Q&A_-_Final.pdf

RFP # SOL-615-17-000006 USAID/Kenya and East Africa Kenya Investment Mechanism (KIM) Activity Questions and Answers

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # SOL-615-17-000006

Kenya Investment Mechanism (KIM) Activity

SOLICITATION QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES

Dear Offerors, We thank you for submitting questions in response to the referenced Request for Proposals (RFP). We are providing our responses to the questions as follows. The response to each question is in blue font immediately following the question.

A revised RFP incorporating some of the changes resulting from responses to questions is posted along with this document. Changes will be highlighted for ease of reference.

Note: The following link is provided to a Request for Information (RFI) recently published on Grants.Gov that ties into the KIM award: https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=294206. Offerors are encouraged to review this RFI when preparing their proposals as the two activities are linked.

Questions and Answers

1. One could imagine a scenario in which a lawsuit might be brought against the USAID KIM implementing partner by either investors or SME recipients of financing and business advice, as a result of the normal implementation of the KIM project. Will USAID give the implementing partner a waiver regarding any possible liabilities, especially concerning any investment risk?

USAID will not consider granting a waiver regarding liabilities. USAID has in the past supported capital mobilization without waivers.

2. Section L.6, P.86. Under the heading titled “Partnerships with key players in the finance, agriculture and clean enery sectors as well as county government,” the below paragraph asks the offeror to demonstrate how it will critically engage with country governements [sic]. Can USAID please clarify if you intent to say “country” or “county” governments?

We apologize for the typographical error. This should say “county” governments, and this has been updated in Amendment #1.

3. In Section B.4 (Page 5), please confirm that CLIN 005 can be re-titled “Indirect Cost,” to conform with the organization’s typical cost structure?

https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=294206 https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=294206

USAID confirms that CLIN 005 may be renamed to match with respective organizational cost structures.

4. Section F.4 (Reports and Performance Objectives, Page 20) goes from “8. Subcontract Reporting” to

“11. Close-out and Disposition Plan” on page 20. Please confirm that this is a typographical error, and that no required reports are missing.

We confirm that this is a typographical error, and the error has been revised in the Amendment #1 version of the RFP posted on www.fbo.gov.

5. In Section F.7 (Page 25), the Chief of Party’s minimum requirements include an advanced graduate degree in a related field of study. Please confirm that five additional years of professional experience in a related field can be substituted for the graduate degree.

USAID has no objection to this, and the RFP has been updated to reflect this.

6. Section L.6(d)6b (under PWS, Section 6-Page 88) directs Offerors to submit the narrative summary of the Offeror’s use of small business concerns, as well as the eSRS list and the SB references.

Section L.6(d) (under the Annex instructions-Page 90) refers only to the eSRS list and the SB references. Please confirm that all information relating to the Offeror’s past use of small business concerns should be placed in the annex.

We confirm that all information related to the Offeror’s past use of small business concerns should be placed in the annex.

7. Section L.7 (Page 90) states “Offerors must indicate the dates that each key personnel candidate is available to start work full-time with the project." Please confirm that this can be stated in terms of the number of days after contract award.

We confirm that when each key personnel candidate is available to start work full-time with the project may be stated in terms of number of days after contract award.

8. Section L.7. (Part 4, Item 5.A, Page 92) states “Biographical Data Sheets are required for all long term, short term expatriates and for all short term and long term cooperating country personnel being proposed.” However, Section L.7. (Annexes, Page 96) gives the title of the Cost Volume’s Part 10 as “Employee Biographical Data Sheets for Key Personnel.” Please confirm that Biographical Data Sheets are only required for Key Personnel.

The text under this section has been modified as follows:

“(A) Labor- Salaries and wages must be proposed in accordance with the Offeror’s personnel policies. Unit costs for each proposed position, key or not, must be expressed in an amount per work day with the corresponding level of effort required for the position (number of workdays) and then calculated to a total cost for each cost period where the salary would be applicable.

Biographical Data Sheets must be provided for all key personnel, consultants, and other short-term and long-term professional positions (this does not include administrative positions such as secretaries and drivers) expected to perform on the contract. However, Offerors must justify the http://www.fbo.gov/ salaries for positions for which Biographical Data Sheets are not provided. USAID reserves the right to request for Biographical Data Sheets to support proposed salaries.”

We hope this clarifies.

9. Would USAID/KEA please provide the most recent version of the Local Compensation Plan?

The local compensation plan (LCP) is considered sensitive but unclassified information, so while we cannot share it, we will provide you with the range of salaries in the Kenya LCP as follows:

Lowest FSN-3: KES 787,218 per year (base salary) Highest FSN-13: KES 12,809,600 per year (base salary)

10. For budget purposes, please confirm that KIM’s anticipated start date is October 1, 2017.

We confirm that the anticipated start date of the award is October 1, 2017.

11. With regard to Section J.2 (Page 108): in terms of how contractors would count ‘funds mobilized’ under KIM, we assume that:

• DCA-guaranteed loans would be counted when the loan can be clearly attributed to KIM efforts, or a new DCA program/product has been directly facilitated by KIM.

• Loans made without any material assistance from KIM would not be counted.

Please confirm that our assumptions above are correct.

The above assumptions are correct.

12. Attachment J.1 (Section 6.E, Page 113) states "USAID requires that offerors not stipulate exclusive arrangements with sub-partners." Please confirm that this prohibition also applies to personnel.

We confirm that this prohibition also applies to personnel.

13. The most recent publicly-available evaluation of Kenya’s DCA portfolio that we have been able to locate is dated August 2013. If a more recent evaluation has been performed, could USAID please provide it?

Offerors should continue to check the DEC and relevant USAID DCA webpages for updates to public documents. Any new documentation would become public as completed and approved for public disposition by the agency.

14. Can USAID please share the latest quarterly reports and work plans for the KAVES, REGAL, FTF projects, as well as AVCD? We have been unable to locate these reports on the DEC.

USAID is following with implementers to the greatest extent possible to ensure their submissions to the DEC are complete as required by their agreements. Please continue to monitor the DEC (https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/home/Default.aspx) for updates.

https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/home/Default.aspx

15. J.1.4. (SOO, Section 4, Background-Page 108) states that the KIM activity will include “A pay-for-performance/pay-for-results incentive mechanism for the prime contractor, as well as subcontractors, with the primary metric being evidence of disbursement of additional financing (both equity and debt) for targeted investment.” But the framework for award fee evaluation in Section B.8 suggests progress towards a wider range of indicators—many of which are unweighted.

Can USAID please confirm that the contractor may propose their own metric and weighting for determination of the award fee?

The instruction in Section B.8 of the RFP has been amended to clarify USAID’s intent. The award fee shall be made to the Contractor in increments and/or for targets/milestones to be determined. The Contractor is to propose the increments and/or targets for award fee evaluation, payment amount and schedule.

16. Regarding Attachment J.2 (Page 115): Please confirm that Offerors may use their own budget template, provided it incorporates all components of the RFP’s template and meets all requirements in Section L.

Offerors are free to use their own budget template, as long as it meets all the requirements of Section L.7, and incorporates all components of the template in J.2.

17. Please confirm that only a Year 1 Workplan is required, per the template in Attachment J.3 (Page

118).

Only a Year 1 Work Plan is required per the template in Attachment J.3 with submission of a proposal. However, the same template must be used for submission of subsequent Work Plans, unless otherwise directed by the Contracting Officer and the Contracting Officer Representative.

18. Attachment J.6 (Page 120) contains a note that reads “Below is an example of PPI request form for inclusion in the solicitation’s instructions to offerors to simplify the submission and evaluation of PPI. The form is not required if the below information is available in the Government past performance systems” (emphasis added). Please confirm that Offerors should only submit PPI forms for projects that are not available through PPIRS.

We confirm that this form is not required if the information is available in PPIRS.

19. As we develop our investment mobilization targets, can multiple financial transactions to the same firm be counted towards our total target? For example, if a firm takes a $25,000 loan in Year 1 that is fully repaid and then takes out another $25,000 in Year 2, would this count as $25,000 in investment mobilized or $50,000?

Yes, the Year 2 loan is considered an additional investment.

20. Section F.7.1, on page 25, discusses requirements for the Chief of Party. The minimum education and experience requirements for the chief of party potentially reduce the available talent pool to USAID for KIM. Would USAID consider revising the qualifications to allow a flexible combination of education and experience in lieu of the RFP’s current requirement for 15 years of experience plus an advanced degree? For example, would USAID consider 10-12 years of experience plus an advanced degree sufficient, or 15 years of experience without an advanced degree?

See the response to Question 5.

21. Section F.5, on page 21, outlines the delivery schedule for reports and performance objectives. Our interpretation is that the Award Fee will be calculated based on an evaluation of the timely delivery of the various reports listed in this table, not progress towards strategic objectives such as the value of investment mobilized. Would USAID please confirm this assumption?

See the response to Question 15. Section B. 8 has been amended in the RFP to clarify USAID’s intent with regards to the award fee.

22. Section L.7.5(a), on page 92, calls for salaries and Biographical Data Sheets for all staff proposed.

However, section L.7.10 calls for Biographical Data Sheets for key personnel only. Would USAID please confirm that Biographical Data Sheets are only required for key personnel?

Please see response to Question 8.

23. Section L.6.7 on page 90 states that Annex 4: Small Business Subcontracting Plan, shall be placed as an annex to the technical proposal. As this annex typically includes cost-related information, would USAID consider including it as an annex to the cost volume?

Thank you for pointing this valid issue out. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan must be submitted along with the cost volume. The RFP has been updated through Amendment #1 to reflect this. However, USAID is still imposing the 5 page limit on the Plan.

24. Section L.6.7 on page 90 describes the organizational charts of Annex 1. Would USAID please clarify the difference between the organization chart and the “third chart” described as a staffing plan with titles and names of the activity team?

Section L.6.7 of the RFP has been updated to clarify this requirement. Only a staffing plan, rather than a staffing plan and organizational chart, will be required.

25. We noticed that the RFP lacked language authorizing grants under contracts. Would USAID be open to including grants under contracts for this RFP?

No, this RFP does not include a Grants under Contract component. USAID does not anticipate amending the solicitation to include one at this time.

26. Could USAID kindly confirm whether a six-day workweek is authorized for short term technical assistance?

The USAID Administrative Contracting Officer will determine on a case-by-case basis whether a specific request merits a six-day work-week post-award.

27. Would USAID kindly consider removing the IT clauses related to USAID financed third party websites, cloud computing, electronic and information technology accessibility, and use of information technology found in H.23, H.27, H.28, H.29 of the RFP? As broadly written USAID policies, and not regulations, it is difficult to accurately gauge their scope and cost, which could result in adding unnecessary expenses to offerors’ cost proposals.

These clauses are required per AAPD 16-02, and cannot be removed. The guidance is available here: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/aapd16_02_01.pdf, and prescribes which of the clauses are applicable.

28. The proposed special provision H.29 (Cloud Computing) imposes significant new and costly record keeping protocols, many of which appear to apply regardless of whether records are stored in a cloud environment. We are unclear regarding the scope of the information covered by this requirement. Should USAID decide not to remove this clause from the RFP, could it please provide further clarification regarding what is considered “government data” and “government-related data”? Likewise, could USAID please clarify whether the requirements apply to field operations as well as home office record keeping?

Kindly reference the RFP. The definitions included with the clause provide guidance on what constitutes “Government Data” and “Government-Related Data.”

29. The requirements for the Chief of Party include “proven leadership in the administration of similar size international donor support programs with skills in strategic planning, management, supervision and budgeting.” Could USAID please confirm that leadership of this description could be met with roles as a Chief of Party/Project Director, Component Leader on an international donor support project where the candidate has these responsibilities, or a Deputy Chief of Party?

USAID confirms that this is the case.

30. The requirements for the Deputy Chief of Party (DCOP) include 5 years (10 preferred) of experience with “successful finance sector projects” and on “projects of similar magnitude and complexity”.

Would USAID revise the requirement for the DCOP to allow for a broader skillset, such as demonstrated success in the financial sector in areas of relevance to KIM?

We have no objection to this request, and have revised the RFP accordingly.

31. On page 90, under Annex 2: Resumes of Proposed Key Personnel, the RFP indicates that “USAID will review the bio-data sheets to determine if the proposed key personnel meet the minimum RFP requirements.” Can USAID please confirm this should read “USAID will review the CVs/resumes to determine… “and similarly confirm that bidders should not include bio-data sheets in the technical proposal?

The text has been corrected to indicate that USAID will review the CVs/resumes. The solicitation has also been amended to confirm that bidders should include bio-data sheets with their cost proposal submission, not the technical proposal.

32. On page 90 under L.6.7, the RFP indicates that bidders are required to include letters of commitment for proposed key personnel that include “the dates that each key personnel candidate is available to start work full-time with the project.” As it is difficult to anticipate when KIM would be awarded and therefore include the dates when each key personnel candidate would be available, would USAID instead allow bidders to include the availability, expressed in number of days after https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/aapd16_02_01.pdf award, for each proposed key personnel candidate would be able to start work full-time with the project?

See the response to Question 7.

33. Would USAID please provide a KES-USD exchange rate to be used by all bidders for the cost proposal to allow USAID to evaluate cost proposals utilizing the same currency exchange assumptions?

USAID recommends using US$ 1 – KES 103.5.

34. On page 17 under F.4 the RFP states “Within thirty (30) days after the Team Leader's commencement of work in Kenya, the Contractor will submit and finalize with input from the COR, a work plan for year one”. On page 21 under F.5 the RFP indicates the Annual Work Plan due date to be 60 days after award. Will USAID please confirm the year one work plan?

It is clarified that the due date of the draft Work Plan is due 30 days after award.

35. May the offeror include in its proposal a brief transmittal letter that does not count against the 30-page limit?

The executive summary page may be used to include the information in a transmittal page, and does not count against the 30-page limit.

36. On page 111 of the RFP (in the SOO), USAID states that “KIM’s performance will be predicated on a

Measurement, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) plan…” Will USAID please confirm that this MEL plan is the same as the Activity Monitoring & Evaluation Learning Plan (AMELP) referred to in sections L and M?

The RFP has been amended to clarify this language. All references to the MEL have been replaced with the AMELP.

37. Section F.7 page 26: The key personnel description for the Financial Services and Investments

Adviser on page 27 includes responsibilities such as “delivers professional investment services to partners”. Could USAID please clarify that under KIM, neither USAID nor the contractor will provide investment advice regarding specific projects or investment opportunities; make any representations regarding expected financial returns or project valuations; or assume any fiduciary responsibilities with regard to any actual or potential investors?

Adviser provides advice in the same ways USAID does TA support, and there will be no fiduciary responsibilities.

38. Page 107 Footnote 1: The definition of “private sector capital” in footnote 1 on page 107 suggests that KIM is primarily focused on financing capital expenditures such as equipment purchases and construction. Could USAID clarify to what extent (if at all) KIM should also focus on making available additional private capital to finance operational expenditures in agriculture and clean energy?

Mobilization of private capital refers to working with financial institutions and other private sector players in agriculture and renewable energy to finance operational and capital expenditures in the subject sectors.

39. Could USAID provide additional guidance regarding the types of contractual arrangements that will be permissible to create a “pay for performance/pay-for-results incentive mechanism” (page 109) for both the prime contractor and subcontractors, and how this incentive mechanisms relates to or complements the award fee? Similarly, how would “incentive fees to participating financial institutions” be structured under this CPAF contract?

Please note that the incentive structure/mechanism for the prime contractor is self-explanatory as this is a CPAF contract. Please propose the incentive structure for your subs.

40. Section F.4 Page 18: Would USAID please clarify the distinction between the indicators noted on page

18 under 2. Adaptive Management Plan (AMP);

“As a part of the initial work plan, the Contractor shall provide an AMP that allows for documenting implementation progress against specified performance indicators and related targets and benchmarks. The AMP will include indicators for the overall performance period as well as for each year. Appropriate consideration/indicators for youth, gender and environment are required. The Contractor will utilize performance indicators to measure the results for each project components and establish baseline measurements to assess the impact of proposed interventions as well as data sources and collection methods”

The offeror must integrate proposed indicators with the AMP to ensure learning and adapting.

41. Section F.3: Would USAID please clarify the distinction between the indicators noted on page 18 under

3. Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (AMELP)

“The Contractor will develop an AMELP that describes how USAID and the Contractor will monitor progress towards the results and use the information to make mid-course adjustments.

At a minimum, the AMELP will identify appropriate activity standard and custom indicators for each level of the results framework, show data sources, and describe how data will be collected/collated/acquired, analyzed, and presented to regularly inform performance.

The plan will identify core indicators for every result and intermediate result/outcome, and provide preliminary five-year performance indicator targets for these core indicators. Once awarded, the contractor will be expected to undertake baselines for relevant indicators and set final targets. The AMELP will effectively track activities’ inputs, outputs, and achievement of performance outcomes over the contract’s life. The AMELP will also describe the data management process and how the monitoring and evaluation function will be structured including key M&E personnel.”

The offeror must integrate proposed indicators with the AMELP.

42. Section B.4 Page 5 of 165: USAID is contemplating an award of Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) Contract.

Pursuant to FAR 16.405-2 it allows Contracting Officers to establish a fixed Base Fee at the inception of the Contract besides an award fee that the contractor may earn in whole or in part during performance. We request USAID to consider a fixed base fee as Marginal-Performance-Level (MPL) that would motivate and allow the contractor to deliver high quality performance for its best effort and retrieve actual contractor expenses. Please clarify

USAID respectful denies this request as we feel that the way the fee is structured currently provides for maximum incentive for high quality performance.

43. Part 3 Page 96 : Does Section K, Representations and Certifications of the RFP needs to be completed by contractors who are currently registered in SAM given that their Representation and Certifications are completed and updated electronically in SAM?

Offerors who are registered SAM and have completed their Representations and Certifications electronically do not need to complete and submit Section K. However, you are required to indicate as part of your cost proposal that you have completed Representations and Certifications electronically, and will not submit Section K.

44. Annex 5 Page 90: USAID requires a small business subcontracting plan to be submitted as part of the technical proposal. Also Section (H) on page 93 stated that Offerors included in the competitive range will be required to submit a small business subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR Part

19. Please clarify if offerors are expected to submit a small business subcontracting plan with their proposal. Also confirm that the small business subcontracting plan should be part of the cost volume and not the technical volume.

See response to Question 23.

45. Attachment J.2 Page 115: Page 115, Attachment J.2, Budget Summary: Please provide a plug figure for the budget line item of “Subcontracts and Grants”.

USAID advises that this should be proposed by an Offeror based on their technical approach.

46. Please provide a copy of the Local Compensation Plan for Kenya.

See response to Question 9.

47. The cover letter of the RFP states that “offers remain valid for a minimum of 150 days.” However, Block 12 of the SF33 form states 120 days. Please clarify the number of days for validity of offers.

Offers should be valid for 150 days. The RFP has been amended so that the 150 day requirement is consistent throughout.

48. Will USAID/KEA please share the Financial Inclusion for Rural Microenterprises (FIRM) final report?

The report has not been uploaded to the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) as of May 29, 2017. Access to this report for offerors who were not part of FIRM is particularly important so as to have a reference to use for the capital raised over the project life, given there is no longer a set target in the RFP.

Please see response to Question 14.

49. Given that the actual RFP tender document was not uploaded to FedBiz Opps until May 24, 2017 due to a technical glitch, would USAID/KEA kindly consider extending the RFP submission deadline from June, 29 2017 to June 30, 2017?

We apologize for the technical glitch that was rectified very shortly after it was discovered.

However, we feel that because the solicitation was synopsized previously, potential Offerors will have had sufficient time to prepare their proposals.

50. Will USAID/KEA please share a current FSN scale for Kenya?

See response to Question 9.

51. May offerors submit a cover letter in addition to the cover page, which will not be counted toward the page limit?

See response to Question 35.

52. Section F.4 Reports and Performance Objectives and Outputs seems to be missing numbers 9 and 10 on page 20 of the RFP. Could USAID/KEA please confirm if this is a numbering error or if there are additional Reports and Performance Objectives and Outputs?

See response to Question 4.

53. May offerors include letters of support from resource organizations and key stakeholders as an annex in the Technical Application?

USAID is ok with this request and the RFP has been updated to include this Annex. Please note that while we are not imposing a page limit for this voluntary Annex, page limits will count towards the overall page limit for submission of the technical proposal. Any pages used for this Annex must be compensated by fewer pages used below the limit for other Annexes.

54. May offerors include full page graphics as an annex in the Technical Application?

Yes, as long as the graphics are related to the information required under each annex. They will count towards any specified page limits.

55. May offerors include a table of illustrative STTA candidates as an annex in the Technical Application?

Only information requested as Annexes under Section L.6d)7 is permitted.

56. There is mention of using incentives for BDS/BAS providers and/or financial institutions (p. 112). In other projects, Grants under Contract (GUCs) have been used to pay these incentive payments but there is no mention of a GUCs set aside. Does USAID envision the contractor to use GUCs?

See response to Question 25.

57. Page 28 of the RFP states that, “Offerors should propose the specific roles/responsibilities of this position as well as the minimum requirements for prospective candidates” for the 5. Other [TBD]

Key Personnel position. Will USAID/KEA please confirm that the table of roles/responsibilities may be included as an annex in the Technical Application?

This may be included as part of Annex 1 on Page 90, as long as page limitations are not exceeded.

58. Page 26 of the RFP states that the Deputy Chief of Party and Senior Technical Advisor requires, “An advanced graduate degree in a related field of study”. May offerors propose candidates with 15 years of experience in the financial and investment sector in lieu of an advanced graduate degree?

See the response to Question 7.

59. Page 27 of the RFP states that the Financial Services and Investments Advisor requires a Master’s Degree in Finance or Banking. May offerors propose candidates with 15 years of experience in the financial and investment sector in lieu of an advanced graduate degree?

USAID has no objection to this, and the RFP has been updated accordingly.

60. Could the Mission please clarify that the age range target for youth in this RFP is the same as in the CDCS (pg 11) “Youth aged 15 – 34”. Youth of ages 15-17 should be in school (not running a business fulltime) and cannot access even a savings account without parental/guardian cosignatures until they are 18. Therefore, should we assume 18-34? If not, please confirm the youth age range.

Please assume the youth age range to be 18-34.

61. On page 22 section F, the AMELP is not included as part of subsequent reviews and updates after initial Y1 submission. Please confirm that it should also be updated annually per the annual work plan and treated as a living document per page 19 of the RFP.

USAID would like to see it annually.

62. Given the requirement for both Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) and Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (AMELP) and annex page limitations, please confirm that the majority of the learning approach and strategy can be discussed in the AMP and the majority of the performance indicators and corresponding data collection methods be discussed in the AMELP rather than addressing both in both the AMP and AMELP as page 18 states.

USAID concur with this approach.

63. In terms of additionality for leveraging investment, how will the implementer coordinate reporting such results when we are collaborating with other USAID/KEA projects, e.g KAVES, which also likely reports on investment/financing raised?

KIM will report investments and financing which can be directly attributed to KIM support.

64. Will USAID/KEA please provide USAID guidelines for completing a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP), per Annex 7 of the Technical application?

QASPs must be prepared by the Contractor, in line with guidance available at FAR 46.4 (https://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%2046_4.html#wp1070241). Please also refer to page 87 of the RFP.

65. Initially in the RFI and PreSol, KIM’s scope was to support financing WASH activities in addition to agriculture and clean energy. Can USAID/KEA confirm that KIM is no longer to engage WASH related activities in any way? (unless they happen to be agriculture or energy related presumably)

This is correct, but only insofar as DCAs that are related to WASH activities.

66. Given the reduced budget and the request for “a lean and efficient staffing plan,” we would like to confirm that language in the RFP about three important but potentially out of (direct) scope subjects, 1) youth employment/workforce development (p. 114), 2) women and children’s nutrition

(p. 107), and 3) smallholder finance (pp. 1112) will be more indirectly impacted by KIM through reinforcing key value chains and SMEs’ access to capital rather than carrying out direct activities to improve these three types of needs and related interventions?

USAID confirms this understanding.

67. USAID/KEA presents financing for investment targets in terms of percentage of funds mobilized (65% agriculture value chains and 35% clean energy) but not a target amount to be raised. For the purposes of this RFP does USAID/KEA have any guidance or baseline information concerning the total amount of investment funds it would seek to mobilize by project midterm and at the end of the project or a desired leverage ratio of project funds to investment/banking funds raised?

The Offeror should obtain the information and make a proposal to support levels of mobilization.

68. May offerors include a base fee in the proposed fee plan in addition to an award fee?

See response to Question 42.

69. Page 98, Part 10 states that, “Offerors must provide Biographical Data Sheets (Attachment J.5) for all key personnel”. Please confirm that Biographical Data Sheets are not required for proposed nonkey LTTA and STTA personnel.

See response to Question 8.

70. Section L.6.6 of the RFP defines major subcontractors as 20%. To provide maximum flexibility for teaming arrangements and limit the barriers for proposing innovative implementation approaches, can USAID kindly increase the major subcontractor threshold percentage? Alternatively, could USAID consider that the requirements for major subcontractors to determine cost reasonableness (e.g., NICRA/audited financial statements to determine cost reasonableness for indirect cost rates) are not applicable to those subcontractors working on a firm fixed priced commercial basis?

USAID will not consider this request.

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%2046_4.html#wp1070241

71. Section B.4 (p.5), “Budget”: USAID defines budget CLINs as Labor, Travel, ODCs, Overhead and Award Fee, yet the numbering of these CLINS are not in numerical order. Does USAID wish for the implementing partner to rather utilize these as cost categories (and not as CLINs)?

Please excuse the error; it has been corrected in Amendment #1 of the RFP. USAID wishes that CLINs be used.

72. Section B.8 (p.7), “Payment of Award Fee”: The RFP provides a table indicating a payment schedule based on time increments, with percentages of proposed award fee (for the period) based on evaluation by an Award Fee Board and a TBD basis for the CO to make the ultimate determination of the percentage of proposed incremental award fee to be paid. (p.9).

On page 7, it is stated that unearned award fee cannot rollover from one award fee increment to the next award fee increment.

The RFP further states (Section B.8 (p.7), “Payment of Award Fee”): “The Government’s purpose in granting an award fee is to encourage and reward superior contract performance.”

a. In keeping with this objective, would USAID please permit offerors to propose an award fee structure that includes some share of award fee payment that is not bound by specific periods of time, but which is based instead on the achievement of some very important milestones, such as capital mobilized? As the fee is presently structured, the timeframes, along with the prohibition against rolling over unearned award fee from one period to another, would unfairly penalize contractors for working on complex transactions where the time required to achieve an expected major investment may well be outside of the Contractor’s control, and could negatively impact project performance.

Yes. Please see the response to Question 15.

b. Moreover, the provisions about rollover/carryover (p. 7, p. 10) seem at odds with the government’s desire to incentivize the mobilization of capital in amounts and to sectors that might be, in the absence of the Contractor’s work, unattainable--i.e. where the Contractor provides additionality or brings in non-traditional sources of funds, mechanisms for blended capital, or destinations/sectors for capital). Would USAID please remove this limitation on rollover/carryover?

The limitation on rollover/carryover remains, however kindly see the response to Question 15 for additional clarification on this requirement.

c. If the Mission is not permitting carryover/rollover of unearned award fee, would the Mission please consider a fee structure that provides for higher-than-planned award fee if certain milestones/targets are achieved in advance of the schedule, since it would seem appropriate that penalties for delay be matched with rewards for acceleration?

USAID’s intention is to incentivize the Contractor to achieve milestones in time with the award fee schedule as proposed by the offeror. Please see the response to Question 15 for additional information.

d. Members of the Award Fee Board have not been specified. Does the Board include the CO/Fee Determination Official? Does the Board include a representative from the Contractor?

Final composition of the Award Fee Board is TBD, however the Board recommends the fee to the CO/Fee Determination Official, therefore, the CO is not on the Board. There is no representation from the Contractor on the Award Fee Board.

73. Section F. 4.1 (p. 17), “Annual Work Plan”: Who is USAID referring to as the Team Leader? Should this be the Chief of Party?

Yes, this is the Chief of Party.

74. Section F. 4.1 (p. 17), “Annual Work Plan”: Will the COR approve the initial Work Plan within 30 days

(as is the case for subsequent full-year work plans)?

The Year 1 Draft Work Plan is due within 30 days of award, and will be reviewed and approved by the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) as soon as possible thereafter.

75. Section F.4.2 (p. 18), “Adaptive Management Plan”: Can USAID explain the difference between the

Adaptive Management Plan and the Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Approach (AMELP)? Although the AMELP is more extensive, both tools require defining indicators to monitor program performance, monitoring and updating as needed.

See response to Question 62.

76. Section F.4 & F.5 (p. 17 & p.21): The deadline for the deliverable of the first Work Plan as expressed in these two sections of the RFP appears inconsistent. Please confirm the deadline for the first Work Plan is as stated in F.5 (p. 21) DELIVERY SCHEDULE OF REPORTS.

See response to Question 34.

77. Section F.4.4 (p. 19), “Quarterly Project Reporting”: #6, “Updates regarding construction activities, as applicable” appears to be an error, since, per L.7 Part 2(5)(G) “There is not construction activity anticipated in this award”.

It is indicated that construction activities, as applicable, should be included. This is generic language for information USAID typically requires in quarterly performance reporting. If construction activities are not anticipated, then the requirement is not applicable.

78. Section F.4.4. (p. 19), “Quarterly Project Reporting”: USAID asks that the Contractor budget and report expenditures and results based on funding sources (Feed the Future and Power Africa). Given that implementing partners will already organize monthly invoices and budget summary reports as per the cost categories of labor, travel, ODCs, overhead and award fee, can USAID clarify that it wishes for the implementing partner to consider the two funding sources (Feed the Future and Power Africa) as the CLINs?

USAID wishes for the implementing partner to consider the two funding sources.

79. Section F. 4.5 (p.19) under “Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Activity Location Data”: Is USAID requesting GIS data for each business supported under this program? If so, we offer that taking photographs of businesses to invest in, and obtaining latitude and longitude data are not consistent practices among transaction advisors or financial institution partners we hope to engage in our program, and may present an un-due administrative burden for these parties. Collecting this data for every business supported by the program and sharing it with the implementing partner will represent additional costs for financial institutions and transaction advisors who already are dis-incentivized to serve remote locations, especially for the financing deals that are not directly supported by transaction advisors, and may undermine achievement of project objectives. Will USAID consider removing these data points (longitude and latitude data and photographs of businesses) as a data collection requirement for the implementing partner?

We require “Geographic Information Systems (GIS) on investments receiving direct KIM support.

80. Section F.4.6 (p.20), “Quarterly Financial Reporting”: What is USAID referring to as “major cost items”? Are these the CLINs, or the major cost categories (e.g. labor, ODCs, etc.)?

These are major cost categories, and this has been clarified in Amendment #1.

81. Section F.4 7 (p.20), “Annual Reports”: Can USAID clarify what it means when it says the Contractor will submit an Annual Performance Report inclusive of the final QPR for that year”? Does USAID wish to say that “The Contractor will submit an Annual Performance Report in lieu of the final QPR for that year”?

Rather than submitting both an Annual Performance Report, as well as a QPR, only the Annual Performance Report shall be submitted, but will include information required in the QPR that is not indicated under Section F.4.7.

82. Section F.5 (p.21), “Delivery Schedule”: Can USAID explain what the Quality Assurance Surveillance

Plan is, and how this differs from the Adaptive Management Plan and the Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Approach (AMELP)? A description of the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan is not included in Section F.4.

See response to Question 64.

83. Section F.7.5 (p. 28), “Key Personnel, Other”: The RFP states one Key Personnel position has been left open for offerors to propose a suitable fit for the KIM activity if needed, and instructs Offerors to propose the specific role/responsibilities of the position and minimum requirements for prospective candidates. Please clarify if this is a mandatory additional position or how Offerors who do not add a fifth position will be compared to those who do?

The RFP states “one Key Personnel position has been left open for offerors to propose a suitable fit for the KIM activity if needed/as appropriate to the activity being proposed. Offerors should propose the specific role/responsibilities of this position as well as the minimum requirements for prospective candidates.” Therefore, if the Offeror feels there is no need for a fifth key personnel, they will not be evaluated negatively.

84. Section H.11 (p; p.39): Can USAID explain whether the guidance from USAID is that the Contractor not provide annual salary increases over 5%, or whether the Contractor is meant to follow their own practices?

Contractors must provide annual salary increases in line with their own practices, but not to exceed five percent.

85. Section L.6 (p.90), “Instructions for the preparation of the Technical Proposal”: Two Annex 4s are listed: “Draft Work Plan/Implementation Plan” and “Small Business Subcontracting Plan”. Can you please clarify the order of annexes and confirm if the small business subcontracting plan should be included in the Cost Proposal instead of the Technical Proposal?

Please see response to Question 23.

86. Section L.6 (p. 91), “Instructions for the preparation of the Technical Proposal”: Annex 8- Past Performance Matrix instructs that the matrix must include up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts and/or assistance awards from the prime exclusive of major subcontractors. Would USAID please clarify if that is a total of five PPRs for the prime and five more for each major subcontractor?

Please note that the language states “the matrix must include up to five (5) of the most recent and relevant contracts and/or assistance awards for the prime inclusive of major subcontractors […].”

Therefore, the intent is that the Prime must include up to five (5) of the most recent and relevant contracts and/or assistance awards, even if that includes an award on which they were major subcontractor.

87. Section L.6 (p. 91), “Instructions for the preparation of the Technical Proposal”: Annex 8 instructs that Past Performance Information should be “up to five of the most recent and relevant” contracts/awards. However, Section M. (p. 103) states that Past Performance will be assessed on the basis of relevance and performance and permits, “experience over the last ten years”. Would the Mission please clarify if PPRs (Attachment J.6) may include relevant projects over the past ten years or if the “experience over the last ten years” is to be summarized elsewhere in the proposal?

USAID appreciates that not all organizations receive awards on a frequent basis, and therefore may not have much relevant recent experience. Therefore, an organization’s “most recent and relevant contracts/awards” required by Section L.6 may be spread over a significant period of time. USAID is willing to consider the “most recent and relevant” past performance information from up to ten years ago.

88. There is no mention of the value of a Grants under Contract (GUCs) component. Can USAID confirm there will be GUCs and their required value, if any?

See the response to Question 25.

89. Can the Mission clarify which product categories within the target value chains of agriculture should be the focus of capital mobilization for KIM? For example, given the importance of staple foods to the dairy and livestock value chains, should the Contractor also consider staple foods as a product sector for capital mobilization? Should the contractor consider the 10+ horticulture product categories under the KAVES project as potential targets of capital mobilization?

Yes, USAID confirms that the Contractor should consider the categories under the KAVES project as potential targets of capital mobilization.

90. Can an organization be the co-lead on one proposal submission and be the lead or co-lead on another proposal submission?

USAID interprets the ‘lead’ and co-lead’ described in this question to be the potential prime and sub-recipients respectively. USAID’s intent in this RFP is to emphasize the importance of non-exclusive arrangements between prime and subrecipients in order to receive offers with the highest potential to complete the objectives outlined in the SOO. To that end, entities are welcome to make multiple offers on this RFP as well as to vary the partners with which they are responding to the RFP. That would include the capacity in which an organization is presenting itself, whether it be as prime or sub-recipient.

91. In addition to requiring the contractor to comply with the vetting requirements for key individuals, what is the complete list of organizational structure or other requirements for the lead or co-lead organizations? For example registration in SAMS? A DUNS number? Registration in the United States?

Organizations must be registered in SAM before award is made. This requires a valid DUNS number.

We do not require an awardee to be registered in the United States.

[END OF DOCUMENT]