Answers to KFIE Questions.pdf

Answers to KFIE Questions

1. The cover letter indicates that USAID intends to hold in-person discussions with offerors in the competitive range and that the proposed COP will be expected to attend at USAID‘s expense, but that the offeror may choose to send others to participate in the discussions at the offerors‘ expense and that those present must be authorized to negotiate on behalf of the offeror. Per FAR 15.102(d), please provide more details on what these discussions are expected to entail so that offerors may appropriately plan which organizational representatives to include in the discussions and any necessary presentation of materials related to the technical or cost proposals.

USAID Response: Discussions will be held in accordance with FAR 15.306(d) and will, at a minimum, discuss the items in FAR 15.306(d)(3). USAID will conduct an initial review of proposals, establish a competitive range, and then identify major areas for discussion with those offerors in the competitive range. We are unable to provide more detailed information at this time since discussions are tailored to each individual proposal. The main purpose of these discussions is for both sides to come to a complete understanding of the requirement and the proposal and air out any weaknesses. Let me clarify that USAID is going to provide a $5,000 payment to those Offerors who are asked to participate, regardless of what the actual costs incurred are by the Offeror. It is an offset against costs incurred, but this arrangement is different than having the COP “attend at USAID’s expense…”

2. Please confirm that the title and cover pages are not included in the page limit.

USAID Response: These pages are included in the page limit. The page limit has been increased to 30 pages.

3. Please confirm that the PMP and learning plan, innovation measurement scale, and partner letters of collaboration can be included as annexes.

USAID Response: These items must be included in their respective sections and are included in the page limit. Please note that partner letters of collaboration are not required. The page limit has been increased to 30 pages.

4. We anticipate that the pricing considerations will be significantly informed by USAID‘s responses to questions, which are not slated to be issued until less than two weeks before the deadline. Due to the complex nature of this procurement‘s pricing mechanisms, we respectfully request an extension of the proposal submission deadline.

USAID Response: The closing date and time have been extended to 0800 Nairobi time, April 16, 2012.

5. What base of operations does USAID envision for the Contractor? To adequately price office expenses and travel requirements, please clarify if USAID intends for the project to be based in Nairobi for ease of coordination with USAID and other relevant stakeholders with travel to the target geographic areas? Or should the Offerors expect to be based in the project‘s target geographic areas with occasional travel to NBO to liaise with USAID?

USAID Response: USAID is open to recommendations from offerors for office locations as part of their proposals. If the offeror proposes a headquarters outside of Nairobi, the offeror should ensure that they are able to come to Nairobi to meet with USAID on short notice and as needed.

6. The response to Question 8 under Attachment 6: KFIE Frequently Asked Questions states that ―the budget for the KFIE contract is between $10 and $15 million including 24

GUCs totaling $1.2 million.‖ Does the estimated contract value refer to the three years of the contract only or does this also include the two option years?

USAID Response: The figure includes the two option years.

7. F.3.5 (p. 22) indicates that IEEs and appropriate actions to mitigate any environmental risks associated with stage 1 innovations will be required for each selected innovation.

Please provide guidance on which CLIN offerors should budget these screening and mitigation activities.

USAID Response: CLINs 001, 101, and 201.

8. AIDAR 752.216-70 allows for a fixed base fee plus a performance-based award fee.

a. Please confirm that the budget will include a fixed base fee and an additional performance award fee that will be earned based on innovations‘ advancement.

USAID Response: The prices for CLINs 001, 003, 101, 103, 201, and 203 may include base profit. Please note that because this is a fixed-price award, these are set figures and are not a

“budget” as in a cost-reimbursement award. Also please refer to later questions as we are changing the contract type to an “incentive” rather than “award” fee.

b. Please clarify whether there is an agency-wide cap on base fee.

USAID Response: Under this type of award, there is no cap.

9. Please confirm if it is expected there to be a base fee that can be applied in addition to the award fee for CLINs 001 and 002.

USAID Response: See question 8.

10. Please confirm that CLINs 003 and 004 may apply a separate fixed fee structure from that applied under CLINs 001 and 002.

USAID Response: See question 8. CLIN 004 shall not include a separate profit component.

11. B.9 (p. 8) calls for the first award payment to be made 6 months after award. Please confirm that this means the Contractor will be eligible for an award fee once innovations enter stage one (i.e. once they are selected, approved, and receive their grants).

USAID Response: The contractor is not eligible for the fee for stage one applicants, only applicants who meet the criteria for advancement to the next applicable stage.

12. Please explain what is meant by ―Stage 4‖ under B.9 (p. 8).

USAID Response: Stage 4 represents graduation on the chart. Section B.9 has been amended.

13. Will Offerors propose the award fee pool amount or will this be determined by USAID upon award?

USAID Response: Offerors propose the amount of fee for each applicant who meets the criteria for the next applicable stage.

14. Assuming we are to propose the award fee in CLIN 002, is the offeror to assume separate fixed fee structure and amounts for the FP CLINs 003 and 004?

USAID Response: See question 8. CLIN 004 shall not include a separate profit component.

15. The RFP‘s language on page 7 regarding B.6 (Labor Categories and Burdened Rates) and B.7 (Short-Term Technical Assistance Ordering) does not seem to correspond to the

Price Schedule shown on page 6. Please clarify whether the language requiring labor categories and burdened rates in B.6 and B.7 refer to CLINs 002, 102, or CLINs 003, 103, and 203, or both sets of CLINs. We are assuming it applies to CLIN 003.

USAID Response: The price schedule shall reflect a Not-to-Exceed (NTE) amount for the sum of the individual STTA orders under for CLINs 003, 103, and 203. The language in B.6 and B.7 applies to CLINs 003, 103, and 203.

16. Does USAID expect Offerors to propose a price ceiling on CLIN 003, 103, 203? If so, can USAID provide an estimated percentage of the project‘s total effort which should be included in this?

USAID Response: USAID will enter this amount prior to award as it will be an NTE figure extrapolated from the proposed burdened daily rates.

17. Under CLIN 003, 103, 203, can USAID provide an estimated ratio of local to expatriate technical assistance the Contractor will be expected to provide?

USAID Response: USAID expects the contractor to use local technical assistance (TA) whenever feasible, limiting expatriate TA to that which is necessary for the maximum impact of the program. The exact ratio is up to the offeror to propose, keeping in mind that we have a limited amount of funds and one of USAID/Forward goals is to increase local capacity meaning that we want to maximize, wherever practical and possible participation of Kenyans

18. As described in B.7 (p. 7), the RFP indicates that the pricing under CLIN 003, 103, 203 will be based on fixed-burdened daily rates (FDRs) and result in FFP delivery/purchasetype orders which will be paid upon completion. The STTA under this mechanism will be used as described in C.4 (p. 14).

a. Please confirm that the FFP delivery orders may include non-labor costs (e.g. travel, per diem, or other direct costs required to deliver the STTA SOW).

USAID Response: Confirmed.

b. How will the Offeror budget for the non-labor costs, should these items be budgeted now under CLIN 003 or will additional funding be allocated along with the order requests for

STTA utilizing the FDRs?

USAID Response: Non-labor costs (e.g. travel) can be included in the individual STTA orders as needed. Please note that these costs do not include any indirect costs (which are in the burdened daily rates).

c. Please confirm whether the fixed fee can be separately charged on non-labor costs under

CLIN 003.

USAID Response: There is no fixed-fee in this award. Profit is only included in the burdened daily rates.

19. Under CLIN 004, 104, 204, does USAID anticipate that the Contractor will use FOG structure?

USAID Response: The type of grant structure is the decision of the contractor so long as it is in compliance with the applicable regulations and receives USAID approval.

20. The C.2 (p. 10) and the FAQs in Attachment 6 indicate that there will be 24 GUCs totaling $1.2M for an estimated average value of $50k each. The RFP also assumes that 10 innovations will advance to stage 2 and 4 to stage 3, indicating a 40% success rate of the funded innovations. Can the Offerors then infer that USAID estimates the Contractor will identify and assess approximately 60 innovations for presentation to USAID over the life of the project which will be given the stage 1 ‗green light‘ from USAID?

USAID Response: USAID expects 24 stage one innovations to be funded through the GUC component. The contractor is encouraged to propose as many as necessary to reach that figure.

Please note that the figures are illustrative and represent what USAID currently expects. USAID may decide to fund more or less innovations. Please also see question 24.

21. Under CLIN 004, 104, 204, how does USAID anticipate that the Contractor will recover indirect costs?

USAID Response: The prices for CLINs 001, 101, and 201 are for performing the services in

Section C.3 and all other services and deliverables not separately priced. This includes the management of GUCs.

a. For example, if the Contractor normally recovers G&A on GUCs, should the GUC invoices include the value of the GUC plus the G&A and fee calculated on that GUC?

USAID Response: Invoices under CLIN 004 shall only include the amount of the sub-awards to the Stage 1 applicants.

b. Or is the GUC amount of $1.2 million only meant as a direct pass-through to grantees wherein indirect costs and fee on grants would be estimated and recovered under CLIN

001, 101, 201?

USAID Response: Correct the $1.2 Million is a pass through and will only be used for sub-grants.

22. In B.4 (p. 6), CLIN 004, 104, 204 is identified as a FFP CLIN with a plug figure of

$1.2M, but B.8.d (p. 7) indicates that the Contractor must invoice for the grants awarded each month and provide evidence of the awarded grants. This evidence requirement indicates that CLIN 004, 104, 204 may not purely be a FFP mechanism.

a. Does USAID intend to provide the Contractor with $1.2M for the GUCs irrespective of the number or value of grants awarded or is the GUC fund intended to be reimbursed based on the grants awarded up to the maximum value of $1.2M?

USAID Response: CLIN 004 is FFP and is an NTE CLIN with a ceiling of $1.2 million. USAID expects the Contractor to fund the grants until they are invoiced, that is USAID will NOT provide an advance for the funds under the GUC component. The individual GUCs are the deliverables under the CLIN and USAID shall pay the contractor only upon evidence of the

GUC being awarded. Should the contractor not use all of CLIN 004, then that amount will not be paid to the contractor since there was no deliverable received.

b. Will USAID disburse funds under this CLIN upon award of grants or upon payment of funds to grantees?

USAID Response: USAID will disburse funds when a proper invoice is received in accordance with Section B.8.d.

23. In section C.3.1, on page 12, the RFP states that ―The Contractor shall provide the assessment reports when justifying that an applicant has satisfied all the criteria to move to the next stage‖ and that ―Assessments shall include design, data collection, data validation, analysis and results for innovations at all stages to support the evidenced-based decision-making process, including randomized controlled trials when feasible.‖ It also states in several places (page 13, 16 and 88) that the Innovation Fellows will be involved in designing an overseeing the implementation of randomized control trials during stages 2 and 3 of innovation implementation. On page 88, the RFP states that ―A more comprehensive impact evaluation (likely using randomized control trial and/or other methodologies) will be introduced as the innovations move from Stage 2 to Stage 3 and beyond.‖ Additionally, Question 13 in the Q&A section states that ―Stage 1 projects will be independently evaluated by an outside party to assess the potential proof of concept. Evidence-based methods will be used to assess effectiveness…‖

a. Is the contractor‘s assessment (described above) considered an independent evaluation?

Or, is the response to question 13 specifically referencing the phrase, ―USAID/Kenya will support independent review to verify outcomes and test reliability of results.‖?

USAID Response: No, the contractor’s review is not considered an independent evaluation. As stated on page 17 of the RFP, USAID will “Provide an independent “certification” of the experimental design, data collection and validity, and scientific results for experiments performed on innovations by the Contractor at all stages to support the evidenced-based decision making process. The SOW has been amended to state that USAID shall provide the certification or require changes within 14 days after receiving the information from the contractor.

The response to Question 13 in the FAQs is incorrect. It should read “Stage 1 projects will be evaluated by the contractor to assess the potential proof of concept.” The FAQs have been updated.

b. Can USAID clarify whether the Contractor should budget for comprehensive assessments for each innovation at each stage, including the RCTS/impact evaluations included for innovations passing through stages 2 and 3?

USAID Response: Yes, offerors should include these assessments in their proposed prices.

c. And can USAID clarify that its role in evaluating innovations (via the USAID/Kenya office and the Innovation Fellows) will be to certify and/or review designs, oversee implementation (but not fund) and test reliability of results of ALL assessments (stages one through three)?

USAID Response: The language on page 17 referenced above will apply to all assessments. The

SOW has been amended to require the contractor to submit the assessments at require phases for

USAID certification.

24. Per Section B.4 and B.5, ―if an option is exercised, the POP for CLIN 004 will automatically be extended to match the POP of the option period.‖ Due to the rolling nature of Stage 1 innovation grants, would USAID provide an estimate of the ratio of grants in the base period to grants in the option period to allow offerors to appropriately assign STTA and award fee budgets for CLIN 002 and CLIN 003?

USAID Response: Below is a table of USAID’s estimated number of applicants for all stages over the course of the contract:

Year Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Base Year 1 6 0 0

Base Year 2 6 4 1

Base Year 3 6 3 1

Option Year 1 6 2 1

Option Year 2 0 1 1

Total 24 10 4

Please note that figures for the STTA and award fee CLINs will be NTE figures that will be inserted by USAID before award. The figures will be extrapolated from the award fee structure in proposed in Section B.9 and the labor categories in Section B.6. The NTE figures represent a ceiling which the sum of the earned award fees or the sum of the STTA orders may not exceed without approval from the Contracting Officer via a formal modification to the contract.

25. Can USAID confirm that the references to labor categories and burdened rates in

Sections B.6 and B.7 should refer to CLINs 003, 103, and 203, which are the CLINs associated with the Short Term Technical Assistance Firm Fixed Price-LOE contract type, and not to the award fee CLINs 002, 102, and 202?

USAID Response: Confirmed. Sections B.6 and B.7 have been amended accordingly.

26. Section B.7 states that ―the total amount of all STTA orders may not exceed the NTE amount for CLIN 002, 102, or 202 during the respective periods of performance. Similar to question #2, did USAID intend to list CLINs 003, 103, and 203? Due to the rolling nature of

Stage 1 innovation grants, in order to ensure that USAID is able to evaluate offers that provide similar services in the base year, would USAID consider providing the ratio of

STTA LOE envisioned for the base period vs. the option years?

USAID Response: We meant CLINs 003, 103, and 203. For the ratio, please refer to question

24. Since the figures for the STTA CLINs will be an NTE amount, the evaluation of price on these CLINs will be based upon the proposed burdened rates.

27. How will the burdened rates provided under CLINs 003, 103, 203 be evaluated, and how do they factor into the evaluated price?

USAID Response: The rates will be evaluated for reasonableness and in accordance with FAR

15.101-1 and FAR 15.404-1. Section M.5 has been revised.

28. Are CLINs 003, 103, and 203 part of the $10-15M estimated government range? If so, what LOE estimate is this based on?

USAID Response: The STTA CLINs are included in the $10-15 million range. This is based off of an estimated average of STTA needed for each applicant at each stage. Please also refer to question 24.

29. Section B.8(a), states that the Contractor shall invoice on a monthly basis for CLINs

001, 101, and 201. As this is a fixed price contract, could USAID please clarify which of the deliverables listed in Section F.4 or elsewhere in the RFP will provide the basis for the monthly payment, and what specifications or metrics USAID will use to assess whether the deliverable was completed and payment was earned for a given month?

USAID Response: The basis for the monthly payment is the performance of the activities throughout the contract, not any one particular deliverable. Should the contractor not perform a given function, consideration for the nonperformance shall be negotiated between the

Contracting Officer and the contractor. This includes any deliverable due dates not met in

Section F. The monthly progress reports shall state the activities of Section C which were performed during the month. Please see the revised Section F for monthly progress reports.

30. Section B.8(c) states that the Contractor shall invoice once the agreed upon LOE has been expended and an order complete. Does USAID have an estimated typical duration for

STTA orders that contractors could use for pricing purposes? If the STTA will involve a lengthy assignment, would USAID consider alternate payment schedules that would allow offerors to recover underlying financing costs associated with providing the LOE so that these costs do not have to be priced into the labor rates at a premium to the government?

USAID Response: Please see question 24. We can consider alternate payment methods for lengthier assignments on a case by case basis.

31. Does USAID expect the contract price associated with the FFP-LOE component of the program to be less than the $150,000 limit imposed by FAR 16.207-3(d), or would USAID envision obtaining the approval required by that clause for a higher dollar amount?

USAID Response: USAID has obtained approval for exceeding $150,000.

32. Section B.8(d) of the RFP states that for CLIN 004, the contractor shall invoice for grants awarded during each month and provide evidence of the awarded grant. Could

USAID please clarify how this requirement coincides with the FFP contract type specified for this CLIN in Section B.4 as it sounds more like a cost-reimbursement arrangement?

Would USAID consider revising this section to reflect a cost-reimbursement arrangement?

USAID Response: Invoices for the GUCs, and subsequent payment, represent a form of performance-based payment which allows the contractor to invoice according to the requirements in Section B.8(d). In other words, each sub-grant is a deliverable which the

Contractor invoices for. We know the total amount of the GUCs and therefore, a FFP type CLIN is appropriate.

33. Could USAID please clarify whether the $1.2 million plug figure for CLIN 004 is inclusive of indirect costs and fee associated with grants, or whether these must be priced into one of the other CLINs?

USAID Response: Those costs must be included in CLIN 001, 101, and 201.

See question 21.

34. Section B.9, bullet number 6, states ―It is possible that an innovation could be identified by the Contractor at a higher stage and be referred to USAID for funding, and not need

STTA from the Contractor. In this case, the Contractor does not receive an award fee should the innovation advance to the next stage.‖ However, the process for identification and promotion of an innovation by the core Contractor team, funded by CLIN 001, does require effort and should be recognized if an identified innovation is successful. We respectfully ask USAID to consider amending this bullet to indicate that the Contractor would be eligible for an award fee associated with identification of a successful innovation but that such award fee shall be negotiated in the award fee plan separately from the fee associated with STTA provision.

USAID Response: We concur and have revised the bullet point in Section B.9. The revised language allows the contractor to earn the award fee even if USAID does not require STTA.

35. In accordance with the guidance contained in AAPD 12-03 Revision to 22 CFR 228, we respectfully request that Section H.3 Local Procurement be deleted from the RFP, as it will be deleted from the AIDAR consistent with the revised 22 CFR 228.

USAID Response: Agreed. The clause has been removed.

36. Section C.3.1, bullet number 11, the Contract shall participate in and provide logistical support (e.g. arranging for conference facilities, coordinating participant arrival and check-in, arranging for necessary equipment) for proposed ―Solution Seeking‖ or

―Matchmaking‖ sessions. Should funds for these sessions be planned for in from the core services CLINS (001, 101, 201) or the STTA CLINs (003,103, 203)?

37. Section C.3.1, bullet number 13, states that the Contract shall work with the GOK

ASCU innovation fund, support a national agricultural innovation stakeholder forum, including sharing best practices in the targeted FTF regions, illustratively through meetings on an annual basis. Should funds for these forums be planned for in the core services CLINs (001, 101 201) or the STTA CLINs (003, 103, 203)?

38. Should Key Personnel CVs be included as part of the technical proposal, or would

USAID prefer them in an annex?

USAID Response: Please include them at the very end of the technical proposal.

39. Section L.7. (c) prompts offerors to submit ―past performance information for themselves and all subcontractors…on all contracts/projects above $5,000,000 in the last three years which involve agriculture, venture capitalism, or management consulting.‖

Would USAID please clarify if ―last three years‖ indicates projects that began in 2009 or projects that were already ongoing in 2009? Also, for offerors who may have many projects meeting this criteria during this time period, would USAID consider allowing just the ten most relevant projects to be listed?

USAID Response: A. “Last three years” means any contract with a period of performance (POP) falling during the past three years. For example, if an offeror has a contract meeting the criteria in Section L.7(c) that was awarded during 2008 with a POP of 5 years, this contract would be included.

In order to conduct a proper past performance assessment, all relevant contracts must be included. However, we have amended Section L.7(c) in order to minimize the workload on offerors. If the contract is in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System, then the offeror does not need to include it on the past performance sheet. We have also amended the thresholds and clarified the language. Please carefully read the revised Section L.7(c).

Please note that past performance is not being assigned a score and is only being rated on a satisfactory/unsatisfactory basis.

40. The "results in the targeted regions and population" on page 11 include several results that do not seem to map back to the KFIE goal or program objectives on page 10. Please clarify to what extent the Contractor will be held responsible for achieving each of these results.

USAID Response: USAID expects higher impacts in some of the results than others through

KFIE, but USAID intends that all of the results listed should be affected through the program.

For the purposes of a proposal, targets and results are adequately described in the RFP. The contractor is responsible for performing the work in accordance with Section C.

41. Will CVs be accepted in an Appendix to the Technical proposal? If so, is there a page limit on CVs?

USAID Response: Please include the CVs at the end of the technical proposal. Please refer to

Section L.6 for page limits.

42. Does the title page with the Offeror information count as part of the 20-page limit to the technical proposal?

USAID Response: The information required by Section L.2(c)(2) is part of the cover letter.

Please see the revised Section L.6.

43. How does the government define ―Producer-‖ and ―Entrepreneur-‖ level Short-Term

Technical Assistance, and what are the definitions of/qualifications for each of these levels?

USAID Response: Standard definitions apply. For the purposes of KFIE, the most important aspect of these entities is whether producers or entrepreneurs are selected as innovations to be assisted under the program.

44. Are we to assume that all Offerors will use 24 illustrative innovations as noted on page

10 of Section C.2 (bullet 1) in order to provide an equal starting point for all offers and award fee structures?

USAID Response: Correct. See also question 24.

45. Should the CLIN numbers for B.6 Labor Categories and Burdened Rates read 003, 103 and 203; or, 001, 101, and 201 instead of what is currently listed in B.6. which is 002, 102, and 202 which are described as Award Fee in B.4. Price Schedule?

USAID Response: The CLINs for B.6 should read 003, 103, and 203. The RFP has been amended to reflect the change.

46. What range of performance-based award fee is considered normal?

USAID Response: It is up to the offerors to determine what they feel is an appropriate incentive given the work involved. We are now contemplating an “incentive” rather than an “award” fee contract

47. Can the success of an innovation be based on a unit dollar per success basis or must it be a percentage of CLIN 001?

USAID Response: The success of an innovation is based off of the criteria the offeror proposes and subsequently is incorporated into the contract in Section B.9.

48. If the total Award Fee (B.9) for 6 successes is X dollars, and we have surpassed our success by 2 (8 successes) what will be the Award Fee if you have produced more successes than allowed for through the contract. Will the contractor be allowed to invoice the surplus successes accordingly?

USAID Response: The award fee is based on a set figure per success, as used in this question. If the total number of successes is nearing the NTE amount in CLINs 003, 103, or 203, then

USAID and the contractor may discuss options at that point in time.

49. How can we price the Short-Term Technical Assistance without any Level of Effort?

Can the Government provide a listing of the labor categories and illustrative levels of effort required over the life of the contract?

USAID Response: The only pricing involved at this time is the fully burdened rates as offerors are not required to fill in a figure for CLINs 003, 103, and 203. As a tool, offerors may utilize the table in question 24 as a starting point.

The labor categories are to be proposed by the offeror and should represent the mix of labor the offeror believes will best fulfill the requirements of the STTA section of the SOW.

50. Is the Award Fee a percentage of Core Services (B.4, CLIN 001)?

USAID Response: No. The award fee is now an incentive fee. The incentive fee is a fixed amount for each innovation which meets the criteria for advancement to the next applicable stage. Please see the revised Section B.9 of the RFP.

51. How is the Award Fee Pool determined?

USAID Response: A. If an innovation meets the criteria for advancement to the next applicable stage, then the contractor shall receive the award fee for that innovation. For example, if innovation X meets the criteria for advancement to Stage 2, then the contractor shall receive the

Stage 2 incentive fee for that innovation. Please see Section B.9 of the RFP.

52. Is Past Performance included in the Technical Section of the Proposal as listed in

Section M.4, or is it included in the Cost Proposal as identified on page 76 of 100, Section

L.7.(c) Part 3 past performance?

USAID Response: Past performance is included in the cost proposal as indicated in Section

L.7(c). Section M.4 only discusses the evaluation of past performance.

53. Is the past performance included in the Technical Proposal page count?

USAID Response: A. Past performance information is submitted via the “Past Performance

Information Sheet” in accordance with Section L.7(c) and is part of the cost proposal.

54. Would the government consider moving the past performance outside of the technical or cost proposal page count?

USAID Response: Please review Section L.7(c) on how to submit past performance information.

If applicable, the information is submitted in a separate sheet as part of the cost proposal.

55. Would the government eliminate the MS Excel Past Performance format and switch to the Past Performance Report – Short Form OMB No: 9000-0124?

USAID Response: Please utilize the provided sheet.

56. Is it the intent of USAID to exclude local Kenyan partners who do not have a minimum of $5 million performance history, or can we include Kenyan partners, who represent more than 10% of the total price, but do not have contracts/projects above $5 million?

USAID Response: Absolutely not; we do not want to exclude any partners, especially Kenyan partners. Our intent was to require submission of past performance information for contracts meeting that threshold, not as a qualifier for participating in this competition. USAID welcomes the use of local Kenyan partners. We understand that Section L.7(c) may have been a little confusing and we have amended the section for clarity. In accordance with Section L.7(c), Offerors may include subcontractors without previous past performance history

57. In order to develop a competitive cost proposal based on realism and reasonableness, does USAID recommend using 24 illustrative Stage 1 innovations in C.2 bullet 1, on page

10, or may an Offeror use more or less than this number?

USAID Response: Please see question 24.

58. Does the government expect successful Offerors to have the lowest award fee?

USAID Response: A. The incentive fee structure plays a part in the cost evaluation and, as stated in Section M.7, is considered in the trade-off analysis in order to make a best value determination.

59. Does the size of the award fee count against you in a competitive proposal evaluation?

USAID Response: See question 58. The size of the incentive fee is one part of the proposal and is evaluated in accordance with Section M of the RFP. All factors, technical and cost, are taken into consideration when determining which offer represents the best value to USAID.

60. How do you figure out the award fee—is it a % of core services?

USAID Response: Please see questions 48 and 50.

61. Knowing that most local Kenyan partners, many of whom may be creative and innovative, will not be able to meet the $5 million threshold for past performance, while also knowing that USAID has shown clear preference for utilization of local partners and small businesses during implementation, why has USAID instituted this $5 million barrier/threshold?

USAID Response: Please see question 56. There is no barrier or threshold. Section L.7(c) has been amended to clarify the instructions.

62. Please clarify if title page and acronyms count against the 20-page technical page limit.

USAID Response: Title pages and acronym pages do count against the page limit. The page limit has been increased to 30. Please see question 42.

63. In B.9. Award Fee, the RFP states ―…The award fee board, consisting of the COR, Innovation Fellow, and other USAID staff, shall provide the CO with the information necessary to determine the amount of the award fee to be granted to the Contractor for the period under review.‖ Can we assume that the Award Fee Board will be using an adjectival rating system to determine the amount of award fee to be granted? If so, will the award fee be granted per the advancement of each successful innovation, or for the total amount of innovations per review period?

USAID Response: The contract type has been changed to fixed-price incentive and uses the stage criteria as a performance incentive. Therefore there is no award fee board. Instead, the board described in Section B.9 will be determining whether an innovation meets the criteria for the next applicable stage. If the innovation meets the criteria, then the contractor shall receive the incentive fee. The contractor shall invoice every six months for the cumulative fee earned during that period.

64. What is the lowest adjectival rating that an innovation can receive and still be promoted to the next stage?

USAID Response: There are no adjectival ratings. In order to move to the next stage, an innovation has to meet all of the criteria for that stage.

65. If an innovation receives a marginal adjectival rating, will that affect the amount of award fee issued to the contractor?

USAID Response: Please see questions 63 and 64.

66. Does USAID anticipate a situation in which there may be more than one innovation being tested within a single entity? In this case, it is expected that two innovations with distinctly different objectives and target populations are being tested. If USAID anticipates this happening, would the entity qualify for assessment and funding of the innovations each on its own merit?

USAID Response: USAID anticipates that this scenario could be possible. In this case, both innovations would be eligible for funding necessary for their success. USAID anticipates that there would be economies of scale in a case like this, especially for organizational capacity building, and as a result the budgets of two innovations in this case would be smaller than if they were separate.

67. We understand that USAID will not evaluate the cost proposal using points criteria.

However, how will USAID compare each cost proposal from each Offeror if they use different assumptions (i.e. 24 innovations versus 12 innovations for stage 1)?

USAID Response: Please see question 24. Any assumptions should be clearly stated in the cost proposal. Section L.7(b) has been amended to include this. Factors which differentiate proposals, such as the one noted in the question, will be taken into account when we compare cost proposals. This is part of the realism portion of the evaluation.

68. In section L.6, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, the RFP states that the management plan ―…must also contain the Offeror‘s proposed Performance

Management Plan which details how the Offeror will monitor its contract performance and ensure quality of performance.‖ Can the Offeror include the Performance Management

Plan in an annex to the Technical Proposal and have the Performance Management Plan stand outside of the page count?

USAID Response: The PMP is included in the page limit. The page limit has been increased to

30.

69. In order to enable us to best demonstrate our proposed Innovation Measurement Scale, and because Section L.6 (Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal), states that ―…The Technical Approach section must also contain the proposed award fee structure, i.e., how much fee per successful applicant at the respective stages and the innovation measurement scale identified in Section C,‖ while Section M.3.I describes the evaluation criteria for the Technical Approach (55 points) as how ―How well the proposal fulfills the objectives of the contract and demonstrates an understanding of the Statement of Work, including, but not limited to, the award fee structure and the innovation measurement scale,‖ would the government allow the Innovation Measurement Scale response to stand alone, outside of the page count, in an annex to the technical proposal of up to 15 pages yet still be graded according to the evaluation criteria?

USAID Response: The Innovation Measurement Scale is included in the page limit. The page limit has been increased to 30.

70. In section B.4 Price Schedule, There are no CLINs associated with travel. Will the government include a travel CLIN, and provide a plug travel figure for the base year and both option years for this contract?

USAID Response: Offerors need to include travel related to CLINs 001, 101, and 201 in prices for these CLINs. For STTA orders, please see questions 18a-c.

71. The RFP indicates that the Chief of Party (COP) candidate should have at least 10 years‘ experience working overseas, and by our reading and understanding of USAID‘s

RFP, desires the COP candidate to be relocated to Nairobi. Please clarify if that is the case and if so, will associated costs to support this relocation be reimbursed?

USAID Response: As this is a fixed-price award, the price for CLINs 001, 101, and 201 should include all costs associated with performing the requirements of the SOW unless otherwise covered under the STTA CLINs.

72. As per USAID Forward, the following language applies to every RFP ―1.

Implementation and Procurement Reform. USAID is changing its business processes— contracting with and providing grants to more and varied local partners, and creating true partnerships to create the conditions where aid is no longer necessary in the countries where the Agency works. To achieve this, USAID is streamlining its processes, increasing the use of small businesses, building metrics into its implementation agreements to achieve capacity building objectives and host-country systems where it makes sense.‖ Yet the RFP limits small local Kenyan partners (L.7.C. Part 3, 1 st paragraph: ―…those representing more than 10% of the total price‖) by excluding all their past performance under $5 million. Can USAID please explain how to reconcile these two seeming contradictions? If there is no contradiction, can USAID further clarify how to synergize USAID Forward and the RFP requirements found in L .7.(c). Part 3 Past Performance?

USAID Response: Please see question 56. Section L.7(c) has been amended.

73. How will the Government evaluate short term technical assistance rates (CLIN 003 in section B.4-Price Schedule) to determine if the rates are too high or too low?

USAID Response: Price/cost will be evaluated in accordance with Section M, FAR 15.101-1, and FAR 15.404-1.

74. Will the technical review team assess award fee or award structure?

USAID Response: With regards to the technical evaluation, the technical evaluation committee

(TEC) will not asses any portion of the award fee. See question 123.

75. Will the Government accept annexes to the Technical Proposal?

USAID Response: No.

76. Could USAID clarify who is responsible for developing proposed Stage

Criteria? Section L.6. asks offerors to include proposed criteria in their technical proposal, while Section C.7 and footnote 18 state that USAID will lead criteria development.

USAID Response: Offerors are responsible for proposing stage criteria which will then be negotiated, if necessary, and incorporated into the contract prior to award

77. Offerors‘ award fee is to be tied to the number of innovations that graduate from stage to stage, yet Section B.9 states that the stage criteria will be inserted into the contract at the time of award. Attachment 1 to the RFP broadly defines the stages, but does not provide quantitative criteria against which an innovation would be measured. Footnote 18 and Section C.7 state that USAID will lead the development of graduation criteria, yet Section L.6 states that the offeror must propose Stage Criteria. How can the offeror propose an award fee schedule at the proposal stage for graduation criteria that are not yet known? Will this be negotiated prior to award?

USAID Response: Please see question 76. Offerors are responsible for proposing stage criteria which will then be negotiated, if necessary, and incorporated into the contract prior to award.

78. Could USAID clarify the award fee process?

a. Are we correct in understanding that no award fee is accrued for identifying and making grants to Stage 1 recipients?

USAID Response: Correct.

b. We understand that the award fee pool is determined based on the number of innovations that graduate to the next highest level. FAR 16.401(e)3(iv) appears to require the use of adjectival ratings and associated award fee percentages? Do these apply in the case of KFIE? How? At the award fee invoicing stage, would only a portion of the accrued award fee pool be awarded based on this adjectival system or is it an ―all-or-nothing‖ system based on graduation as presented in the

RFP?

USAID Response: We have changed the contract type to fixed-price incentive fee

(FPIF) for CLINs 001, 002, 101, 102, 201, and 202. The incentive fee is based on the all-or-nothing formula described in Section B.9. The incentive fee is paid for each innovation which meets the next applicable stage criteria according to Section B.9.

79. Is the $10-$15 million estimate mentioned in response to Question 8 of

Attachment 6 applicable to the three year base period or all five years? Likewise, can USAID confirm the $1.2 million GUC fund is for the three year base period?

USAID Response: The figure applies to all five years. The GUC amount is for all five years as well.

80. B.7 references an NTE (not to exceed) amount for CLINS 002, 102, and 202.

Since this section is discussing STTA Ordering, should the correctly referenced

CLINS be 003, 103, and 203? Also, what is the amount not to be exceeded? What portion of the $10-$15 million program should be set aside for STTA Ordering?

(Please be clear whether the portion is for the three year base period or all five years)

USAID Response: See question 79. The referenced CLINs should be 003, 103, and

203. The NTE amount is a ceiling which will be inserted by USAID prior to award.

The amount will be determined prior to award and will be extrapolated from the burdened rates proposed by the successful offeror.

81. For STTA Ordering related to CLIN 003/103/203, will Other Direct Costs be able to be separately budgeted under those CLINS? Or should anticipated ODCs related to STTA Ordering be budgeted in CLINS 001/101/201?

USAID Response: See question 18b.

82. Could USAID clarify who will be ordering STTA against CLINS 003/103/203 and how this process will work? Is this something the project staff manage internally or might USAID order STTA for Stage 2 and 3 recipients?

USAID Response: STTA shall be ordered in accordance with the instructions in Section

B.7. STTA may be ordered for recipients at all stages.

83. If an offeror wanted to provide technical assistance to an innovator by engaging the services of local Kenyan firms or entities, how would we go about doing so? Should this be budgeted in CLIN 001/101/201 or CLIN 003/103/203? If the latter, can USAID provide guidance on how and whether offerors should prepare CLIN 003/103/203 budgets or if the proposed burdened labor rates are all that is required?

USAID Response: USAID expects that the successful offeror will utilize local partners wherever feasible. The labor categories have now been defined in the revised Section

B.6. These categories shall cover all work anticipated under Section C.4 of the SOW.

Offerors are also required to submit the minimum qualifications distinguishing the junior from the senior levels.

84. Could USAID clarify exactly what cost elements should be included in the proposed burdened rates for STTA Ordering? (i.e. salary, fringe, indirect on salary, fee on salary, indirect on ODC, fee on ODC?) Or should we plan to charge fee or indirect on ODCs related to CLINS 003/103/203 separately and outside of the burdened daily rates?

USAID Response: It is ultimately up to the offerors how to construct the fully burdened rates. However, in this context, the term "fully burdened" means a set daily price which includes all costs, e.g. overhead, G&A, and profit. Please see questions 18a-c and 83.

85. The Table in B.4 shows CLINS 001/101/201 as FPAF, yet the Award Fee is to be budgeted separately in CLINS 002/102/202. Could USAID Clarify whether fee should be budgeted as part of CLIN 001 and whether that contract ―type‖ is FFP?

USAID Response: CLINs 001, 101, and 201 may include a base fee. These CLINs are the base items for the FPIF contract type.

86. Could USAID clarify who will manage the relationship with DIV –

USAID/Kenya or the KFIE contractor?

USAID Response: USAID will manage the relationship with DIV and ask the contractor to support as necessary within the guidelines of the contract.

87. May we include an acronym list as part of the technical proposal not counting toward the page limit?

USAID Response: An acronym list is included in the page limit.

88. Section C.2 suggests an illustrative number of Stage 1, 2, and 3, innovations.

Are these the number USAID expects the project to initially support at each Stage or the number USAID expects to graduate to each Stage (i.e. 10 of 24 Stage 1 innovations would graduate to Stage 2)? On a related note, what is USAID‘s anticipated ―failure rate‖ for innovations supported by KFIE? (i.e. How much risk is acceptable to USAID?)

USAID Response: Please see question 24. These are illustrative numbers of what USAID expects could be supported at each stage. USAID understands that supporting innovation is inherently risky, and expects that offerors will present proposals that demonstrate the risk necessary to achieve maximum impact under the program.

89. The degree requirements for key personnel are quite advanced. Would USAID accept candidates with Bachelors‘ degrees and significant relevant work experience in lieu of a Masters or are the degrees listed truly minimum requirements? For example, could an Assessment and Evaluation Specialist who is a PhD candidate but has not obtained his PhD be put forth? How would this affect his evaluation?

USAID Response: With the exception of the Assessment and Evaluation Specialist, a

Bachelor’s degree and 5 years of additional experience may be substituted for graduate degrees for key personnel. For the Assessment and Evaluation Specialist, USAID will accept Ph.D. candidates that have obtained a master’s degree if they have skills and experience that demonstrate that they would be successful in this role on KFIE. Section

C has been amended accordingly.

90. Section K lists a number of representations and certifications. Are the prime and subs responsible for completing these? If so, should we include these as part of the Cost Volume?

USAID Response: Please review Section L on completing the representations and certifications.

91. Could USAID clarify whether Evidence of Responsibility is required from proposed subcontractors? If so, can USAID clarify that the three page limit applies per organization?

USAID Response: Evidence of responsibility does apply to major subcontractors. The three page limit does apply per organization.

92. The RFP encourages collaboration with partners in Kenya and elsewhere. May the offeror submit letters of collaboration from organizations that are not subcontractors but who have agreed to partner with the project in various capacities during implementation? May these letters be included in Part 4 of the

Cost Proposal?

USAID Response: Please do not include letters of collaboration with the cost proposal.

However, if offerors believe that the letters will strengthen their technical proposal, offerors are welcome to include the letters in the technical proposal. If included, the letters will count against the page limit.

93. May graphics be included in an Annex to the technical proposal not counting toward the page limit?

USAID Response: All graphics are counted in the page limit.

94. Given the importance of capacity building of innovations via STTA Ordering, could offerors include as an annex not counting toward any page limit a matrix of illustrative short-term personnel to demonstrate access to the necessary expertise?

USAID Response: These personnel should be included in the labor mix and have fully burdened rates associated with them. The matrix would count towards the page limit.

95. Should 1420s be submitted for Key Personnel as part of the Cost Proposal?

USAID Response: No.

96. The timeline for submission is very tight. Can we request a two week extension of the submission deadline?

USAID Response: Yes and we have extended the deadline to 0800 Nairobi time, April

16, 2012.

97. Should the project budget be based on the illustrative examples on page 10 of

―24 innovations for stage 1, 10 innovations for stage 2, and 4 innovations for stage

3‖?

98. In the frequently asked questions on page 98, question 8 states that the size of the KFIE contract is between $10 - $15 million. However, question 9 states that the forecast for KFIE is $20 - $25 million.