KAVES QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Round 1.pdf

KAVES QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. The RFP cover letter refers to a $16 million “mandatory” subcontract amount, while Section H.5, p.

35 state that the Contractor shall subcontract “at least” $16 million of the work under CLIN 001.

Please confirm that there is no ceiling on the subcontract amount.

There is no ceiling on the subcontract amount.

2. Please confirm that the $16 million set aside for subcontracts may be used for subcontracts (cost reimbursement and/or fixed price), sub-agreements, and/or sub-grants, and may awarded to international, regional, and/or local firms and organizations. If so, would USAID prefer to have all sub-awards listed under one summary line item in the budget, instead of broken out according to the

Budget Template provided in RFP Attachment 15 (which lists Subcontracts under Other Direct Costs, but lists Grants Under Contract separately under Sub-Grants)?

The $16 million is for subcontracts and must comply with the applicable regulations on subcontracts.

Within that framework the contractor can utilize the subcontracts how they best see fit to accomplish the requirements of the statement of work and deliverables. However, priority shall be given to local organizations. It is not mandatory to break out the $16 million.

3. Budget Template, Attachment 15, p 110: Must the Contractor budget Subcontracts and under Other

Direct Costs, or can these be broken out under a separate line item?

The template has been amended to remove the reference to Grants Under Contract (GUCs) and to separate the subcontract line item.

4. Budget Template, Attachment 15, p 110: Please clarify the difference between Direct Short-Term

Labor (listed under Labor) and Consultants (listed under Other Direct Costs).

Offerors are free to adjust the sub-elements of the budget template in order to fit their individual business and accounting practices and procedures, so long as the main elements (i.e. those in capital letters) remain the same. However, offerors are reminded that they must meet the requirements of the

RFP.

5. Budget Template, Attachment 15, p 110: Will USAID allow Supplies and Equipment to be combined under one line item?

Please keep these two items separate.

6. Please confirm that USAID will allow for overlap between the $10 million WASH earmark and the

$16 million for subcontracts. In other words, please confirm that if the Contractor proposes intends to implement WASH activities through a subcontract, the costs associated with those activities will fall under both the WASH earmark and the subcontracting requirement.

Of the $10 million WASH earmark, $4 million is included in the funding range of $35-$40 million but is not part of the $16 million set aside for subcontracts.

7. Section C.4, pp. 16-17: The descriptions of the five Key Personnel positions state that the Contractor shall provide “resident” Chief of Party, Deputy Chief of Party, and managers/experts. Please confirm that by “resident”, USAID means that Key Personnel must reside in Kenya for the duration of the project, but that the Contractor may propose expatriates, TCNs and/or CCNs for these positions.

By resident, USAID means key personnel will be based in Kenya for the duration of the project and offerors may propose expatriates, TCNs, and/or CCNs.

8. Section K.2, p. 52: Under point (a)(1), is the NAICS code for this acquisition 641611, or is it 541, as is indicated on webpage for www.fbo.gov on which the RFP is posted?

The code is 541611 and has been corrected in the RFP.

9. Section K.2, p. 52: Under point (a)(2), is the small business size $7 million or $14 million?

The size standard is $14 million and has been corrected in the RFP.

10. Section L.6, p. 67: Under the Experience section of the Technical Proposal, is it left to the Contractor to determine to what extent experience of proposed subcontractors should be included?

Yes, this is left up to offerors.

11. Section L.7: The instructions for preparation and submission of the Cost/Business Proposal do not include Employee Biographical Data forms. Does USAID anticipate that these will be included for named personnel?

No, though the contractor will be required to comply with AIDAR clause 752.7001.

12. Section L.7: The instructions for preparation and submission of the Cost/Business Proposal do not include Section K Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements. Are certs and reps required for proposed subcontractors? If so, does USAID expect that all subcontractors, including local subcontractors, will complete the annual representations and certifications electronically via ORCA, or may completed individuals representations and certifications be included with the Cost Proposal instead?

Offerors must comply with FAR clause 52.204-7 and complete the reps and certs online. Additional portions of Section K which are not able to be completed online (e.g. Section K.4) may be submitted as Part 7 of the Cost/Business Proposal. Section K is only applicable to offerors.

13. Section L.7(b)(2)(iv), p. 68, states “The offeror shall propose ceilings on their final indirect rates which will be included in Section B.8 at the time of contract award.” In the absence of clear authority from OMB to authorize the blanket use of caps on indirect rates, all NICRA agreements are considered independent contractual agreements between contractor/recipient and the U.S.

Government. Contracting/Agreement Officers do not have the authority to interfere with this privity of contract. In addition, the following statement has been issued by the Office of Overhead and

Special Costs and Contract Closeout Branch (OCC): "Organizations should not be pressured to change the terms of their established NICRA". Please delete Section L.7(b)(2)(iv) from the RFP or amend the language to state that proposing ceilings on final indirect rates is optional and that proposals will in no way be impacted negatively, should a ceiling not be proposed. As no points are given to Cost Proposals for the purposes of evaluation, this change will not impact any other part of the RFP.

We have removed the requirement for indirect rate ceilings, though these may be negotiated prior to award if deemed prudent per the authority of FAR 42.707(b).

http://www.fbo.gov/

14. Section M.3, p.71: Will the evaluation of past performance be based on the information included in the Cost Proposal, or is the offeror expected to include past performance information within the 50-page limit of the technical proposal, as well?

Past performance information is required to be submitted with the Cost/Business Proposal and in accordance with Section L. The evaluation of past performance will be in accordance with Section

M. Please review Section L.7(c).

15. On Page 16, Section C.4. USAID states that “The Contractor shall provide a resident Chief of Party

(COP) for the duration of the contract. “ Can USAID kindly clarify what is meant by “Resident Chief of Party”?

Please see question #7.

16. Can you please expand on the nature of the $16,000,000 mandatory subcontract? Who is destined to receive this subcontract?

a. Local organizations?

b. Regional organizations?

c. International organizations?

d. Independent consultants? The RFP budget template in RFP Attachment #15 shows consultants and subcontracts under other direct costs.

e. Grants? The RFP budget template in RFP Attachment #15 shows consultants and subcontracts under other direct costs.

Please see question #2.

17. Should all of the subcontracts related to the $16,000,000 be established at the proposal stage?

Not necessarily, but the more that can be identified the better.

18. What should be the objective and deliverables for this $16,000,000 plug figure?

Achievement of results stated in the Statement of Work.

19. Can an offeror use part of the USD 16,000,000 for local organization capacity building through a sub contract?

Yes.

20. Could USAID please clarify whether the “end market and chain analyses for selected value chains” mentioned on page. 11 (C.3.1) are referring to the 3 mandatory value chains, the additional value chains to be selected, or all of the above?

All of the above.

21. On P. 66 the RFP states that the cover letter, table of contents and CVs of key personnel (2 pages each) are not included in the page limitation. Can USAID kindly confirm whether each of the following may also be excluded from the page limitation:

a. Additional CVs of non-key staff

b. Skills matrix

c. Org chart

All of the above count against the page limit.

22. Section B.2, the contract type is identified as Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) Completion. In section F.

5, payment of fixed fee is defined by FAR 52.216-8, which is consistent with a CPFF contract type.

It would appear that the inclusion of the fee schedule matrix at F.5 is not consistent with either the

CPFF contract type or the FAR reference re fixed fee as it ties fee to deliverables. Please clarify the contract type.

The contract type is CPFF. FAR 52.216-8 does not preclude tying fee to deliverables and states that

“…payment of the fee shall be made as specified in the Schedule”. In this case, the Schedule states that fee is paid according to Section F.5 and is tied to the deliverables.

23. Please clarify whether the Value Chain Analysis portion of the proposal, worth 15 points in the scoring of the technical approach, should study in depth just one value chain.

Yes, just one value chain.

24. Does USAID envision the use of Grants Under Contract to support upgrading of targeted value chains?

This contract does not have a GUC component.

25. Page 11, Section C.3.1. of the RFP states under the first bullet point: “Select the value chain....or others.” Must the applicant choose at least 2 additional value chains from the following 10 value chains in the list: "Millet, sorghum... sweet potato and Irish potato"; or can the applicant come up with at least two other value chains that are not listed in the suggested 10 value chains?

Yes.

26. Pages 33 and 37 provide different geographic codes. Please clarify the authorized geographic code for this procurement.

The geographic code for this contract is 935. The code mentioned in the clause AIDAR 752.225-70 is the default code if no other code is specified in the contract.

27. Is there an estimated start date?

USAID anticipates awarding the contract within the next 3-4 months. The award date is the estimated start date.

28. Section 5.4 of the RFP outlines the price/cost schedule. Please clarify CLIN 001A “Total estimated costs (ceiling) excluding fee”. Should CLIN 001A include CLIN 001 costs but with the indirect rate ceilings applied?

The requirement for indirect ceilings has been removed. For clarity, the CLIN structure has been slightly amended. There are two CLINs, CLIN 001 and 002. CLIN 001 is the offeror‟s total estimated cost minus fixed fee. CLIN 002 is the total fixed fee.

29. RFP Attachment #15 contains a budget template with a summary that differs from the Price/Cost

Schedule in Section B.4. Should the Price/Cost Schedule be added as a summary to the budget?

Offerors should add in the totals of the proposed budget into the Price/Cost Schedule (i.e. total estimated cost minus fixed fee for CLIN 001 and total fixed fee for CLIN 002). It does not need to be added as a summary to the budget template.

30. Given that the Kenya Horticulture Competitiveness Project (KHCP) has both thematic (horticulture) and geographic overlap with the proposed KAVES project, how does USAID envision the co-existence of the two projects?

The two projects will be complementary; the potential for horticultural expansion in support of both poverty reduction and nutrition objectives under FTF is great.

31. On page 11, Section C.2, can USAID provide some clarity on what is meant by the term „leveraged‟ in the following text, “Increased number of value chain businesses (input suppliers, processors, transporters, post-harvest collection centers, etc… leveraged by KAVES)”?

By “leveraged” USAID means that the implementation of KAVES will afford opportunities for value chain businesses to increase their investment levels in the targeted value chains, i.e., KAVES will be a catalyst for increased private sector investment.

32. Can USAID please confirm that Past Performance information (not in the PPIRS) should be included in the annex of the cost proposal since it appears under the heading for “Instructions for Preparation and submission of the cost/business proposal”?

Yes, please include this information in Part 3 of the Cost/Business Proposal using the provided template in attachment 15.

33. Can USAID please confirm that Letter of Commitment (Subcontractors) should be included in the annex of the cost proposal since it appears under the heading for “Instructions for Preparation and submission of the cost/business proposal”?

Yes, please include this information in Part 5 of the Cost/Business Proposal.

34. Can a draft Performance Management Plan, as referenced in section C.7 be included as an annex, and not count toward the 50 page limit?

Per Section L.6, the performance management plan is part of the required management plan section and does count towards the page limit.

35. Can offerors use less than an 11 point font size for tables and graphics?

Yes. Section L.6 has been amended to exempt tables and graphics. However, all tables and graphics must still be legible and require no magnification.

36. Section H.1. specifies that “the Contractor shall subcontract at least $16,000,000 of the work under

CLIN 001” and Section L.7.(b)(1)(i) states that the estimated cost range for this contract is

$35,000,000 to $40,000,000 “(inclusive of the $16,000,000 mandatory subcontract amount)” for the period of performance. Would USAID kindly clarify if this refers to all subcontracts (international and local) or only to local subcontracts?

Please see question #2.

37. On page 79, Attachment 2: WASH Activities, USAID describes support from the Water earmark of

US$ 2,000,000 annually over the five-year implementation period. Is this in addition to the

Government estimate for the project value of $35-$40 million?

Four million dollars is included in the range of $35-$40 million.

38. On page 86, Attachment 4: Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning, USAID states, “To that end, offerors are required to submit a formal Learning Plan as part of the proposal package.” Is there a preferred format for such a plan and will it count against the technical volume page limit?

Yes, the learning plan should be included but there is no preferred format required. Section L has been amended to include the requirement of submission of the leaning plan according to the requirements of Attachment 4. Attachment 4 has also been amended slightly.

39. In Section L.7.(e) Part 5 (page 69), the RFP requires letters of commitment for sub-contractors. Are letters of commitment for key personnel also required? And, would USAID confirm that they will not count against page limits?

Letters of commitment for key personnel are not required. If they are submitted as part of the technical proposal, they will count against the 50 page limit.

40. In Section F.5. (page 28), USAID lists the following deliverable: “At least 300 value chain businesses, (input suppliers, processors, transporters, post-harvest/collection centers, etc…) leveraged”. Would USAID clarify how the term “leveraged” is defined in this context?

Please see question #31.

41. Would USAID kindly confirm if the following charts and graphics count against the page limit?:

a. PMP indicator list and targets

b. organizational chart

c. chart of collaborating partners

d. acronym lists

e. dividers

f. blank pages

g. graphs

h. charts

i. short-term technical assistance matrix

All of the above count against the page limit.

42. Would USAID kindly confirm if Grants under Contract (GUC)s are permitted in this contract? If so, would the grant funds be included in the $16,000,000 mandatory subcontract amount?

This contract does not have a GUC component.

43. The RFP does not mention USAID‟s 1420 Biodata form. Will USAID require its inclusion in the cost proposal?

The form is not required in the proposal. However, the successful contractor is required to comply with AIDAR 752.7001.

44. Does USAID prefer to see CVs for proposed non-key personnel? If so, will these CVs be counted against the page limit?

Offerors may include CVs of non-key personnel. However, these additional CVs count towards the

50 page limit.

45. Could USAID/Kenya please share the most recent annual reports from the KMDP, KHCP, KDSC, FIRM and relevant USDA agricultural programs?

Reports relevant to this solicitation are available on USAID/Kenya‟s website:

http://kenya.usaid.gov/procurement-opportunities.

46. Would USAID kindly share any completed value chain analyses conducted by USAID/Kenya FIRM with offerors?

47. The Kenya Horticulture Competitiveness Project (KHCP) appears to be operating in the Feed the

Future target zones. How does USAID see KAVES and KHCP collaborating and complementing their activities?

Please see question #30.

48. How does USAID anticipate the horticulture activities under KAVES to function synergistically with those of the KHC program implemented by FINTRAC?

Please see question #30.

49. The RFP uses various terms for the target farmers and yet these terms are not defined in the list of terms at the end of the RFP. For example, the RFP states that: “Target clients are entrepreneurial small and medium producers or businesses up and down the value chain with an interest in developing efficient supply chains.” (page 10). Later in the RFP: “KAVES‟s target population will include the poor and food insecure as well as better-off and more commercially minded farmers and entrepreneurs, who might act as change agents and innovators.” (page 18). Finally, the RFP states that (page 74) “Moving subsistence farmers into commercial agriculture will entail new commercial

(as opposed to social) relationships and networks, new technologies and practices, new knowledge about markets, marketing and contractual arrangements, and perhaps most importantly – incentives for change.” Can USAID please define the precise group of farmers who should be our target for this project? Strategies and activities to reach entrepreneurial farmers will be quite different than those required to reach the poor and food insecure farmers. Indeed, one could argue that reaching entrepreneurial farmers and drawing them deeper into value chain oriented activities will be less intensive and require fewer resources than working with the poor and food insecure and the so-called subsistence farmers. If USAID could offer a definition of these types of farmers so we understand who USAID has in mind, such as those owning 1 hectare or less of land or those owning from 1 to 5 hectares of land, that would be most helpful to us in developing our strategies and activities accordingly.

The goal of the Feed the Future Strategy in Kenya and by extension the KAVES project is to sustainably reduce poverty and hunger in Kenya. The specific project goal for KAVES (found in http://kenya.usaid.gov/procurement-opportunities

C.2) is to increase the productivity and incomes of smallholders and other actors along the value chain, thereby enhancing food security and improving nutrition. USAID expects that KAVES will work with an appropriate mix of farmers in order to achieve this goal. Also, USAID expects that the overwhelming majority of targeted beneficiaries will be people farming on one hectare or less of land.

50. Please clarify the instructions on the number of local organizations to be strengthen so that they are capable of receiving USAID funds directly, such as through a FOG. On page 16 of the RFP, “Develop the capacity of at least 5 local organization‟s management practices and financial systems to allow them to receive direct USAID awards and contracts (e.g. Fixed Obligation Grants) to manage a USAID-funded project that produces results.” Versus this statement: “At least 30 local organizations (NGO‟s, CBO‟s, research institutes, private sector firms, etc…) strengthened and able to sustainably undertake agricultural value chain activities per USAID assessment/evaluation...” (page

28) Later, the RFP states that: “The objective of capacity-building of local private sector service providers, (including producers‟ organizations, trade associations, etc…), however, will not be to train these entities into grant-taking organizations receiving direct USAID grants, but rather to strengthen them to better carry out their work in a sustainable and profitable fashion.” (page 77). We are confused by these three statements. Can USAID please clarify what is the first priority of the strengthening of local organizations? Is it for them to work together more efficiently to manage and cooperate on value chain development? Then, would the second priority be to get the ready to meet

USAID criteria so that they could be funded directly? Finally, is the target a minimum of 5 organizations or is it truly 30?

The first priority for strengthening local organizations is to improve their ability to fulfill their individual organizational mandates, whatever that might be. This is the 30 target. Secondly, USAID expects that by the end of the contract period at least five local organizations of the thirty targeted will have been strengthened to a degree such that they are capable of receiving funding directly from

USAID for activities other than those implemented under KAVES. The two requirements are different, albeit slightly.

51. The RFP states: “At least 500,000 smallholders benefitting from dissemination of improved production and post-harvest strategies.” (page 27). Are these direct and indirect beneficiaries?

They represent direct beneficiaries.

52. WASH: can the targets specified for this activity (page 79) 300,000 mothers and 550,000 rural households – be among the 500,000 smallholders targeted under the agricultural value chain activities?

Yes, the reason for including WASH as part of this solicitation is to ensure that WASH services and benefits can be made available to the targeted smallholder farmers and their households to the largest extent possible. However, the nutrition and WASH targets are not meant exclusively to cover smallholder farmers but their benefits can also accrue to populations residing in the targeted Feed the

Future geographic zones.

53. Please clarify whether or not the offerer is required to target a specific number of smallholders per value chain value chains? If yes, could USAID provide a breakdown of the 500K smallholders targeted by value chain?

This is up to offerors. Offerors are encouraged to propose the number of smallholders by targeted value chain.

54. On pages 76-77 (Attachment 1) of the RFP, USAID highlights a recent assessment undertaken for

USAID/Kenya by the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition, utilizing their Rapid Assement Design

Tool to assess and identify “nutrition opportunities and obstacles along the agricultural value chains” and investigate “private sector entities which have potential to stimulating greater production of high quality complementary foods.” Will the Mission make the findings of this assessment available to all bidders?

55. In Attachment 1, page 74, the RFP states, “To advance food value chain competitiveness, KAVES will use USAID‟s value chain approach, as presented above in C.1.2.” There is no section C.1.2 in the

RFP. Could the Mission please provide the referenced value chain approach in an amendment of the

RFP?

Please refer to http://microlinks.kdid.org/. The reference to Section C.1.2 has been removed.

56. In Attachment 1, page 73 of the RFP, USAID indicated that Component 4 of the KAVES project relates to Objective 3 of the Mission‟s Feed the Future Strategy. Nowhere in the RFP or in the

USAID/Kenya Feed the Future Strategy document is there any discussion “Objective 3.” Could the

Mission please provide more information to this objective and how it fits into the Mission Goal of

Sustainably Reducing Poverty and Hunger in Africa?

Please refer to Section C.2; the objective referred to is Objective 3 of the KAVES project.

57. On page 37, the RFP lists authorized geographic code for procurement of goods and services under this contract as 935. On page 34, the authorized source for procurement is listed as “Geographic

Code 937 unless otherwise specified in the schedule of this contract.” Which is correct geographic code to adhere to in this contract?

The geographic code for this contract is 935. Please see the answer to question #26.

58. Please confirm that the offeror is not required to contribute any portion of the $2,000,000 annually allocated for WASH activities under their budget proposal and that these funds will come 100% from

USAID‟s earmark?

Offerors are not required to contribute any portion of the $2 million. See answer to question #37.

59. Page 6, 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.

We have replaced the figure with TBD. The figure will be negotiated with the apparent successful offeror.

http://microlinks.kdid.org/

60. Page 7, Clause B.8 Ceiling on Indirect Costs (and Page 68, Clause L.7(b)(2)(iv)); we recommend

USAID reconsider B.8 “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 USAID contract or grant contain an indirect cost rate which deviates from the government-wide NICRA rates 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.

We have removed the requirement for indirect rate ceilings, though these may be negotiated prior to award if deemed prudent per the authority of FAR 42.707(b).

61. Page 11, Results. The second and third bullets refer to “Increased Productivity” and “Increased

Yield,” which are duplicative. Please remove one.

Agreed; USAID is focused on increasing smallholder farmer productivity. The reference to “yield” has been removed.

62. Page 11, Clause C.3.1 General Contract Requirements, horticulture is listed as one of the mandatory selected value chains that the contractor must work in.

a. The Offeror is familiar with an existing horticulture program active through 2015 in the same geographic regions in Kenya as solicited in the RFP. Will USAID expand upon its vision of collaboration between the two projects to avoid overlapping resources and objectives?

b. Does USAID intend for KAVES to focus on different specific crops in the horticulture value chain? If so, please identify the specific crops.

See answer to question #30 above for 62a. For 62a and b, KAVES is designed to be a collaborative project, and offerors are reminded of the requirements of Section C.6 of the Statement of Work and the requirement to address this in Section L.6.

63. Page 11 and Page 18, Page 26 Baseline Assessment. Page 11 states the baseline must be conducted in the “first six months” of the contract, while page 18 states “the final baseline survey to be conducted during the first 30 days after the signing of the contract.” Page 26 also states “must undertake and deliver a baseline survey no later than 180 days after contract award.” Please confirm that the baseline will be undertaken and delivered no later than 180 days after contract award.

The baseline survey is due no later than 180 days after award. The date referenced on page 18 is in regards to the methodologies to be used in the baseline survey, which will need to be reviewed and approved by USAID within the first 30 days of the contract.

64. Page 12 and 18: Annual Workplan. Page 12 indicates that after the End Market and Chain Analyses are complete (after 120 days), “approved interventions shall be reflect in the yearly workplan.” Page

18 indicates that the first workplan is due “60 days after contract signing”. Does USAID prefer the first annual workplan prior to the End Market and Chain Analyses? Will the contract be able to revise the first annual workplan after this analysis is completed and approved by USAID?

USAID will review and approve the annual workplan prior to the completion of the End Market and

Chain Analyses; however, the workplan will be subject to revision depending on the results of these analyses.

65. Page 19, Clause C.7 Performance Management Plan and Evaluations calls for a PMP to be submitted as part of the proposal. Is USAID working with another organization to collect health and nutrition indicators for the same project areas? If so, are there available indicators and results that USAID can provide?

Please refer to the FTF Handbook Indicators and Definitions to be found at the USAID/Kenya‟s website: http://kenya.usaid.gov/procurement-opportunities. The KAVES project will need to collect nutrition data relevant to the activities it is implementing. Furthermore, collection of health and nutrition data will be a collaborative effort between KAVES, implementing partners of

USAID/Kenya‟s Office of Population and Health, the Tegemeo Institute and the Ministry of Health.

66. Page 26, Clause F.4.6, Baseline Survey; defines the baseline survey. Will the Offeror be required to include the Women‟s Empowerment in Agriculture Index as part of the baseline, or will USAID be conducting this separately?

The offeror will include components of the Women‟s Empowerment in Agriculture Index in their

Baseline Survey and project implementation activities. Please refer to USAID/Kenya‟s website:

67. Page 27, Clause F.5 Delivery and Fee Schedule; this clause assigns annual goals for the overall indicators and the fee that will be paid upon completion of the annual goals.

a. The Offeror is concerned that while the indicators themselves are fair representatives of the outcomes, some of the percentages seem too aggressive and may have a negative impact on

Kenya‟s competitiveness within the regional and globally. Please confirm that specific percentages in the indicators are illustrative and final percentages will be agreed upon between the implementer and USAID as part of the final contract.

b. The Offeror notes that the distribution of fee weights the majority of the distribution in the final three years of the contract. In particular, no fee distribution is projected in Year 2. This seems an unreasonable distribution of fee which is intended to offset some risks of implementation, which occur throughout the performance. In addition, the implementer incurs the greatest risk in the first year due to the high levels of procurement and LOE required for program start up.

For 67a, the percentages are realistic and firm targets to plan for achieving results within a five-year period. The contractor will be able to receive the fee earlier than year 3 if the deliverables are met earlier. Since this is a CPFF contract, the cost risk is mainly born by the Government, not the contractor since the contractor is entitled to be reimbursed for all allowable costs.

68. Page 44, Clause I.1. AIDAR 752.245-70. 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.

The A-122 principles define “Equipment”, not “Non-expendable Property” using the above definition. The AIDAR clause does not change the definition of the principles, only requires that non-expendable property be reported on as required by the clause. In this case, the AIDAR clause definition for non-expendable property shall be utilized for this contract.

69. Page 44, Clause I.1, AIDAR 752.7007 states that personnel compensation may follow Offeror‟s established policy. The Offeror requests that the Mission provide the current Local Compensation

Plan including the FSN scale for Kenya to facilitate the compliance with USAID regulations concerning local staff salaries.

The local compensation plan has been included as an attachment to the FBO notice.

70. Page 66, Clause L.6 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal states that technical proposal, including prescribed sections, are limited to 50 pages. For instance, a typical value chain assessment may be more than 50 pages in itself. Given the complexity of the prescribed sections, will

USAID consider allowing Offerors to include the prescribed sections and other supporting sections as annexes outside of the 50 page limitation?

Offerors may submit annexes, but they will count towards the 50 page limit.

71. Page 66, L.6 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal states that CVs of key personnel are not included in the page count and are limited to 2 pages each. Will USAID allow additional non-key personnel CVs in addition to the five key personnel to be included in the proposal submission?

Please see question #44.

72. Page 79, Attachment 2: WASH Activities, states that the WASH component under KAVES will be expected to be supported with funds from the Water earmark of US $2,000,000.00 annually over the five-year implementation period. Page 10: Component 3 is stated to be 15% of the total effort of the project. Could USAID clarify the amount of funds from the water earmark that will be devoted to

KAVES? Please also clarify whether all of Component 3 is to be funded by the water earmark. For example, nutritional messaging around complementary feeding is an activity under component 3 but is not a WASH activity and therefore would not qualify for funding under the water earmark.

Four million dollars is included in the Government‟s estimate of $35-$40 million for the implementation of “non-construction” WASH activities. Nutritional education is not funded from the

WASH earmark.

73. Page 107, Attachment 15: RFP Budget Template KAVES, includes a line item for Grants Under

Contracts, and Attachment 14 List of Acronyms includes GUC. Please confirm that USAID will incorporate the Grants under Contracts authorization in the final KAVES contract.

This contract does not include a GUC component. The template has been amended.

74. Can USAID clarify how KAVES capacity building activities might collaborate/integrate with the anticipated AIIM-Assist program?

The offeror is expected to collaborate with all relevant activities whether they be supported by

USAID/Kenya or USAID/East Africa. Please see Section C.6.

75. For the Horticultural Value Chain, can USAID clarify what the intersection will be with KHCP? Will

KAVES be looking at Horticulture under Component 2 only?

See answer to question #30. Horticulture is relevant to all four components.

76. On page 68, under Past Performance (Section L.7 (c) ), it is unclear whether Cooperative Agreements can be included in past performance information or if past performance information is limited to information on Contracts the offeror and our major subcontractors have been awarded and implemented. Please clarify.

Past performance information should only be included for contracts.

77. Can offerors submit CVs or other documents (matrices or short bios) of non-key LTTA personnel and anticipated STTA personnel as an Annex?

Offerors may submit these additional materials as part of the technical proposal, but they will count against the 50 page limit.

78. Are bidders restricted from exclusive agreements with candidates?

USAID highly discourages the use of exclusive agreements as it does not allow Kenya or USAID to obtain the best services.

79. In Section C.4 on p.17, USAID defines 3 Managers/Technical Directors for Major Value Chains and/or Technical Component as Key Personnel. The first paragraph under this position title allows for flexibility in how the offeror defines these positions as "experts for the major value chains and/or technical components". However, the minimum qualifications for these positions all require experience in value chain development and demonstrated success in implementing value chain projects, thus limiting the offeror's flexibility in defining the key personnel. To allow the offeror to propose candidates that might have relevant experience in Component 3 or 4, would USAID consider revising the first and third bullets under minimum qualifications as follows:

10 years' international experience in the technical area of management responsibility.

Demonstrated success in implementing projects relevant to proposed area of expertise.

No, because the project is majority value-chain oriented, key personnel will reflect that fact.

80. Minimum qualifications for the Chief of Party allow for a Bachelor's degree and additional experience as an alternative to a Master's degree. Since candidates with a strong private sector background often do not have an advanced degree, can the minimum Master's degree requirement be offset by longer work experience for the DCOP and Managers/Technical Directors as well?

No, please abide by the required minimums.

81. Section L.7 B(1)(ii) of the RFP (page 67) indicates that in the budget narrative “Under Other Direct

Costs, international travel should be identified separately and broken down by destination, number of trips, and number of travelers.” If it is an offeror‟s practice to account for the assumptions of

International Travel under the “Travel & Transportation” section of the narrative, may offerors explain these assumptions under “Travel & Transportation” per their typical practice?

The section has been amended to allow offerors to discuss travel according to their typical practices.

Please review Section L.7(b)(1)(ii).

82. The “RFP Budget Template KAVES”, which is an attachment to the RFP, has only two line items under “Other Direct Costs” for subcontracts and consultants; however, there are more cost elements we would like to include such as: program support costs, social charges, DBA, project activities, etc;

that are also traditionally included under “Other Direct Costs.” May offerors add the other line items to this cost element of the “RFP budget template KAVES” under ODCs?

Please see question #4.

83. Can USAID confirm that annexes beyond the 50 page limit to include information such as CVs for non-key personnel, PMP indicator tables, etc. are not allowed?

These items are allowed. However, they do count towards the page limit. Please see question #44.

84. Section H.2 on page 33 of the RFP states that the authorized source for procurement is Geographic

Code 937. However, Section H.8 on page 37 states that the authorized geographic code under this contract is 935. Please clarify the geographic code associated with this contract.

Please see question #26.

85. Is SOL-615-12-000006, Kenya Agriculture Value Chain Enterprises, a new procurement or a follow-on to previous work? If it is a re-compete, could you please provide the incumbent name, contract number, contract award dollar amount, and period of performance dates?

This is a new award and not a re-compete.

86. Section C.6.4 Coordination of Construction Activities, states that the contractor is required to notify

USAID when construction activities are identified. Is the funding for construction activities included in the provided funding range of $35-$40 million?

Construction funds for agricultural-related infrastructure and WASH activities are set-aside and not included in the provided funding range.