SOL-617-15-000005_Response_to_Questions.pdf

Solicitation # SOL-617-15-000005 USAID/Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture

Amendment #1

CONTINUATION PAGE

Amendments to the Solicitation

Please refer to the attached solicitation which has been re-released in its entirety to address the questions received. To facilitate review, all changes have been highlighted in yellow. Changes with strikethrough text (e.g. strike through) are deleted from the solicitation. They have been left in strikethrough text only to show Offerors what is being removed from the solicitation.

Questions received from offerors and responses from USAID/Uganda:

1. Please confirm that the grant fund is $1 million total for the duration of the project and not $1 million annually?

Response: The grant fund is $1 million for the duration of the project.

2. On P. 7, the RFP provides a plug number of $1 million for grants. Would USAID confirm that this is $1 million in total over the five years of the project?

Response: See Response to Question 1, Yes, it is $1 million in total over the five years of the project.

3. Page 7: The RFP states “The purpose of the Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity is to increase economic opportunities for hundreds of thousands of Ugandan female and male youth ages 10 to 35 in agriculture-related fields in order to increase incomes and build entrepreneurship, leadership, and workforce readiness.” Please clarify if USAID’s intended target beneficiaries of “hundreds of thousands of youth” include both direct and indirect beneficiaries.

Response: The target of hundreds of thousands of youth is for direct beneficiaries.

4. On page 12, the RFP states that, “The Contractor will place particular emphasis on the first two forms of capital assets: human and social, multiplying training and networking opportunities available to youth, drawing on informal, non-formal and formal types of learning and networking.” Could USAID provide additional detail as to why there is less of an emphasis on financial and physical capital assets? Is it because you feel there are sufficient activities already in place to address these two areas?

Response: As stated in the RFP, the emphasis is on human and social capital. The Offeror may propose interventions under financial and physical capital, but the focus for those two types of assets should be to stimulate access to financial and physical capital by leveraging other institutions or actors.

5. Would USAID kindly confirm the following experience meets the definition for “management/leadership position in programs that are of a similar scope and scale” as listed in the Chief of Party position requirements: experience managing/operating a private sector firm or business, managing a portfolio of donor-funded development programs, and/or experience as a USAID staff member directing and managing an agency-funded development program?

Response: Determination of whether experience meets the definition of “management/leadership position in programs of similar scope and scale” can only be made once USAID reviews the detailed CV of the proposed candidate. The examples provided do not have enough information to determine relevance.

6. Responsibilities for the Deputy Chief of Party' include "building partnerships with key stakeholders.” Would USAID please explain the division of responsibilities/relationship between the DCOP's role and that of the Private Sector Partnerships Specialist?

Response: Partnerships that will need to be built in this Activity extend beyond the private sector.

Therefore, the DCOP may oversee other types of relationships/partnerships under both objectives whereas the Private Sector Partnerships Specialist will focus on Objective 1.

7. On pages 12 and 16, the RFP states that the project will reach “hundreds of thousands of Ugandan female and male youth ages 10 to 35 [...]” Would USAID be willing to provide a target for the number of beneficiaries it wishes to reach? Reaching 200,000 versus 400,000 youth will affect both the proposal budget and project approach/methodology. It will be helpful for USAID to provide a plug number to bidders to enable comparisons of best value across bidders.

Response: USAID does not have a specific target for number of beneficiaries. While USAID is looking to achieve significant scale, targets must be convincing and realistic. Offerors should propose appropriate targets given their technical approach and provide sufficient rationale and justification.

8. The RFP mentions that the project will need to reach hundreds of thousands of youth. Can you clarify the minimum number of youth that the mission expects a contractor to reach?

Response: Please refer to the answer to Question #7

9. The RFP asks for information on proposed targets for hundreds of thousands of youth. Please clarify what breakdown or level of detail USAID is looking for on life of project targets, recognizing that target setting for scale would realistically need to take place after year 1 pilot phase.

Response: Please refer to the answer to Question #7

10. On page 13, the RFP distinguishes between appropriate activities for younger and older youth (10-14 vs 15 and above). Younger youth should focus on building their capacity and awareness for future opportunities. Given that many Ugandans under 15 do currently work, as the RFP acknowledges, to what extent should the implementer be directing this cohort away from economic engagement?

Response: The Offeror should understand the unique situation and needs of youth aged 10-14 and tailor interventions to build their capacity (employability prospects, skills, mentorship, and career awareness) while at the same time being cognizant of the possibility that youth in this age cohort may need to earn money. The offeror should also be cognizant of any “unintentional consequences” of interventions with youth aged 10-14, such as increased economic opportunity leading to increased school dropouts.

11. Page 13, under Section C.4, describes Outcome 2.3 as “Improved provision of life skills for healthy living (including family planning and reproductive health information)”, Besides family planning and reproductive health information, what other elements of “healthy living” would USAID like to see addressed by this Activity? To what extent is USAID expecting gender-based violence and nutrition to be included as part of “healthy living”?

Response: Family Planning and Reproductive Health is the focus, however the Offeror may propose other areas to be addressed under healthy living based on their technical approach and in line with current USAID policies and strategies listed in section C.6 of the RFP.

12. On Page 17 of 97 under “Geographic Focus,” the RFP states that “after models are demonstrating success, it is envisioned that interventions will be scaled to additional Feed the Future Districts”.

Can USAID please clarify the number of districts it wishes to target? Is it expected the contractor work in all 38 districts? If not, can USAID please provide a plug figure for the number of districts it would like the contractor to work in during years 2-5? This information will have important implications on the project budget, and bidders should have a common reference point to enable USAID to compare best value across bidders.

Response: USAID does not have a specific target for number of districts to be reached in years 2-

5. Offerors are not required to work in all 38 Feed the Future focus districts. The geographic focus, including the number of districts, should be consistent with the proposed technical approach and expected scale and targets.

13. On Page 17, under Section C.5, of the RFP states: “After models are demonstrating success, it is envisioned that interventions will be scaled to additional Feed the Future districts in successive years.” What is USAID's target associated with total number of districts USAID envisions the program ultimately reaching?

Response: See answer to Question 12

14. Page 17, Section C.5, Geographic Focus states that after models are demonstrating success, it is envisioned that interventions will be scaled to additional Feed the Future districts in successive years. Question: Please identify the number of Feed the Future districts USAID/Uganda anticipates will be reached during scale-up.

Response: See answer to Question 12

15. On page 17, the RFP mentions that “the Contractor will work within a subsect of USAID/Uganda’s 38 FTF districts” and that the activity will be limited to no more than 4 districts in year one. How many districts in total does USAID expect the contractor to reach over the life of the project?

Response: See answer to Question 12

16. Page 85, Section L.8 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal A) Technical Approach identifies that up to four selected districts will be targeted in year one. The technical approach does not address the range of additional districts in which implementation will be scaled. Since the ultimate number of targeted districts is a major cost driver, the offeror respectfully requests that USAID/Uganda provide guidance on an acceptable number of districts that comprise the “subset” of 38 Feed the Future districts.

Response: See answer to Question 12

17. Page 94, Section M.2.1 Technical Evaluation Criteria does not address the geographic range of districts in which implementation will be proposed. Please confirm that the extent of geographic spread will not be considered as part of the criteria. If the geographic spread will be considered in the evaluation please identify the range of target districts considered technically acceptable.

Response: As stated in the answer to Question #12, USAID does not have a specific target for number of districts to be reached in years 2-5. While the geographic spread is not specifically mentioned in the evaluation criteria, it may be evaluated as part of the general determination as to whether the proposal “offers a convincing, sound, and realistic technical approach.”

Geographic focus should be consistent with the proposed technical approach and expected scale and targets.

18. Page 17: Under Geographic Focus, please clarify if USAID’s reference to “Activity” includes all activities related to Objectives 1 and 2 and that in Year 1 these will take place as pilots in the 4 focus districts?

Response: The Activity, which encompasses both Objectives 1 and 2, will take place in no more than four districts in year one.

19. Page 17: Under Commodity Focus, the last sentence states “As the main focus of Objective Two is skills development, there is no need to limit such associated activities for fostering skills to Feed the Future priority value chains.” Would USAID please clarify if Objective 2 skills development should go beyond “agricultural activities” or beyond the “priority agricultural sectors”?

Response: The Activity as a whole is related to agriculture. As stated in RFP Section B.1 Purpose, “The purpose of the Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity is to increase economic opportunities […..] in agriculture-related fields [….].” As stated in RFP Section C.5 under Commodity Focus, coffee, maize, beans, and agricultural inputs should be prioritized under Objective 1, however to significantly improve economic opportunity for female and male youth, private sector actors in other value chains will also need to be engaged. Interventions under Objective 2 are meant to be broader than the priority value chains but should be related to agriculture.

20. On Page 18, under Section C.6, USAID indicates, “The Contractor will be expected to demonstrate compliance with USAID Policy ADS 205, including USAID’s policy objectives to reduce: 1) gaps between males and females in access to/control over economic, political, and social resources; 2) the prevalence of gender-based violence; and 3) constraints that prevent women and girls from leading, participating fully in, and influencing decisions in their societies.” Please define “demonstrate compliance” in this context.

Response: The RFP has been amended and the referenced sentence on page 18 changed to read:

“The Contractor will support USAID’s objectives to reduce: 1) gaps between males and females in access to/control over economic, political, and social resources; 2) the prevalence of gender-based violence; and 3) constraints that prevent women and girls from leading, participating fully in, and influencing decisions in their societies.”

21. Page 19, Section C.7 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning, Performance Monitoring and Evaluation states that USAID may conduct an external midterm performance evaluation of the program 24-30 months after the contract is awarded and an external final evaluation before closeout.

Question: Please confirm that offerors shall not budget the costs of a midterm performance evaluation or final evaluation and that these costs will be covered by USAID.

Response: Offerors must not budget for any external evaluations, as described in Section C.7 page 19: “USAID may conduct an external midterm performance evaluation of the program 24- 30 months after the contract is awarded and an external final evaluation before closeout.” These costs will be covered by USAID.

22. On page 19, the RFP mentions USAID may conduct an external midterm performance evaluation of the program. Will this be paid for directly by USAID or should the contractor budget for this cost?

Response: Please see answer to question # 21

23. Page 19, Section C.7 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning, Performance Monitoring and Evaluation states that USAID may conduct an external midterm performance evaluation of the program 24-30 months after the contract is awarded and an external final evaluation before closeout.

Question: Please confirm that USAID will not be conducting a baseline evaluation for the project and that offerors shall include the costs of conducting an external baseline in their cost proposals.

Response: In Section C.7 Monitoring Evaluation and Learning Under the heading Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (p. 19), the following sentence from the RFP has been deleted:

“Baseline and endline data are required.” It has been replaced by the following sentence: “The contractor must conduct baseline and endline surveys and data sets from these surveys will be made available to USAID along with the baseline and final reports, respectively.” The offeror should budget for associated costs of these surveys.

24. Please confirm that those groups that have prepared the USAID-2014-Youth and Agriculture Assessment in Uganda are excluded from bidding on this funding opportunity.

Response: “Youth and Agriculture in Uganda: An Assessment” 2014 was produced by the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Program, implemented by the QED Group, LLC. QED Group, LLC is excluded from bidding on this RFP.

25. What are USAID expectations for allocation of resources and level of effort between Objectives 1 and 2?

Response: USAID does not have specific targets for allocation of resources and level of effort between Objectives 1 and 2.

26. What are USAID’s funding streams supporting the Activity (Economic growth, Feed the Future, Education or Health funds)?

Response: Funding streams for this activity may include: Feed The Future, Higher Education, and Maternal and Child Health.

27. Would USAID please clarify the extent to which it expects the Offeror to provide direct service delivery to youth in Objectives 1 and 2, in addition to a Facilitative Market System approach as described in the footnote on page 14, under Section C.4?

Response: A facilitative approach is expected for both Objectives 1 and 2. A facilitative approach may include some direct service delivery. If the offeror proposes direct service delivery it should be well justified and logical within the context of the overall proposed approach.

28. Please provide the location of the Annexes to the Youth and Agriculture in Uganda Assessment, listed on page 65, Section J. The Annexes, although listed, do not appear within the document connected to the provided website link.

Response: The body of “The Youth and Agriculture in Uganda Assessment” contains the most important information needed for offerors to respond to the RFP. USAID/Uganda has chosen not to release the annexes.

29. On page 22 of the solicitation document, under Section C.7, USAID states:

“All data in the monitoring and evaluation plan including the impact evaluations will be disaggregated by sex and by age where appropriate (i.e. is population-based as opposed to systemic). Age disaggregation will be: 15-19; 20-24; 25-29; and 30-35 years, which will provide a fine-grain view of how youth of different ages respond to various interventions.”

Yet, page 15 indicates that the “target population of Objective 2 will be slightly younger (ages 10-25)…” Would USAID please clarify why the age bracket 10-14 is not included in the age disaggregation indicated on page 22?

Response: The RFP has been amended and the referenced sentence on page 22 in Section C.7, under the heading Sex and age disaggregation of data changed to read: Age disaggregation will be: 10-14; 15-19; 20-24; 25-29; and 30-35 years, which will provide a fine-grain view of how youth of different ages respond to various interventions.” (Note: The age cohort from 10-14 corresponds to Objective 2 only.)

30. There is a discrepancy in the SOW between the target population of Objective 2 (ages 10-25) (p.15) and M&E Sex and Age disaggregation of data that starts with age 15 (p.22). Please clarify whether the implementer will be required to report for the age group of 10-15.

Response: Please see the answer to Question # 29

31. Page 22 under “Sex and age disaggregation of data”, USAID asks for age disaggregation between 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, and 30-35. Since the target age group for the entire project is 10-35, does USAID want the contractor to also measure results and disaggregate data for the 10-14 year age range?

Response: Please see the answer to Question # 29

32. Are offerors expected to implement the grants program starting in Year 1 (should we budget for grants in Year 1)?

Response: Offerors may propose beginning the grants program in Year 1.

33. At the end of year 1, the Contractor will submit a report on the initiatives piloted in the first 12 months. To what extent will USAID be involved in providing feedback and direction for subsequent years of the project, based on this documentation?

Response: This report is detailed under section F.4 Reports Deliverables or Outputs as Number 5 titled “Assessment Report for Scale Up.” USAID will be involved in providing feedback to this report.

34. The first required indicator on page 22 refers to the number of youth receiving new employment, self-employment or better employment as a result of the program. As the RFP states, engagement in agriculture is often unremunerated and may be part-time or seasonal. Can USAID clarify the definition of ‘employment’ in this context?

Response: Employment must follow the definition for this standard indicator: Total number of people gaining employment or better employment within six months of participation in a USG funded workforce development project. Better employment is based on the participant’s perception of whether the employment is better. (It could be better because it is closer to home, has better pay, a better schedule, etc.). While we recognize employment can be part time, seasonal or unremunerated another indicator or custom indicators may be proposed to capture that data.

35. The RFP mentions 19 Mission Focus Districts. Can USAID name these districts?

Response: The 19 mission focus districts which work through a coordinating mechanism called District Operational Plans (DOPs) include: Amuru, Bugiri, Bushenyi, Dokolo, Gulu, Ibanda, Iganga, Isingiro, Kamuli, Kamwenge, Kapchorwa, Kasese, Lira, Luwero, Mayuge, Mbale, Oyam, Pader, Sironko.

36. On page 18, the RFP states, “Objectives will contribute towards Result 2.1, “Increased access to vocational/technical and tertiary education and training for underserved and disadvantaged groups,” (though activities will differ substantially from those illustrative examples provided on page 13 of the Strategy).” Can USAID clarify what “access” means?

Response: These results are referring to USAID’s Education Strategy dated February 2011.

(http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/Education%20Strategy.pdf). Please refer to this document for additional information. This has been added to the RFP as Attachment J.14.

37. The RFP mentions in several places that year 1 will focus on experimentation, piloting and assessing different models and interventions. Does USAID anticipate that Offerors would propose specific pilots in the proposal or rather is USAID looking for an illustrative list of pilots, to be confirmed following an initial baseline/needs assessment for Component 1 and an exhaustive identification of interventions and models for skills development.

Response: As stated in Section L.8, USAID expects Offerors to provide sufficient specificity in the technical proposal to evaluate feasibility of achieving targets. This could include proposing activities and/or interventions and how they will be assessed.

38. In the SF 33, block 9 indicates that the submission deadline is on “local (Kampala) time” but the cover letter states that submission is Washington DC time. Can you clarify which is correct?

Response: SF 33 block 9 has been revised to EST Washington, D.C Time. Also see the RFA Cover Letter for the correct time.

39. What is the CFDA number for this program?

Response: 98.001 USAID Foreign Assistance for Programs Overseas

40. Section B.5 Indirect Costs – is the offeror expected to provide ceiling indirect rates in the proposal? If so, are major subcontractors expected to do the same?

Response: No, the Offeror is not expected to propose ceilings on indirect rates. Refer to Section B.5 of the revised RFP. Language referring to a ceiling has been deleted.

41. Would USAID please clarify if the program name is the “Youth Leadership for Agriculture in Uganda” program, per page 9 of the RFP, or the “USAID/Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture” program, per the Branding Strategy on page 24?

Response: According to new branding guidelines, the Activity will be called the “Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity”

42. Would USAID please provide an estimated start date for the Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity?

Response: The anticipated award date is on/around April/May 2015.

43. Page 28, Section F.2, Period of Performance states that the period of performance for this contract is five (5) years from the date of award.

Question: Please provide an estimated date of award so that offerors may effectively estimate costs.

Response: See response to question 42 above.

44. What is the expected start date of this Activity?

45. For budgeting purposes, what is the estimated start date for this project?

46. Are there any Mission-specific waivers (vehicles, agricultural commodities, etc.) in effect which will apply to an award resulting from this solicitation? If so, could USAID please provide a copy of these waivers?

Response: Attached to this RFP amendment, as Attachment J.12 Mission-specific waivers for Approved Blanket Waiver for RHD Motor Vehicles dated January 24 2013.

47. Clause H.35 (Fraud reporting) contradicts with FAR 52.203-13 (included in Section I.1. of the RFP). FAR mandates the reporting only in cases where a credible evidence of fraud exists.

Reporting based on an allegation of fraud without evidence creates a liability for an implementer since three days are not sufficient enough to determine whether the allegation has merit. Please consider removing clause H.35.

Response: Clause H.35 Fraud Reporting has been removed from the revised RFP.

48. Per page 49 of the RFP, would USAID please provide a copy of the most up to date Uganda Mission Local Compensation Plan?

Response: Attached to this RFP amendment, as Attachment J.13, please find a memo summarizing the information in the current LCP.

49. On page 49 of the solicitation document, under H.21(b), USAID states that, “Unless otherwise approved by the Contracting Officer, the maximum prevailing compensation shall be the same as the maximum salary under the Uganda Mission Local Compensation Plan.” Would USAID please share the most recent Uganda Mission Local Compensation Plan?

Response: See response to question 48 above

50. Can the Mission provide is most recent Local Compensation Plan and benefits for FSN staff?

Response: See response to question 48 above.

51. Would USAID please provide the most recent FSN scale for Uganda?

52. Page 49, Section H.21 subparagraph (b) references the Uganda Mission Local Compensation Plan

(LCP).

53. Please provide the current LCP.

54. Page 48, Section H.17, Value Added Tax and Customs Duties states that the contractor must include VAT expenses in the award budget and bill USAID for payment of VAT. To ensure equitable cost proposals across all offerors, could USAID please provide specific VAT rates or plug figures that must be used by all offerors.

Response: In Uganda, VAT is calculated at 18%. VAT will be incorporated into the cost of goods and services consumed by the project. For example, the proposed cost of purchasing a computer should be inclusive of VAT. VAT must not be budgeted as a separate line item.

55. H.17 (pg 47) Value Added Tax and Customs Duties notes that all imports and expenditures are exempt from Value-Added Tax and Custom Duties but these exemptions are not allowed at point of sale. Contractor must include VAT expenses in budget and bill USAID for payment. Could USAID please confirm what % the VAT tax is in Uganda.

Response: See response to question 54 above.

56. Page 66, Part IV, Section K.2 (a)(1) incorporates the NAICS code for this acquisition.

Please identify the NAICS code.

Response: NAICS code is 541990 All other professional & technical services

57. Would USAID please confirm that an acronym list can be included as a non-counting page(s)?

Response: Acronyms list can be included and will not be part of the 30 page limit. See revised RFP section L.8(c).

58. Page 84, Section L.8 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal (c) defines the elements of the technical proposal which are excluded from the 30 page limitation. Please add the acronym list to this list of excluded pages.

Response: See response to question 57 above.

59. Can you clarify the meaning of the following on Page 79? (5) The Government reserves the right to make an award on any item for a quantity less than the quantity offered, at the unit cost or prices offered, unless the Offeror specifies otherwise in the proposal.

Response: This language has been deleted from the revised RFP.

60. Page 82: The RFP states “The Offeror must submit the proposal via internet email with up to 3 attachments (4MB limit) per email…” Please clarify whether that is 4MB per attachment or 4MB total per email.

Response: 4MB total per email is the maximum limit.

61. Page 85, Section L.8 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal B) Personnel and Staffing Plan requires a table showing the planned level of effort for each position. Please clarify that this table may be submitted as part of Annex E.

Response: The requested table showing the level of effort (LOE) for each proposed personnel can be presented as part of the Management structure under Annex E.

62. Section L.8.(B) (page 85) requests that offerors include “a table showing the planned level of effort or number of person-months for each position proposed including any planned short-term consultancies” as part of the Personnel and Staffing Plan. Would USAID allow this table to be included as part of Annex E?

Response: See response to question 61 above.

63. Page 85: Please confirm that required “table showing the planned level of effort or number of person months for each position proposed” listed as part of section B) Personnel and Staffing Plan (as specified on page 85 of the solicitation) may be included in the annex supporting this section (i.e., Annex B).

64. Page 85 of the RFP, in section B) of the Technical Proposal Instructions for the Personnel and Staffing Plan, the RFP requires the inclusion of a table showing the planned level of effort or number of person months for each position proposed including any planned short-term consultancies. The table would take approximately a minimum of one page of the Personnel and Staffing Plan section and reduce the narrative space, would USAID allow this table to be moved to Annex B?

65. On page 85, under Section L, USAID states that the bidder shall include “[…] a table showing the planned level of effort or number of person months for each position proposed including any planned short-term consultancies.” Due to the nature of this project, many of the interventions in years 2-5 will not be determined or designed until after the first year, following the piloting and assessment of initial interventions. Would USAID consider requesting the LOE chart (including planned short-term consultancies) for Year 1 only? For years 2-5 (or for years 1-5, if kept as an aggregate) would USAID consider requesting the LOE table be completed for LTTA only, providing an LOE pool for short-term consultancies that will be tapped on the basis of specific needs and priorities identified in Y1?

Response: The table should contain sufficient information to determine the Level of Effort that will be provided over the life of project. It is acceptable to include a pool of LOE for short term consultancies.

66. Page 85, Section L.8 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal (d) 4) requires Annex D: Draft Branding and Marking Plan. Clause L.9 states that the BIP and MP will not be part of the technical evaluation and will be reviewed if the offer is included in the competitive range. Please remove the requirement for submission of a draft prior to the identification of competitive range.

Response: The requirement for submission of the BIP and MP as Annex D of the proposal has been deleted. The BIP and MP will be requested of offerors who are included in competitive range.

67. On pg. 85, Section L, the RFP lists the Past Performance section separately from the Annexes as part of the technical proposal. Does USAID wish offerors to present a past performance narrative in addition that the Past Performance Matrix found in Annex C?

Response: Offerors may provide a short performance narrative and/or list of past performance in the technical proposal and the details in “Annex C within the 5 page limit”. Past performance information should be provided for the entire project consortium members (five for prime and five for each sub-contractor).

68. Is it acceptable to submit information regarding Past Performance on assistance awards as well as contracts?

Response: USAID will accept past performance references for both contracts and assistance awards of similar complexity, size and scope.

69. Page 87, Section L.8 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal D) (a) 1. requires information on five relevant contracts to be provided. Please confirm that information on a relevant cooperative agreement would qualify as a past performance reference.

Response: See response to Question 68 above

70. Page 87: The RFP states “List in an annex (Annex C) to the technical proposal five (5) of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal.” Please confirm that awards other than contracts, such as cooperative agreements, can also be used to demonstrate past performance.

71. On page 87 of the solicitation document, under L.8.D, USAID states Offerors are to list in an annex to the technical proposal “five of the most recent and relevant contracts.” Are Offerors permitted to include cooperative agreements in addition to contracts?

72. On page. 87, Section L, the RFP requests that offerors list the 5 most recent and relevant contracts. May offerors include cooperative agreements as part of past performance?

73. On page 87, the RFP states: “List in an annex (Annex C) to the technical proposal five (5) of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal (with specification of whether the work was being done as a prime contract or a subcontract).” Will Past Performance Reports for Cooperative Agreements be accepted by USAID?

Response: See response to Question 68 above

74. RFP Section L. 8 (p. 87) states “List in an annex (Annex C) to the technical proposal five (5) of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal (with specification of whether the work was being done as a prime contract or a subcontract).” May Offerors and major subcontractors include programs implemented through cooperative agreements or other funding mechanisms in this list?

75. Page 87 of the RFP, Section a1 states that Offerors must provide past performance for 5 contracts. Please clarify whether past performance of cooperative agreements are also allowed.

76. On P. 87, Section D(a)1, the Past Performance instructions state that the Offeror and major subcontractors should “list in an annex to the technical proposal five (5) of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal.” Would USAID consider allowing Offerors and their major subcontractors to present information about relevant cooperative agreements/grants as well? This would allow Offerors and their subcontractors to provide past performance information about the full range of their relevant experience, regardless of the implementation instrument

Response: See response to question 68 above.

77. On page 85 of solicitation document, under L.8, USAID clearly outlines the documents to be included in the Annexes. However, this list does not include Letters of Support from with public/private sector entities with whom an Offeror intends to cooperate, who are distinct from Subcontractors. Would USAID accept Letters of Support from such entities as part of the Annexes, included as “Annex H” to the Technical Proposal?

Response: Letters included in the proposal are limited to those from subcontractors, grantees and/or consortium members.

78. Page 86, Section L.8 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal C) 1. requires submission of a subcontracting plan as part of Annex E. Please confirm that the subcontracting plan is not bound by the 4 page limit for the management structure organizational chart also included in Annex E.

Response: The subcontracting plan is bound by the 4 page limit. Offerors are encouraged to describe the role of subcontractors within the Management Approach, supplementing as necessary in the Annex.

79. On pg. 86, Section L, the RFP notes that key personnel resumes should be 3 pages. May we include the required references on a separate page?

Response: No. The 3 page resume must include references.

80. Page 86 of the RFP in section B) of the Technical Proposal Instructions, the RFP states that resumes are a maximum of 3 pages and that resumes shall include three performance reference.

Will USAID allow Offerors to include key personnel references on a separate page from the resumes and thus not included in the 3 page resume limit?

Response: See response to Question 79 above

81. Per page 87 of the RFP, would USAID please confirm offerors are to submit 5 past performance references for the prime and 5 past performance references for each major subcontractor?

Response: Yes, Offerors are to submit 5 past performance references for the prime and 5 for each major subcontractor.

82. Section L.8.(d) (page 87) includes instructions for providing past performance information for the offeror and each major subcontractor in Annex C. Could USAID please confirm that the offeror is to provide information for five recent and relevant contracts for the offeror and five recent and relevant contracts for each major subcontractor within the five-page limit?

Response: See response to Question 81 above

83. Please confirm that the content described on page 87 under Section L.8.d, Past Performance: “The Offeror’s past performance will include information on successful implementation of programs of similar size and scope, including: quality of product or service (including consistency in meeting goals and targets), schedules (including timeliness of performance), cost control (including forecasting costs as well as accuracy in Financial reporting), good business relations, management of key personnel and for Prime Offerors who are not small business concerns, their utilization of small business concerns as subcontractors” is intended to be part of Annex C:

Offeror/ subcontractor past performance matrix and therefore falls outside of the Technical Proposal’s 30-page limit.

Response: Yes and see response to Question 81 above

84. Page 90, under Section L.11.b, USAID states that Biographical Data Sheets are required. Would USAID please indicate their preferred location of these Biographical Data Sheets sheets within the Cost Proposal?

Response: Bio data forms should be included as annex to the cost proposal.

85. Page 90 of the RFP, in section b. Part 2 of the Cost Proposal Instructions, the RFP states that “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.” We respectfully request that USAID consider reducing the requirement for Biographical Data Sheets to all long term proposed staff, including expatriate and cooperating country proposed for key and non-key positions, and international short term proposed staff, therefore eliminating the requirement for Biographical Data Sheets for short term cooperating country proposed personnel?

Response: Biographical data sheets are required for non key personnel including long and short term expatriate staff, long and short term cooperating country personnel identified in the budget.

Any positions included in the budget for whom personnel have not been identified can be listed as “To Be Determined” with the requirement of Biodata and Resume submission post award.

86. Please confirm that 1420s are only required for key personnel.

Response: Biographical data sheets are required for both key and non key personnel including long and short term expatriate staff, long and short term cooperating country personnel identified in the budget.

87. Can the cost proposal be submitted in PDF with accompanying budget sheets in excel

Response: Yes. Budget Sheets in excel are required. Excel sheets must not be ‘locked.’

88. For the detailed budget sheets, are offerors allowed to add columns and rows to the format provided in the “detail” tab or should offerors link their own spreadsheets to the “detail” tab so that only summarized dollar amounts by year are included?

Response: Offerors must use the budget format, Attachment J.6 to the RFP. However, Offerors may add rows, “detail tab” to the budget categories as necessary.

89. Could USAID please confirm that offerors can add line items to the budget template provided in the RFP based on their standard method of budgeting and per their approved cost accounting standards?

Response: Offerors must use the budget format, Attachment J.6 to the RFP. However, Offerors should add rows to the budget categories as necessary. For example, you should add the names and titles of individuals budgeted under labor categories. Or, add additional categories under the Other Direct Cost section, such as legal fees, office rental etc.

90. Page 92, Section L.11 Cost Proposal Instructions (d) states that the offeror is required to submit policies as they relate to this project. Please confirm that these policies are not required for an offeror which has previously been awarded a USAID contract.

Response: Page 92 of the RFP has been changed to state, “Upon request of the Contracting Officer, the Offeror will submit policies and procedures, especially regarding salary scales, fringe benefits, merit increases, promotions, leave, differentials, travel, procurement and per diem regulations, etc., as they relate to this project.”

91. Page 92 of the RFP requires the submission of the offeror’s Policies and Procedures. Given the volume of documents and pages involved, can the offeror submit a list of the policies or a table of contents in lieu of the actual documents?

Response: Please see response to Question 90 above.

92. On page 91 of the RFP, are the items listed in Parts 3-9 (Certification, Policies, Information concerning work-day, work-week, etc.) required for the prime or for both the prime and major subcontractors?

Response: Please see response to Question 90 above regarding Policies. All other parts as listed on Page 91 are required for the prime contractor.

93. References to construction activities appear in Section L.11.f.2.ii.G (page 91). Could USAID please confirm that these references were included in error? If not, could USAID please elaborate on the types of construction activities it intends to implement under the contract?

Response: Delete Section L.11.b.2.G in its entirety. Reference to Construction activities under this section was included in error

94. Section L.11.2(g) instructs Offerors to include construction activities in the budget. Section C does not include any references to construction. Please clarify if the Mission expects Offerors to implement construction activities under this award.

Response: Please see response to Question 93 above.

95. Page 94-96, Section M.2.1 Technical Evaluation Criteria states that the four evaluation criteria are treated with an equal weighting. Clause M.3 states that cost proposals will not be evaluated if the offeror’s technical evaluation is unacceptable. Clause M.4 states that the contracting officer may establish a competitive range with only the most highly rated proposals. Please provide the methodology for distinguishing between unacceptable and highly rated proposals.

Response: Refer to the revised RFP, Section M.2.1 Technical Evaluation Criteria. The four criteria are now ranked in descending order of importance. Per FAR 15.203, USAID is only required to include in the RFP the factors and significant subfactors that will be used to evaluate the proposal and their relative importance.

96. USAID has asked only for CVs of Key Personnel. Although the RFP requests a staffing plan and organization chart and these are part of the evaluation criteria in section M (p. 95), it does not state that non-key personnel CVs are relevant to this bid, requested, accepted, or will be evaluated. Will non-key personnel be evaluated? If so, are CVs or qualifications summaries of non-key personnel requested?

Response: Non-key personnel are considered part of the overall Personnel and Staffing Plan and will be evaluated in terms of whether the plan as a whole will achieve the objectives of the

Activity. CVs of non-key personnel will not be accepted. However, Offerors can provide summaries of non-key personnel qualifications within the Personnel and Staffing Plan.

97. Page 95 of the RFP, Criterion 2 says Offerors will only be scored on their proposed key personnel. Please clarify whether proposed staff other than key personnel will be evaluated.

Response: See response to question 96 above.

98. Given fluctuating currency exchange rates between USD and Ugandan Shillings, would USAID please provide a set exchange rate to be used for the cost proposal to allow USAID to more effectively evaluate proposed local costs across different bids?

Response: Offerors shall submit proposals in response to this solicitation in U.S. dollars, Please note that FAR 52.225-17, Evaluation of Foreign Currency Offers, was not included in the solicitation.

99. Section B.4 (page 7) of the RFP notes that the offeror should include a plug figure of USD $1 million for grants under contract. Could USAID please confirm that contractors will have the authority to implement grants under contract per ADS 302.3.5.6 and ADS 302.3.4.13?

Response: In-kind grants to GOU entities are allowed under this program. But, cash grants to district government are not authorized. USAID confirms that it will add language allowing the contractor to execute grants with non-governmental organizations and partner government entities in the award resulting from this solicitation.

100. Page 7, Section B.4 Budget includes a grant plug figure of $1,000,000. Question: Please confirm that grant under contract (GUC) authority will be incorporated in the resulting contract.

Response: Yes

101. On page 7 of the RFP, chart B.4 lists $1.0 million for grants under Years 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 but also states “Grants*(plug in figure)”. Do we have to set aside $1 million for grants or can we select the amount? Also, is the figure of $1.0 million for each year or for the full 5 years?

Response: This figure is not illustrative. $1M total for five years is a set aside/plug in figure for grants under contract that all Offerors should use.

102. Could USAID please clarify the purpose of the grants mentioned in the RFP, the anticipated number of grants to be issued, and confirm that the $1M plug in figure in B.4 Budgets is the total for the entire Activity and not $1M per year.

Response: See Response to question 101 above. The Offeror will determine the number of grants to be issued and this will be in line with their overall technical approach. The Offeror will determine how best to utilize the grant fund to support achievement of contract results.

103. On page 7 of the solicitation document, under Section B.4, USAID indicates a $1,000,000 “plug in figure” for Grants. Is this a fixed amount that all Offerors should use for grants or incentive funds or is the value of such funds flexible?

Response: See response to question 101 above.

104. Section L11.(2).F. (P.91) specifies that “Offeror must provide information sufficient to determine reasonableness of costs proposed for each grantee expected to be part of the award.

Detailed information documenting basis for proposed costs (including Indirect Costs) must be provided in the budget narrative.” Given that USAID has instructed all offerors to use a plug-in amount of $1M for GUCs, please consider removing this from the RFP.

Response: The Offeror must keep the plug figure as stated. This does not include consortium subcontracts which still require information sufficient to determine reasonableness of costs proposed. They are intended for performance based subcontracts only

105. Page 91: Section E states that Offerors included in the competitive range will be required to submit a small business subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR Part 19. On page 97, Section M.6 Contracting with Small Business Concerns and Disadvantaged Enterprises states that “Offers should make every reasonable effort to identify and offer opportunities to small business concerns and disadvantaged enterprises.” Please clarify if a sub-contracting plan is to be included as part of the Cost Proposal.

Response: A sub-contracting plan will be required and submitted if an offeror is included in the competitive range

106. On Page 97, section M.6 “Contracting with Small Business Concerns and Disadvantaged Enterprises,” the RFP states that “In the event that proposals are deemed equal, the proposed participation of [small business concerns and disadvantaged enterprises] may become a determining factor for selection”. However, the RFP does not require a small business utilization plan, and states on page 91 that only “Offerors included in the competitive range will be required to submit a small business contracting plan […]”. Can USAID please confirm that small business plans will not be used as tie breakers in the initial review of bids?

Response: No, small business plans will not be used as tie breakers in the initial review of bids.

107. FAR 52.204-14 was included in the RFP, but may not be applicable. The purpose of the Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture contract is not to provide services under the Service Contract Act, the purpose of the contract is to provide professional level technical assistance in support of the Scope of Work. The Department of Labor does not require application of the Act to any contract for services which is performed essentially by bona fide executive, administrative, or professional employees, with the use of service employees being only a minor factor in the performance of the contract. Moreover, categories of employees to which the SCA generally would apply would be host country nationals, and therefore wouldn't be subject to the minimum wage determinations of the DOL. Please confirm that this is not an SCA covered contract, and that this FAR is not applicable.

Response: FAR 4.1705 prescribes use of FAR 52.204-14. FAR 52.204-14 does not have anything to do with the Service Contract Act. It has to do with reporting subcontracts. As such, it is relevant and remains in the RFP.

108. On Page 90 under “(D) Other Direct Costs”, USAID states “If seminars and conferences are included, the Offeror must indicate the subject, venue and duration of proposed conferences and seminars […]”. Since the activity interventions will largely be determined following the first year of the project, would USAID delete the request for detailed information (subject, venue, duration) over the life of the project? Alternatively, would USAID consider changing the timeframe for the detailed information requested to Year 1 only, with a budget pool for conferences/seminars to be provided for years 2-5?

Response: This section L.11(b) 2 (d) Other Direct Costs states the minimum information required in the budget and budget narrative if it is deemed applicable the proposed approach. The wording will therefore not be changed.