Amendment No. 01 QUESTIONS ANSWERS FOR SOL-615-12-000005.docx

Amendment Number No. 1 to SOL-615-12-000005 - Resilience and Economic Growth in the Arid Lands - Accelerated Growth (REGAL-AG)

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

QUESTION NO. 1 – Our organization has recently lost one of USAID/EA’s RFPs based on best value and price. In that RFP you did not specify how important costs were. Can you please do so in the case of REGAL-AG.

ANSWER

USAID considers cost to be an important part of the overall program, and therefore, has reconsidered its evaluation criteria and Section M to include “Cost” as a scored evaluation factor. Cost will now be evaluated on a 20 point scale (out of 100 total points) and include a review of the Offeror’s overall cost structure, cost efficiency, program vs. administrative costs, and the extent to which it can be determined that programmatic costs reach beneficiaries. Accordingly, Section M of this RFP has been revised and USAID has added a separate worksheet in the revised RFP Budget Template spreadsheet that Offerors must submit with their Cost Proposal. The Section M evaluation criteria have been revised to evaluate proposals on the following point scale: Technical Approach (40 out of 100 points); Key Personnel (30 out of 100 points); Management Plan (10 out of 100 points); and Cost (20 out of 100 points).

QUESTION NO. 2 – Please clarify the authorized geographic code for this procurement?

The authorized geographic code for this procurement is 935.

QUESTION NO. 3 - Would USAID please provide more guidance on the minimum required subcontracting goals, as the link on page 81 does not seem to be accessible? (http://spsinternal.usaid.gov/osdbu/Pages/Goals.aspx)

USAID has amended the RFP to include the most recent, updated link to this information. That link is also provided here for your convenience (http://www.usaid.gov/business/small_business/subcontracting.html).

QUESTION NO. 4 – In responding to the request for past performance information on page 79, is it possible for the Contractor to provide past performance information on Cooperative Agreements as well as contracts, including those that do not meet the $10,000,000 threshold, if they are within the past three years and technically relevant to the areas of livestock value chain improvement and livestock-related economic opportunities?

Offerors are to provide past performance information on all relevant projects so please include assistance as well.

QUESTION NO. 5 – Can USAID clarify the roles to be played in REGAL-AG by USAID Kenya and USAID East Africa, respectively? The Cover Letter of the RFP indicates that REGAL-AG will be contracted out of the USAID/East Africa Mission. However, on page 9, the RFP states that it will be awarded by USAID/Kenya. Both USAID /EA and USAID/Kenya are mentioned as “responsible for project management” on page 28 as well.

REGAL-AG is a USAID/KENYA program and the main point of technical contact is with the Agriculture, Business and Environment Office (ABEO). USAID/East Africa hosts the Regional Acquisition and Assistance Office (RAAO), which is responsible for providing acquisition and assistance services to many of the bilateral Missions in the region, including Kenya. Both offices will work together to administer the resulting contract.

QUESTION NO. 6 – GDA Global Development Alliance (GDAs) principles and mechanisms are referenced on page 17. Does USAID expect that GDAs formed out of relationships built through REGAL-AG will be funded as part of REGAL-AG, or from an alternative funding source? If funded as part of REGAL-AG, is there a set aside, anticipated range or will this be part of the $4,400,000 set aside for subcontracts? (Note: this subcontract set aside value was also referenced in the same paragraph).

This section of the RFP has been revised; however, Offerors are encouraged to use any unique and creative mechanism, partnership or other collaborative effort to meet the requirements of the RFP.

QUESTION NO. 7 – Can USAID confirm if the implementer will be conducting a “gender analysis” (page 17, 3rd paragraph), or a “gender assessment” (page 17, second paragraph).

USAID confirms that the Contractor will conduct a gender assessment. The RFP has been revised accordingly.

QUESTION NO. 8 – Can USAID please clarify what is meant on page 20 by “government is mandated to provide.”

This statement highlights the importance of the Contractor understanding roles and relationships throughout the implementation of the project, including what the GoK provides and where the private sector can apply its expertise.

QUESTION NO. 9 – On page 29 under C.8, the text mentions a "draft one-year workplan." When is this draft one-year workplan to be submitted? If the draft is to be submitted with the full proposal, can it be submitted as an attachment?

The Contractor will be responsible for submitting a draft one-year Workplan 45 days after the signing of the contract. The RFP has been revised to clarify this requirement.

QUESTION NO. 10 – On page 29, the instructions indicate that for each indicator proposed in the Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) a brief narrative should be provided. However, a complete proposed PMP that incorporates such a narrative and the various performance monitoring levels as part of the Management Plan (per the instructions on page 78) will be difficult to provide within the indicated page limits for the Technical Proposal. Can the PMP be provided as a separate attachment instead?

The Contractor will be responsible for submitting a draft PMP 45 days after the signing of the contract. The RFP has been revised to clarify this requirement.

QUESTION NO. 11 – Prevalence of chronic malnutrition (stunting) is identified on Page 12 as an illustrative Intermediate Result indicator under IR 2 Accelerated Growth. Does this imply that nutrition monitoring should be a component of REGAL - AG?

No, nutrition monitoring should not be a component of REGAL-AG.

QUESTION NO. 12 – In addition to supporting market assessment trips, can matching cost-sharing sub-grants be provided to help provide "Start up capital for new businesses" p. 24, Test new and inclusive business models" p. 21, or "Promote existing...or develop innovative financial products, services and delivery channels for the livestock sector" p. 22?

The components of Section C have been revised to further clarify what is required under the program. Offerors are encouraged to use any unique or innovative mechanism, partnership or other collaborative effort to meet the requirements of the RFP.

QUESTION NO. 13 – On page 35, USAID references a Pesticides Evaluation Report and Safer Use Action Plan (PERSUAP). Is the Contractor meant to perform a new report for REGAL-AG or to guide implementation according to those already done in Kenya?

A new PERSUAP must be completed and accounted for in the Offeror’s budget.

QUESTION NO. 14 – On page 46, USAID states that “a six-day workweek shall be authorized only on a case-by-case basis.” Can USAID confirm that a six day work week can be used for short term technical assistance?

As stated in the RFP, a six-day workweek shall be authorized by the Contracting Officer only on a case-by-case basis.

QUESTION NO. 15 – On page 79, past performance is listed as part of the cost proposal. Is the Contractor permitted to submit past performance exemplars as an attachment to the technical proposal?

Past performance information must be submitted in accordance with the instructions in Section L of the RFP. You may, but are not required to, submit exemplars in the Technical Proposal as long as you stay within the page limits in Section L.

QUESTION NO. 16 – Starting on page 104 (Attachment 7), USAID lists 7 sub-IRs pertaining to REGAL-AG. While sub-IRs 2.1-2.5 clearly correspond to REGAL-AG components 1-3, sub-IRs 2.6 and 2.7 found on pages 108 and 109 do not fit clearly into the aforementioned components. Please clarify if USAID intends to include sub-IRs 2.6 and 2.7 in REGAL-AG, and if so, how?

USAID apologizes for the confusion. The RFP, mainly Section C and Attachment 7, have been revised and sub-IRs 2.6 and 2.7 have been removed from the document. Further, the components of Section C have been revised to add further clarity to the program.

QUESTION NO. 17 – On page 25, USAID references the mFarmer Initiative. The link appears to be broken. Can USAID provide an updated link? (http://www.gsma.com/mfarmer/)

Information on the mFarmer Initiative can be found at the following link (http://www.gsma.com/developmentfund/programmes/magri/mfarmer-initiative/). The link has been updated in the RFP.

QUESTION NO. 18 – Can a subcontractor under REGAL-AG team up with a Kenyan for-profit firm to provide services for a specific program component, and at the same time provide capacity building services to the local firm? The intent here is to build the local firm’s institutional capacity so that it could take over service provision from the non-Kenyan subcontractor by the end of the program.

Offerors are encouraged to use any unique or innovative mechanism, partnership or other collaborative effort to meet the requirements of the RFP.

QUESTION NO. 19 – Section C of the RFP notes that REGAL-AG will be part of the US Government’s Feed the Future (FtF) initiative. The Feed the Future Strategy for Kenya that was approved on June 8, 2011 is focused on the HR1 and SA2 areas of Kenya, which do not include an emphasis on livestock value chains. Can USAID expand upon how they envision the livestock focus in the Marsabit and Garissa counties fitting into the FtF strategy?

The FtF strategic zone has been expanded to include the ASAL areas.

QUESTION NO. 20 – In Section C (Page 11) of the RFP, USAID depicts the REGAL-AG Results Framework, and lists three Intermediate Results under REGAL-AG. However, Attachment 7 to the RFP, Illustrative M&E Indicators, lists seven Intermediate Results. Can USAID please clarify which set of Intermediate Results Offerors should utilize?

The RFP has been revised and updated in Section C and Attachment 7. See also Answer to Question No. 16.

QUESTION NO. 21 – In Attachment 7 of the RFP under IR 2.7, USAID notes that an illustrative output indicator will be the use of innovation fund by type of activity. Does this statement refer to a specific USAID innovation fund that the partner will be expected to draw from, or to any proposed innovation fund that offerors may include?

ANSWER

The RFP and all attachments, particularly Section C and Attachment 7, have been revised and updated. See also Answers to Question Nos. 16 and 20.

QUESTION NO. 22 – In Section L.4(e)(2) (page 76), the RFP instructs offeror to complete the "Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors" in Section K for the offer to be acceptable, but the placement of the Section K is not included under L.7 Cost Proposal Instructions. Please confirm whether the completed Section K may be submitted as an annex or "Part 7" of the cost proposal.

ANSWER

Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors shall be submitted as part of the Cost Proposal.

QUESTION NO. 23 – Will USAID allow the following items to be placed in an annex outside of the 30 page limit: a.) The Performance Management Plan (PMP) referenced in Section L.6, Section III, Management Plan (page 78); and b.) A staffing chart and short term technical assistance matrix?

ANSWER

The strict 30 page limit is inflexible and must be adhered to in any response to this RFP. Any and all pages that exceed this limitation, and the limitations set out in Section L of this RFP, will not be provided to the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC). Specifically, however, the requirements for a draft PMP have been revised and it is now required to be submitted 45 days after the signing of the contract (see Answer to Question No. 10). Also, any staffing charts or technical assistance matrices or other documents must be included in the 30 page limit.

QUESTION NO. 24 – Will the following items count toward the 30 page limit: a.) graphics; and b.) an acronyms list?

ANSWER

As we have repeatedly emphasized, this RFP has an absolute 30 page limit. Any and all pages that exceed this limitation, and the limitations set out in Section L of this RFP, will not be provided to the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC). Specifically, any graphics or acronym list would count against that 30 page limit. We do realize that “one picture is worth a thousand words” so graphics that clearly explain or expand upon the Offeror’s Technical Proposal are welcome. Offerors are also encouraged to make use of the acronym list provided in Attachment 9 of this RFP.

QUESTION NO. 25 – Does USAID prefer to see CVs for proposed non-key personnel? If so, will these CVs be counted against the page limit?

ANSWER

Providing CVs for non-key personnel is up to each Offeror. Section L of the RFP has been revised to state that up to five pages total for CVs for all non-Key Personnel may be included and will not count against the strict 30 page limit. You may use all five pages for one individual or may use it for all non-Key Personnel, however, the limit is five pages for all non-Key Personnel.

QUESTION NO. 26 – B.9 Subcontracting (page 8). Indicates that the Contractor will subcontract a minimum of $4,400,000 in order to build local capacity; however, in the RFP there is no mention or reference to Grants Under Contract. Will USAID authorize the Contractor to determine the appropriate agreement mechanism to award in order to deliver the requirements of the REGAL-AG program and to effectively manage subcontractors\subgrantees?

ANSWER

The RFP does not include a Grants Under Contract (GUC) component. As stated in the RFP, Offerors are encouraged, to the extent possible, to work directly with local organizations to meet the requirements of the RFP. Additionally, the subcontract minimum has increased to $8,140,000 and the RFP has been revised accordingly.

QUESTION NO. 27 – C.3 REGAL Implementation Approach. Point 9. Foster innovation and public-private investment partnership (page 17). USAID indicates that the Contractor will promote subcontracts and invest in an illustrative list of entities, which includes “GOK agencies”. Please inform about the nature of any special approval that may be required under the REGAL-AG contract for funding to be awarded as a subcontract (or other funding mechanism) to a Government of Kenya agency.

ANSWER

USAID has revised its Section C.3 Implementation Approach, which further clarifies the role of the Contractor in fostering innovation and local capacity development.

QUESTION NO. 28 – Component 3 – Improving Livestock Productivity and Expanding Livestock –Related Economic Opportunities (paragraph 2, page 23). USAID indicates that the Contractor will collaborate with the implementer of REGAL-IR to conduct market assessments and review economic opportunities. Is the contractor expected to lead and manage all Value Chain research and mapping activities relevant to the expected results for comprehensive REGAL Program (i.e., both REGAL-IR and REGAL-AG)? Could this include relevant, specialized Value Chain work outside of Garissa and Marsabit counties?

ANSWER

The Contractor is meant to work in close collaboration with the REGAL-IR partner, but obviously, would not be responsible for leading and managing REGAL-IR research and mapping activities. Additionally, while a vast majority of the beneficiaries of this project are located in Garissa and Marsabit counties, Offerors are reminded that the program employs a value chain approach which may or may not extend beyond these areas.

QUESTION NO. 29 – L.6. Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal. The instructions for submission do not require Proposals to include SF-1420 biographical data forms and letters of commitment for key personnel. Please confirm that we do not need to submit this documentation as an annex to the technical or cost proposal.

ANSWER

Letters of Commitment for Key Personnel are not required or wanted as part of the Cost Proposal. What we do want is Offerors to include biographical data forms as part of the Cost Proposal as this information assists with the analysis required on the Offeror’s proposed costs.

QUESTION NO. 30 – L.7 (e) Part 6 – Subcontracting Plan requires that the small business subcontracting plan be included in accordance with FAR. USAID has also indicated that a minimum of $4,400,000 be allocated for subcontracts to build local capacity. Please confirm that the subcontracting plan requested is related to establishing goals for subcontracts to U.S.-based small and disadvantaged businesses that receive funds not included in the $4,400,000.

ANSWER

USAID confirms that the subcontracting plan is related to establishing goals for subcontracts to US-based small and disadvantaged businesses in accordance with the FAR. The $8,140,000 is only a minimum requirement for subcontracts under this program. Additionally, USAID prefers that the Contractor work directly with local organizations within these limitations to meet the requirements of this RFP and also build capacity.

QUESTION NO. 31 – Page 7 – Clause B.6 – Multi-Year Contract states that an annual cancellation period is incorporated and that no costs may be amortized over the life of the contract, therefore a $0.00 cancellation ceiling is established. Please note that the FAR citation, FAR 17.106-1(c), provides illustrative costs that could be amortized during an annual period. These include start-up costs, including establishing a facility for conduct of the project (i.e., office lease) or for labor start-up costs (such as relocation costs, severance costs). Furthermore, the FAR clause allows for a set value of a cancellation ceiling based on such reasonable costs as would be identified during negotiations – or a percentage based on awarded line items that would be reduced from year to year. As such, please replace the $0.00 ceiling with a $TBD to be replaced at the time of final negotiations with the awardee.

The “$0” ceiling in Section B.6 has been replaced with “TBD” which will be determined during final negotiations. All Offerors are requested to ensure that a proposed amount is provided in your proposal or we will assume that the “$0.00” is acceptable.

QUESTION NO. 32 – Page 8 – Clause B.8 – Ceiling on Indirect Rates, We object to B.7 “Ceiling on Indirect Cost Rates and Final Reimbursement for Indirect Costs” as there is no regulatory basis for requiring ceilings on indirect cost rates at the proposal stage. We request that this section be deleted in its entirety based on the following authorities:

a) FAR 42.703-1 “Policy” specifically states the Negotiated Rate agreement “shall be binding on all agencies and their contracting offices, unless otherwise specifically prohibited by statute.” USAID has not invoked a statute which states that it is prohibited from accepting a NICRA; therefore, USAID is bound in accordance with this FAR clause to accept NICRA rates.

b) None of the circumstances stated at FAR 42.707(b) “Cost-sharing rates and limitations on indirect cost rates” apply as detailed below:

i. We are not new or recently reorganized company with no past or recent record or incurred indirect costs;

ii. We do not have a recent record of a rapidly increasing indirect cost rate;

iii. We do not seek to enhance our competitive position in this particular circumstance.

c) We have found in USAID’s “Best Practices Guide for Indirect Costing” the following statements and policies which do not support the unilateral authority USAID appears to be exercising of demanding a ceiling on Indirect Cost rates:

i. Indirect costs are applied equitably across all of the business activities of the organization. This would be violated if an artificial re-negotiation of the NICRA were imposed.

ii. Indirect costs…are a legitimate cost of doing business payable under a U.S. Government contract or grant. We agree, and further state that not supporting a fully negotiated NICRA is an illegitimate way of doing business.

iii. “A procurement office may not negotiate a different rate or base of application for an individual cost reimbursement contract or program.”

iv. The Overhead and Special Costs and Contract Closeout Branch (OCC) of the Office of Acquisition and Assistance….is the only office in the Agency with the authority to establish indirect cost rates for the U.S. organizations for which USAID has cognizance.” We believe the Contracting Officer is overstepping his/her authority in this RFP in rejecting a duly authorized NICRA and furthermore this could be viewed as interference with contractual relations and privity of contract we have with USAID under our NICRA.

v. “Only in exceptional circumstances should a cost reimbursement type USAIDcontract or grant contain an indirect cost rate which deviates from the government-wide NICRArates for a U.S. firm.” There are no grounds for the belief that this RFP in any way demonstrates exceptional circumstances.

vi. “Organizations should not be pressured to change the terms of their established NICRA.” USAID’s language in this RFP creates more than simple “pressure” but an actual demand.

vii. The Guide offers a very useful discussion entitled “Indirect costs should not be reviewed as part of any cost effective evaluation criteria.” It goes on to state that “(t)he practice of direct or indirect charging is not an indicator of best value.” As evaluation points are not assigned for cost, there would be no change to the evaluation process of this RFP to remove the offending clause.

ANSWER

FAR 42.707(b) allows Contracting Officers to establish indirect rate ceilings when it is prudent to do so. The circumstances noted in subparagraph b of the question are only examples and are not all inclusive of situations where a ceiling is prudent. The authority allows the Contracting Officer to negotiate an equitable ceiling at the time of award. The Contracting Officer has determined that this RFP is in compliance with the requirements of FAR 42.707 and does not change an Offeror’s established indirect rate.

QUESTION NO. 33 – Page 8 – Section B.9 states that “Contractor shall subcontract at least $4.4 million of the work under this program.” We request that this be expanded to include approval to issue Grants under Contract and assistance instruments, more conducive to building organizational capacity than acquisition (subcontracts).

ANSWER

As stated above, the minimum requirement under the subcontract line item has been increased to $8,140,000. Also, there is no Grants Under Contract (GUC) component in this RFP. Offerors are reminded that local capacity can be built in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to, unique and innovative acquisition instruments.

QUESTION NO. 34 – Page 15 – Clause C.3.4 – Capacity of Local Systems discusses the applicability of USAID FORWARD in strengthening the capacity of local systems, including host government, civil society, and private sector entities. If USAID anticipates that the awardee will provide direct cash acquisition/assistance to these entities, it is requested that all necessary USAID waivers/approvals (i.e. Grants under Contracts, or grants to host government agencies) to issue direct acquisition/assistance to these entities be provided in the RFP or the resulting contract.

ANSWER

All waivers and/or approvals, if necessary, will be completed at the time of award or at any other time deemed appropriate.

QUESTION NO. 35 – Page 21, Component 2 – Improving and Expanding Market Linkages Expected Results, Illustrative Activities….Includes assistance to the GOK of “preventive and curative animal health services.” Page 22, Component 3 – Improving Livestock Productivity similarly lists an expected result “Increase investments in preventive animal health care services….” Has USAID issued waivers/approvals for a list of agricultural commodities and veterinary pharmaceuticals anticipated as restricted goods for use in the REGAL-AG contract?

ANSWER

As stated before, USAID will process all waivers and/or approvals it deems necessary for the administration of the program. Further, a list of approved commodities will be listed in the PERSUAP.

QUESTION NO. 36 – Page 21, Component 2 – Improving and Expanding Market Linkages Expected Results, Illustrative Activities….Includes assistance to the “GOK via cost-sharing grants….” Under ADS 303.3.10.2, Leveraging is preferred when USAID is looking for “resources that third-parties bring to the program without necessarily providing them to the recipient. These parties may include the host government, private foundations, businesses or individuals.” This is especially true since the majority of funds are intended for local organizations, for which cost share might be more onerous than leveraging. The Offeror respectfully requests that USAID allow leveraging to be proposed in lieu of cost share within any grants (under contracts) issued to the private sector and GOK.

ANSWER

Offerors are encouraged to bring any form of resource to the program to enhance impact, reduce duplication and improve efficiency while meeting the requirements of the RFP. Again, USAID does not envision a Grants Under Contract component for this award.

QUESTION NO. 37 – Page 23, Component 3 – Improving Livestock Productivity discusses an illustrative activity of providing “start-up capital for new businesses.” If initial loan capital is expected or allowed, does USAID expect transfer of loan capital to informal structures through formal intangible property transfer? If not, how does USAID expect the transfer of loan capital to be authorized?

ANSWER

As stated above, Section C of this RFP has been revised to clarify the results and illustrative activities under each of the components of the project, particularly Components 2 and 3. USAID felt that Components 2 and 3 needed to be further clarified based on the questions received and have added 2 additional components in order to add a sufficient level of detail to assist Offerors in developing their Technical and Cost Proposals.

QUESTION NO. 38 – Page 26, Clause C.6 Key Personnel indicates that the Value Chain Competitiveness and Inclusiveness Expert "shall be the Deputy COP". Will USAID be flexible on this and allow another technical position to be combined with the DCOP position?

ANSWER

USAID agrees and confirms that the Deputy COP can be any of the other key personnel positions. The RFP has been revised accordingly.

QUESTION NO. 39 – On page 29, Clause C.8 PMP and Illustrative M&E Indicators states "the REGAL-AG Contractor will be required to collaborate with an external evaluation team, to assist in the process of designing a robust, high-quality and efficient M&E system that can adequately support the data needs of USAID/Kenya and a mandatory formal external evaluation process over the life of project." Could USAID clarify how much of the M&E activities (e.g. baseline data collection, mid-term report, etc.) should be included within the proposal budget for REGAL-AG?

ANSWER

While it is correct that there will be outside evaluations, the Contractor will be responsible for all M&E activities (e.g. baseline data collection, mid-term report, etc) under the project and will need to account for them in the budget submitted as part of the Cost Proposal.

QUESTION NO. 40 – Page 34, Clause F.3.5 Environmental Report refers to “IEE for USAID/Kenya’s Feed the Future Project, as approved in June 2009.” Please provide a copy of the approved IEE for review as part of proposal preparation.

QUESTION NO. 41 – Page 34, Clause F.3.6, Financial Report refers to the “Status of the Incentive Fee Pool.” Please clarify this reference since the contract type is a CPFF completion.

ANSWER

The statement “Status of the Incentive Fee Pool” has been removed from the RFP.

QUESTION NO. 42 – Page 53, AIDAR Clause 752.245-70, Government Property – USAID Reporting Requirements incorporates a definition of Non-Expendable Property (NXP) of $500 per unit with a two year shelf life. Please confirm that the A-122 Cost Principles regarding the asset definitions of property will apply to a successful non-profit organization. This definition is a unit cost of $5,000 and a shelf life of one year.

ANSWER

The definition in AIDAR 752.245-70 referenced above defines “non-expendable property (NXP).” The definition alluded to in A-122 defines “equipment.” Offerors are encouraged to know and understand the definitions of both and how they apply to federal acquisitions. The final contract will adhere to all OMB, FAR and other regulatory guidance in effect at the time of award.

QUESTION NO. 43 – Page 77, Clause L.7(b)(1)(i) Proposed costs/Prices General states that the budget template provided with the RFP shall be utilized. May offerors use their own templates that include similar cost elements?

ANSWER

USAID requires that Offerors use the attached revised RFP Budget Template when developing their costs. The RFP Budget Template spreadsheet and all included worksheets are required; however, Offerors may include any additional worksheets that they wish to. Additionally, Offerors are reminded that the RFP Budget Template has been revised (see Answer to Question No. 1).

QUESTION NO. 44 – Page 77, Clause L.7(b)(1)(i) Proposed costs/Prices General states that “the total estimated cost for this program, including fee, shall not exceed $22,000,000 (inclusive of the $4,400,000 mandatory subcontract amount) for the period of performance.” Is the $4,400,000 to be incorporated as a plug number in the proposal?

ANSWER

As stated above, the minimum amount of subcontracts required under this RFP is now $8,140,000. This is a minimum and Offerors can propose any additional funding under this line item that it deems necessary to meet the requirements of this RFP.

QUESTION NO. 45 – Page 77, Clause L.7(b)(1)(ii) Proposed costs/Prices General states that a basis for salaries must be provided. Please provide the current Local Compensation Plan for Kenya including salary and benefits information.

ANSWER

Offeror are encouraged to conduct their own market research to develop the costs of their proposal.

QUESTION NO. 46 – Page 77, Clause L.7(b)(1)(ii) Proposed costs/Prices General states that “a complete breakdown of cost elements associated with each line item and those costs associated with any proposed subcontracts (must be provided).” What level of cost detail for local subcontractors does USAID realistically expect considering the plug of $4,400,000 for the subcontract line item? Detailed pricing is especially difficult in light of the recommendation that exclusive local subcontract agreements are discouraged.

ANSWER

Offerors are encouraged to use their best judgment while developing their cost proposal. USAID needs a sufficient amount of detail to properly evaluate and analyze cost.

QUESTION NO. 47 – We understand that USAID has developed a causal model for similar projects. Would USAID/Kenya like that addressed in the Offeror’s proposal?

ANSWER

This is correct. The RFP has been amended to include more information on the causal model in Section C. Offerors are encouraged to develop their proposal in accordance with the requirements of the RFP.

QUESTION NO. 48 – RAAO recently made an award without discussions. Are your plans to do so again with this RFP?

ANSWER

As you know, USAID reserves the right to make an award without discussions and, therefore, the Offeror’s proposal should be its best Technical and Cost Proposal to meet the requirements of the RFP. If an offer is totally acceptable and there is no need for discussions as per FAR 15, we see no reasons to not make an immediate award.

QUESTION NO. 49 – In reviewing the RFP, it seems that the requirements dealing with market infrastructure could also require some construction related activities to meet the deliverables in Section C. Could USAID please clarify the extent to which construction is envisioned under REGAL-AG.

ANSWER

No, this is not correct. There is no construction envisioned under this project; however, if the USAID/Kenya Mission was to design a construction program, the Contractor would be required to collaborate and work closely with the construction firm on any project(s) deemed necessary by the Mission.

QUESTION NO. 50 – Is it necessary for personnel to be recruited and hired separately for each of the components under Section C?

ANSWER

No, USAID does not expect or want Offerors to propose separate personnel for each of the components of the REGAL-AG project.

[END OF Q&As]