under heading of

―Grants under Contract‖: ―… funds allocated for this purpose will at least total US$1,200,000 for seven organizations (one per country).‖?

Component two will work in: Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama and Nicaragua. For the Trade Facilitation Leadership program it will work with nationals of six countries, that are Members of the Central American Economic Subsystem:

Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama and Nicaragua.

70. Section D.3 (page 32, third paragraph) states in part:

―The contractor shall include a branding and communications plan with budget, in response to the attached Branding Strategy (Attachment 1).‖ And Section L.7(5) (page 93) states (with respect to the technical proposal): Recommended Attachments (not part of the 25 page limit):

CVs and Letters of Commitment for key personnel, Additional information on proposed sub-awardees or sub-contractors, Past Performance Summary Table, Branding and Marking Plan, Monitoring Plan.

a. Please clarify whether the branding and communications plan referenced in

Section D.3 is the same as or different than the Branding and Marking Plan referenced in

Section L.7.(5).

The branding and communications plan referred in Section D.3 is the same as the

Branding and Marking Plan mentioned in Section L.7 (5) in page 93.

b. With respect to the requirement in Section D.3, is this intended to mean that contractors shall include a branding and communications plan with the cost/business proposal, or that a budget for the branding and communications plan is to be included?

A branding and marking (communications plan) must be included as part of the technical proposal. Any costs associated to the proposed plan must be included in as part of the proposed budget (cost proposal).

c. If a budget for the branding and communications plan is to be included as part of the cost/business proposal, is this budget to be included as an annex/appendix to the cost proposal and will USAID provide clarification as to the format and level of detail that is required?

Costs associated to the proposed branding and marking, must be included properly identified within the budget. Level of detail should be enough as to establish reasonableness (basis of calculation).

71. Section E.3.1 (page 36): For item c, ―4.5.2-23 Value of incremental sales (collected at the farm-level)‖, will USAID accept sampling? If yes, what sampling size would be acceptable and will this sampling be the same for both the implementing contractor and the independent evaluator?

The program is expected to monitor incremental sales from participating producer groups. The sample shall be statistically representative from the selected value chains. Through a separate, but parallel activity to the program, USAID will contract an independent evaluator that will establish baselines and the monitoring process.

72. In Section E.3.1 (page 36), USAID encourages the contractor to use the ―most cost-effective methods to monitor progress and measure performance of activities at all levels‖.

Subsequently in Section E.3.2 (page 37), we are informed that an outside contractor will be collecting baseline data and performing an independent evaluation. Accurate and comprehensive baseline collection is important to quality M&E, if an independent contractor other than the implementer is charged with or also charged with collecting baseline data, should this baseline data collection be done twice by two separate entities or in cooperation to reduce overall cost and provide for better comparisons and data for evaluating the program?

The implementer will be responsible for the monitoring plan, including project specific indicators and baselines, collection of information and measurement of progress and performance of activities. USAID Evaluation Policy has established several resources for collaboration and learning that are available for implementers, especially monitoring and evaluation resources that support the Presidential Feed the Future Initiative. These resources are available at http://www.feedthefuture.gov/progress. The independent evaluation programmed for

USAID regional trade and food security activities will begin at a later stage, and the relevant focus areas are strategic for USAID learning agenda. USAID requests that offerors present and budget a project specific monitoring plan.

73. Section F.4.9 (page 42) requests that an EMMP be included in the Work Plan. However, without knowing specifically if the amendment for the IEE has been issued, it may be difficult to include specifics of an EMMP in the required Life of Activity Work Plan (or integrated into a

PMP). Does USAID…