FTF Ag-Inputs questions and Answers.pdf

QUESTIONS TO USAID ON SOL-617-12-000014

FEED THE FUTURE AGRICULTURAL INPUTS ACTIVITY (FTF AG-INPUTS)

MAY 3, 2012

1. C.2 Objective: Does "light equipment" have the same emphasis as seeds, fertilizer and pesticides? Paragraph 1 (b) page 86 only mentions 3 sub-sectors - seeds, fertilizer and pesticides. Can these be reconciled?

While sub-standard light equipment is troublesome in Uganda, it pales in comparison to the potential negative impacts of poor quality seed, fertilizer, and pesticides. Light equipment shall be addressed by FTF Ag-Inputs, insofar as it often shares a common supply chain with the rest of the sub-sectors, and may be necessary for application of various agrochemicals. Safe use and handling is of paramount concern when dealing with agricultural inputs, therefore accurate information and high-quality application and protective equipment should be available where hazardous materials are sold.

2. C.2 Objective: Can we also consider vegetable seeds?

Any proposed value chains are the prerogative of the Offeror, though it should be noted that the Mission’s focus value chains are maize, beans, and coffee.

3. C.4.3 GoU Activities and the DSIP: Has USAID consulted and received a buy-in from the GoU line ministry or agency responsible for Ag-inputs? What specific agency is designated as the counterpart executing agency?

USAID has good relations with our Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries.

Much of the Mission’s FTF Strategy is based on priorities detailed in the DSIP. The Ministry is aware of the proposed activity and has been consulted throughout its development thus far.

4. C.6.1 IR1, Sub IR1.1: How does USAID define "reliability, efficiency and service"? If these are results indicators, what metrics are required?

Reliability: Consistent supply of high quality agricultural inputs and advice, delivered in a timely manner through established business relationships.

Efficiency: Less rent-seeking behavior and less room for the introduction of counterfeit materials through strengthened supply chain relationships.

Service: Greater customer service through better information and multiple-season relationships between farmers and agro-dealers.

There may be results tied to these concepts, to be defined in the PMMP.

5. C.6.1 IR1, Sub IR1.1: What does "proof of profitability" mean. Is the Contractor expected to produce evidence such as profit and loss statements?

Proof of profitability means demonstrating a proof of concept to various supply chain actors to show that there is increased profit margins associated with the proposed interventions.

6. C.6.1 IR1, Sub IR1.2: Does USAID have in mind a particular "similar rural conditions";

should they be from an African country? Is this up to the Contractor to choose and justify?

The Offeror should demonstrate the validity of any proposed approach in a similar context. Regardless of the geographic setting that an approach has been employed before, the Offeror must demonstrate why it will work in Uganda. Section C provides ample information on the current constraints in Uganda, and may be referenced when proposing any individual approach.

7. C.6.1 IR1, Sub-IR 1.4: define "real value for money"; what metric does USAID have in mind?

Real value for money means showing dues-paying industry group members that there is a tangible benefit from membership and that their interests are being served through the group. Any metrics associated with this concept will be jointly defined in the PMMP.

8. C6.2. IR2 Sub IR 2.2: Define "facilitate stronger formalized relationships"; what metric does USAID have in mind?

This is up to the Offeror to demonstrate through their proposed methodology. Any associated metrics will be jointly defined in the PMP.

9. C.7 Geographic and Commodity Focus: USAID indicates that “FTF Ag-Inputs will be implemented in USAID/Uganda’s identified FTF focus districts” in two phases, beginning with five pilot districts. The RFP attachments include a “Mission Focus Districts” map dated June 2011 (Attachment J.4 as referenced on page 17 of the RFP) and a “Feed the Future Focus Districts” map dated September 2011 (Attachment J.3, not referenced in this section of the RFP). Please clarify whether bidders should focus on the 19 districts indicated in Attachment J.4 or include the additional FTF focus districts indicated in Attachment J.3. We are concerned about insufficient USAID-funding with the number of districts where project interventions could have substantive impacts.

Attachment J.3 illustrates the concentration of FTF districts, and should generally define the boundaries of any interventions within the proposals. Offerors are not required to proposed activities in all 38 districts, but rather define the focus and scale of activities where they can have the greatest impact within the resource envelope. Attachment J.4 defines the Mission focus districts, where implementing partners may be subject to participation in District Operational Plan activities (Section C.8.3), should they propose interventions in those areas.

10. C.7 Geographic and Commodity Focus: Would USAID please clarify a target for the number of districts to be included in phase two (scale up)?

See question 9, above. The Offeror should propose the scale of the activity to achieve maximum results with the resources available.

11. C.7 Geographic and Commodity Focus: Does USAID have in mind a definite period for the two phases; are 62 districts a mandatory number of districts to cover?

The Offeror may propose any time period for the phased implementation of the activity, bearing in mind the necessary time for learning and adapting any strategies from the pilot to the main rollout, as well as the required length of implementation to ensure sustainability. Offerors are not required to cover all 38 FTF focus districts.

12. C.9.1 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Approach: USAID indicates that “FtF Ag- Inputs will also be subject to external Performance and/or Impact Evaluations in accordance with the Agency Evaluation Policy (see attachment J.8).” Would USAID please provide Attachment J.8, which was not included in the procurement package?

Link to the Agency Evaluation Policy is http://www.usaid.gov/evaluation/USAIDEvaluationPolicy.pdf, It is also included under Section J as a attachment number J.8.

13. C.9.3 Cost Benefit Analysis: USAID explains that FTF Ag-Inputs has undergone Cost/Benefit Analysis (CBA) through the Bureau of Food Security. The RFP advises that the contractor should be aware of this preliminary analysis in order to devise means of improving the overall rate of return determined. In order to develop methods to improve the overall rate of return, would USAID please provide bidders with the CBA that was conducted?

Cost Benefit Analysis is not part of the evaluation criteria (M.3), and thus will be not be considered as part of the evaluation process. The internal Cost Benefit Analysis conducted by USAID made certain assumptions about the nature of specific interventions in order to construct a working economic model. The analysis may be revisited after the award to inform the planning of specific interventions.

14. C.9.4, Impact Evaluation: USAID indicates that “FTF Ag-Inputs will be subject to an external impact evaluation to measure the sector-wide impact of innovative interventions using experimental or quasi-experimental evaluation methodology.” Please confirm that USAID will conduct the project’s impact evaluation and that offerors are not expected to conduct the required evaluation, and will not be required to budget for the evaluation in the cost proposal.

Confirmed. In accordance with Agency policy, the impact evaluation will be carried out and paid for by an external evaluator, and is not to be included as part of the proposal.

The Offeror is however, expected to cooperate with any external evaluators, as well as provide any data, as requested.

15. F.4 Contractor Reporting Requirements, Performance Management Plan: The RFP states that the Contractor will develop the PMP in the first month of the award however the Synopsis of Contract Reports/Plan states that the PMP is due within 90 days of contract award, with a draft baseline report due at 60 days and the final baseline report due within 90 days. Would USAID please clarify these deadlines?

Section F has been revised to reflect the 90 day due date of the PMP.

16. Would USAID consider extending the number of pages for the annex, or allowing Annex F, Draft Performance Management Plan, to be not counted against the 25-page limit?

USAID has amended the solicitation to allow for a 30 page limit for the annexes, however, the draft PMP will count against the new page limit.

17. Would USAID please provide the Program Objective, Program Area, and Element and FACTS indicators from the Foreign Assistance Framework that contributes to the project?

This activity is under the USAID/Uganda Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) therefore the IR’s are referenced in lieu of Foreign Assistance Framework data.

The link to the CDCS is http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/policy_planning_and_learning/documents/UgandaCDCS.

pdf

18. In Section L, USAID makes several references to “major subcontractors.” Could USAID please clarify what constitutes a major subcontractor under this solicitation?

For this solicitation, a major subcontractor should be defined as one that does 20% (determined by total subcontract $ amount in relation to the total award) or more of the work under the contract.

19. L.7. (b): “Items such as graphs, charts, cover pages, dividers, table of contents … are not included in the 25-page limitation. All these should be included as annexes to the technical proposal.” Could USAID please confirm that the cover page(s), table of contents, and dividers, are not included in the 25-page annex limit?

Confirmed. Cover pages, tables of contents, and dividers will not count against the page limits

20. L.7 (b) Instructions: Would USAID please clarify that offerors may include full-page tables and charts in the body of the technical proposal that will not count against the 25-page limit?

See question N0. 19. Full page charts and tables should be included in the annexes to the technical proposal.

21. L.7 Instructions, List of Annexes: Are offerors to include the Branding Implementation and Marking Plans as an attachment to the technical proposal or the cost proposal?

In accordance with Section L.8, “Offeror(s) should submit a preliminary BIP and MP (not to exceed two pages) as a separate annex to the proposal (see L.7). The Plans will be included as indicated in Section L.7, as Annex C to the technical proposal.

22. L.7 (e) Instructions: The RFP states, “The Technical Proposal in response to this solicitation should address how the Offeror intends to accomplish the tasks in the Statement of Work contained in Section C. It should also contain a clear understanding of the work to be undertaken and the responsibilities of all parties involved, and, given the nature of the reverse auction technique, a clear description of the expected results for each Program Module.” The concept of the “reverse auction technique” is not elaborated upon or referenced anywhere else in the proposal. Could USAID please clarify the meaning of this concept?

Section L.7 (e) has been modified to reflect the bidding process of a Cost plus Fixed Fee award structure.

23. L.7 Technical Proposal, Proposed Activities: Given the two phase, pilot district approach will USAID clarify the level of detail required for a time table of activities over a 5 year period?

USAID will not mandate a page number or level of detail required for a time table of activities, though Offerors are advised to provide the level of detail necessary to demonstrate how the activity will achieve the desired intermediate results.

24. L.7 Technical Proposal, Climate Change: Is a science-based link required to be established by the Contractor between the use of agro-chemicals and higher productivity and GCC?

All aspects of the proposal should be grounded in proven methodologies and science.

The Offeror should demonstrate how the proposed interventions will minimize the negative and maximize the positive implications of input use on the environment and

GCC.

25. L.7 Technical Proposal, Key Personnel/Staffing: Given there are three sub-sectors can we propose more than two STA's?

Yes, but only two will be considered Key Personnel. Offerors should designate which two are key.

26. L.7 Technical Proposal, Key Personnel/Staffing: May we include the full staffing plan described on page 88 in an annex to the technical proposal?

The staffing plan may be included in Annex D to the technical proposal “Management Structure and Organizational Charts”.

27. L.7 Management Approach and Institutional Capacity: Please clarify whether a complete draft EMMP or an overview of EMMP process and features of approach to mitigate environmental impacts is requested. If a complete draft is requested, could USAID please confirm that this will not count against the Annex page limitations?

Given the potential negative impacts of agricultural input use on human health and the environment, USAID requires assurance that the Offeror is well equipped to mitigate any potential impacts. Therefore, a full draft EMMP must be submitted. The solicitation has been modified to add Annex H as the draft EMMP.

28. L.7(5) Past Performance: The RFP states that “In Annex G, Offerors shall include a matrix that (i) lists no more than five (5) current or past contracts and subcontracts that are similar in subject matter, size, statement, and complexity to the Statement of Work above and (ii) lists all contracts with USAID that are currently on-going or that have ended within three years of the date of the issuance of this Solicitation. This information should be provided for Offerors as well as for each of the proposed major subcontractors.”

a. Does the limit of five current or past subcontracts under (i) refer to all members of an offeror’s consortium, or may each member of the consortium submit five current or past contracts for consideration?

The Offeror should list up to five relevant contracts and up to five for each of the major subcontractors (see question 18, Section L for definition of major).

b. Given that the requirement under (ii) would entail the provision of hundreds of project references, would USAID consider modifying this requirement?

The Offeror should include relevant contracts (size, sector).

29. USAID provides Attachment J.6, Budget Template, with the solicitation. This budget template indicates that offerors will be required to demonstrate cost share. This budget template appears to be better suited to RFA procurement, and some of the worksheets are titled with an unrelated RFA solicitation number. Would USAID please confirm that offerors are to present their budget using the template provided in Attachment J.6?

USAID apologises for the oversight. Please see amended Budget Template attachment

30. L.8 Cost Proposal: Section C.8.2 Public Private Partnerships states that FTF Ag-Inputs should actively explore opportunities to leverage private sector resources through the Partnership investment fund. Does this require any value of private sector leverage to be determined and should it be included in the budget Excel sheet?

It is the Offeror’s decision whether or not to allocate resources toward public-private partnerships in the budget. The Partnership Investment Fund APS, a separate instrument for the implementation of Global Development Alliance partnerships, is available for review on fbo.gov. Offerors may elect to develop/encourage private sector leveraging and engagement under the APS, under this award, or in the absence of any USAID resources. Furthermore, partnerships may be identified and detailed within the proposal, or explored during implementation.

31. L.8 Cost Proposal: Could you please confirm if the cost range for this activity is $5M- $7.5M as stated in the cover letter or $6M-$7.5M as stated in section L8 (Cost/Business Proposal Instructions)?

The cover letter is correct and Section L.8 has been amended accordingly. The cost range is $5M-$7.5M.

32. L.8 Cost Proposal: Is there a threshold above which a supplier is considered to be a sub-contractor or sub-awardee?

Sub-contractors and sub-awardees are not defined by a dollar threshold, but rather by the nature of the relationship. For more information on subcontracts and subgrants, see ADS 302 and 303.

33. L.8 Cost Proposal (h): Would USAID please confirm that a six-day work week is allowed for short-term technical assistance?

Confirmed. A six day work week will be allowed for short term technical assistance only, however, no premium pay is authorized.

34. (a) M.2(e) General Information: “The points shown after each evaluation criterion in section M.3 below indicate the relative importance of each criterion and sub-criteria”. (b) However no points have been allocated in section M. Will USAID be providing points for each criterion?

(a) Section M.2 (e) has been revised to read as follows: “The evaluation criterion in Section M.3 below indicate the relative importance of each criterion and sub-criteria”.

(b) No

35. Based on guidance in sections L and M of the RFP, a first year draft work plan is requested in Section IV (management) for inclusion in Annex G; however a five-year plan is also requested for inclusion in Section I (technical). (a) Can the draft first year work plan and the five year work plan be combined and included as part of the Annex?

(b) Could USAID please confirm that this will not count against the Annex page limitations?

(a) The five-year implementation schedule is a timeline with general plans and proposed milestones over the course of the activity. It may be presented in graphical and/or narrative form. The draft first year workplan is expected to be a more detailed strategy over the first year of the activity, and lay out specific interventions in logical succession. They should not be combined, with the five year schedule included in the technical proposal, and the draft first year workplan in Annex E.

(b) Both will count against the specified page limitations.