Response_to_Questions_Received_SOL-617-16-000002_modification__1.pdf

USAID/Uganda Sanitation for Health Activity

SOL-617-16-000002

Amendment #1

Amendment I to SOL-617-16-000002: Questions and Answers

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.

Subject:

1. At the bottom of page 11, the RFP notes that most districts do not have access to regular, safe or affordable pit emptying services or disposal/treatment sites for fecal waste. An expected result is that all urban areas in 25 supported districts have access to safely managed excreta services, while 250 schools are to have access to FSM services. Given the lack of disposal/treatment sites and the nascent sanitation value chain that will take time to develop, does USAID expect that the $3.75 million allocated to construction will be leveraged by other investments in FSM infrastructure?

Response: The contractor shall propose the most strategic use of funds given the infrastructure constraints, efforts to leverage Government of Uganda and other donor investments, and that funds allocated for construction are approximately 10% of the award total for all activities.

2. On RFP Page 14, one of the bullet points discussing target results for Output 1 calls for the contractor to “complete at least one national event and one event in each of the 7 regions to promote learning and scaling of market-based approaches to sanitation.” Can USAID please confirm the names of the 7 regions referenced in the RFP?

Response: The seven regions are South West, Central, West Nile, East-Central, East, North and Karamoja regions.

3. On page 14, the last result under Output 1 references “each of the 7 regions.” Per our understanding, Uganda has 4 regions. Could USAID clarify this output?

Response: Please see the answer to Question 2.

4. Results Required under Output 1 (page 14):

a. Will the indicator for improved sanitation change during the life of the project, due to the shift from Millennium Development Goals and its definitions to Sustainable Development Goals and its definitions, and how will the contractor need to adapt?

Response: Yes, at the time the solicitation was issued the definitions to the SDGs had not yet been officially adopted. USAID is still in the process of updating its Agency WASH indicators and the contractor will be expected to adapt to any modifications in this Agency required indicators, including disaggregation by wealth quintile. For example, as the draft indicators are currently written "Number of people gaining access to an improved drinking water source" and "Number of people gaining access to in improved sanitation facility" and will change to "Number of people gaining access to a basic drinking water service/basic sanitation service". Definitions between the two indicators, however, are the same in the indicator reference sheets. The Contractor will also be expected to adapt the new higher-level SDG indicators in their monitoring and evaluation plan when and where appropriate.

b. Would USAID please clarify the anticipated audiences for the knowledge management tools required under Output 1?

Response: The contractor should propose the anticipated audiences for knowledge management tools that would ensure the goals/targets of the activity are met.

c. Regarding the requirement for “one national and one event in each of the 7 regions to promote learning and scaling,” who are the anticipated audiences for these events?

Response: The contractor should propose the anticipated audiences for the events that would ensure the goals/targets of the activity are met.

5. One of the required results for Output 1 is that “all urban areas in supported districts have access to safely managed excreta services”, and Output 3 results include “all urban areas in supported districts have developed or updated a sanitation plan.” Could USAID define urban areas in this context?

Response: Urban areas shall be defined according to the Government of Uganda (e.g. classified as town councils or municipalities - most districts have 3 to 4 on average).

6. Page 18 references that the Contractor need to ensure that “a small but significant portion of the project is subject to rigorous testing with an experimental design that compares the project to a counter-factual.”

a) Is USAID expecting that the project will participate in a Randomized Controlled Trial?

Response: The project will participate in an impact evaluation that includes a counterfactual according to USAID Evaluation guidance. This will be completed by a separate third-party evaluation partner. The Uganda Sanitation for Health activity will be expected to collaborate, coordinate, and collect data as needed. This does not preclude the contractor from budgeting and planning for their own operational research studies.

b) On page 18, the RFP states “Measurement of impact must go beyond traditional self-report (e.g. using sensors, administrative or clinical data, water usage data, third party observation, real-time text-based questions.” It further states that “When possible, the evaluation should include cost-benefit analysis.” Could USAID clarify whether this section is referring to measurements to be carried out through contractor monitoring of results or through the possible external evaluations and operations research, which would be managed by a USAID consultant?

Response: The Uganda Sanitation for Health activity will be expected to collaborate, coordinate, and collect data as necessary to test any hypothesis. The activity should not rely solely on self-reported data, but rather seek to also use non-biased means of gathering data such as sensors, administrative or clinical data, water usage data, third party observation, real-time text-based questions to ensure data “reported” are actual results. USAID and the Ministry of Health are interested in costing questions related to Open Defecation Free (ODF) certification, therefore the contractor will likely be asked to complete a costing study during the life of the activity.

c) On page 18, the RFP states that “the Contractor must work to collect data to test key hypotheses underlying USAID”s results framework…” Can USAID clarify which development hypotheses under Objective 3 will be tested through this sanitation program?

Response: The contractor should propose which development hypotheses are most relevant to test. Contractor will discuss priority hypotheses with USAID during review and approval of the AMELP.

7. ODF Indicator: Could USAID give guidance on which source to use for the ODF definition in Uganda (there is some confusion between the ODF definition and total sanitation definition applied locally – important when examining criteria that determine whether a community has achieved ODF status).

Response: In order to measure achievement against activity targets the Contractor shall adapt the Ugandan national standard definition for ODF communities. However, this can be negotiated during approval of the activity monitoring and evaluation plan during project start-up.

8. Can USAID clarify whether there will be any communities receiving no services, or whether all will receive something (either demand creation activities or demand creation plus market-based activities)? And do both these treatment arms comprise the full list of 25 districts?

Response: Any impact evaluation design will be created at the time of award to the third-party evaluation firm. USAID expects Uganda Sanitation for Health Activity to be working/be active in 25 districts by the end of the five-year contract.

9. Per page 18, USAID expects the Contractor to work with a third-party evaluation firm to integrate operations research into its implementation work plan. Given that this research will be designed in partnership with a third party, can USAID clarify if costs associated with these additional evaluation and operational research requirements (including going beyond traditional self-report and rigorous testing which compares the project to a counterfactual) will be covered by the third-party evaluation firm?

Response: Third-party evaluation firm will cover costs for specific activities in its SOW, including performance and impact evaluations required by USAID. Uganda Sanitation for Health activity will be expected to collaborate, coordinate, and collect data as needed, and fund its own M&E activities, which may include additional operations research/evaluations.

10. Would USAID consider having the third-party Evaluation Contractor also lead the baseline survey in order to increase the consistency of the baseline with any evaluations?

Response: The third-party Evaluation Contractor will be responsible for leading a broader baseline survey, however the Uganda Sanitation for Health contractor will be expected to contribute to the design and implementation, and pull data from this survey for the initial baseline report specified on Section F.4.2 Reports and Deliverables or Outputs, Baseline Report. Cost contribution will be negotiated with the third-party Evaluation Contractor.

11. Section C.6 (p. 18) states, “From the earliest stages of design, the Contractor must work to collect data to test key hypotheses underlying USAID’s results framework for broader learning […]” Can USAID please confirm that any data collection costs (outside of regular monitoring and evaluation activities) associated with mid-term and life-of-project evaluations will be the responsibility of the third-party evaluation firm contracted by USAID?

Response: Most costs associated with the mid-term and life-of-project evaluations will be the responsibility of the third-party evaluation firm. However, this activity should set a 5-10% budget for monitoring and evaluation, as the contractor will be expected to collect and share routine data, and collaborate with the third-party evaluation firm.

12. Section C.6 Evaluation:

a. Can USAID state whether a third-party evaluator has already been selected for this award? If not, what are the expected timelines for the selection of the evaluator?

Response: No, a third-party evaluator has not already been selected. This evaluator will be selected by the time the Uganda Sanitation for Health contract is awarded.

b. Can USAID provide further clarity regarding the nature of “all necessary effort to support any third-party evaluation”, for example does this include budgeting for mid-term and life-of-project evaluations? If so, what is the expected evaluation design and sample size to be used for budget planning?

Response: This activity should set a 5-10% budget for monitoring and evaluation activities.

13. Would USAID consider replacing the Grants CLIN 002 with a Strategic Activities Fund (SAF)

CLIN 002? This flexibility would allow offerors to utilize a wider variety of sub-award mechanisms to achieve the objectives of the Uganda Sanitation for Health Activity while ensuring that the capacity of prospective Ugandan grantees is increased through the continued application of GUCs.

Response: No, USAID will not replace Grants CLIN 002 with Strategic Activities Funds (SAF).

14. RFP Section C.7-d addressing Grants Under Contracts on Page 20 notes that “up to $4 million in grants will be provided to local CSOs and in-kind grants to local governments…” Can USAID please confirm that money-based grants may also be issued to private sector partners to, for example, cost share prototyping, piloting and/or scaling of new sanitation products?

Response: Yes, money-based grants may also be issued to private sector partners. But, money/cash grants to district government are not authorized.

15. C.7 Implementation Approach:

a. a) Geographic Focus: ‘The contractor will begin district based activities in a phased approach’. Can USAID provide any further guidance on expectations behind illustrative phased approaches?

Response: No, this is for the contractor to propose.

b. d) Grants Under Contract: Is there a total value limit for an individual grant to a Ugandan organization? Also, can USAID specify if these grants can be made to not-for-profit and private/for-profit entities and/or public entities, or is there any further guidance on which entities are eligible for grants?

Response: According to ADS 302.3.4.13c. (1) The total value of an individual grant to a U.S. Non-Governmental Organizations must not exceed $100,000. This limitation does not apply to grant awards to non-U.S. NGOs. Partner Government Entities: The total value of all Grants Under Contracts (GUC) that provide funds (as opposed to in-kind assistance) to a particular partner government entity (for example, ministry, municipality, district, etc.) must not exceed $300,000 for the duration of the prime contract. Grants can be issued to non-governmental organizations (non-profits or for-profits) and partner government entities (also known as partner government implementing entity as defined in ADS 220). In-kind grants are allowed under this program. But, cash grants to district government are not authorized.

c. Does USAID require that we mention specific CSOs to receive funding, or will those CSOs be finalized with USAID sometime after award?

Response: The contractor is urged to submit a proposal that allows USAID to evaluate its full technical approach. In doing so, specifics are always helpful.

16. Regarding RFP Section H.22, Item 2 on Page 49, USAID notes that through “(IEE) Uganda_

Infrastructure_ Development_ IEE_ 051715…USAID has determined that a NEGATIVE WITH CONDITIONS DETERMINATION applies to the proposed activities.” Please provide a copy of the subject IEE and confirm that it covers the anticipated construction activities noted in RFP Section C.7-e on page 21, including “public or institutional sanitation facilities, public drinking water supplies, and fecal waste treatment/disposal facilities."

Response: Uganda Infrastructure Development IEE is attached to this amendment, as Attachment J.18. Yes, USAID confirms that anticipated construction activities are covered by the IEE. A negative determination with conditions is recommended for promotion of appropriate technology to improve access to safe water and sanitation and small scale building renovations. A positive determination is recommended for construction of large scale water and sanitation facilities (e.g. waste water treatment or fecal waste treatment/disposal facilities).

17. In Section F.5, Delivery Schedule for Reports/Deliverables, Project Results (pp. 31-32), the illustrative total (life-of-project) target for “Households with soap and water at a hand washing station commonly used by family members” is stated as “Not less than 10,000.” However, Section C.5, Statement of Work (page 16) lists the following Required Result for Output 2: “100,000 households with soap and water at a hand washing station commonly used by family members in USG assisted programs.” Can USAID please confirm that the illustrative target for this indicator is 10,000 households?

Response: The targets in the solicitation are not illustrative and the 10,000 total was a typo. Given the sanitation target is 750,000 people and of those gaining sanitation, only a subset will be expected to gain HWWS, USAID has reduced the target for this indicator to 50,000 households with soap and water at a hand washing station commonly used by family members in USG assisted programs. See Revised Section F.5. Delivery Schedule for Reports/Deliverables, Project Results table.

18. The RFP, in the results under 3.2, describes the target of 10,000 communities (villages) certified

ODF as a result of USG efforts. In other documents on Uganda, villages are described as the lowest level of elected government and cover several communities. Can USAID clarify that the target is 10,000 communities?

Response: Yes, USAID confirms the target for this award is 10,000 villages.

19. F.5 Delivery Schedule for Reports/Deliverables: Project Results Year One (page 31):

a. Is there flexibility in the year one target of 75,000 as long as by end of project the total is 750,000?

Response: Yes.

b. Can USAID clarify if there is a minimum acceptable standard for “Households with soap and water at a hand washing station commonly used by family members” Will this standard shift based on the transition to the Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs), and if so how does USAID expect this will be measured?

Response: Yes, any device or facility that can be used for handwashing and has soap and water present. In the SDGs the definition is unchanged.

20. RFP Section F.4 on page 26 makes note of the first report/deliverable as a “Formative Rural

Household and Institutional Survey.” However, this deliverable is not referenced with a due date in Section F.5 on page 29. Can USAID please specify the expected due date for the deliverable in question?

Response: The deliverable date has been clarified at 240 calendar days (~8 months). See revised RFP section F.5 Delivery Schedule for Reports/Deliverables.

21. RFP Section F.4 on page 26 makes note of required deliverables including a “Formative Rural

Household and Institutional-based Survey” and a “Baseline Report.” Can USAID please advise on the extent to which the Formative Rural Household and Institutional-based survey should be considered a piece of the broader Baseline Report?

Response: The Formative Rural Household and Institutional-based Survey is an independent report, but together with the baseline report (which will be pulled from data collected from a third-party evaluation firm in conjunction with the Sanitation for Health Contractor), will provide a helpful overview of the current water, sanitation and hygiene operating environment. The baseline report will be used for baseline monitoring and evaluation purposes, whereas the formative rural household and institutional-based survey is used to create understanding of the context in order to design project activities.

22. Section C.5 Statement of Work (Output 1.1): Can USAID provide more clarity on the request for a “formative household and facility based survey” as part of this activity? Is USAID stipulating one household survey be conducted, or are we free to propose additional methods, particularly in light of the themes to be covered as outlined on page 26 (under F.4).

Response: The contractor is free to propose any additional methods they deem necessary.

23. Section F.4 Reports and Deliverables or Outputs:

a. Can USAID indicate the due date for the Formative Rural Household and Institutional-based Survey as this is not included in the table under F.5 on page 29 of the RFP?

Response: See response to Question 20.

b. Can USAID provide further information regarding acceptable methods for establishing the baseline report and baseline figures for the project result indicators?

Response: The contractor should propose the methods they feel best placed for establishing the baseline report.

c. Can USAID please provide baseline information on all indicators included in the RFP, and indicate the preferred source(s) of baseline indicators? Can USAID also indicate the historical trends that determined the indicators set forth by USAID, so that we can appreciate the necessary acceleration between current statistics and the targeted achievements USAID desires?

Response: USAID will not provide baseline information, but preferred data sources include data sources used by the Ministry of Water and Environment and the Ministry of Health. The Contractor must base their proposal on to all publicly available data sources when preparing their proposal. The contractor should undertake this analysis, ensuring it informs their technical proposal.

24. Within Section C Activity 1.1 and Section F.4 (5), USAID refers to the need to develop a strategy for the development of the national Sanitation Marketing Plan (SMP). In some places, however, the terms "strategy" and "plan" appear to be reversed or used interchangeably (i.e. last paragraph of Section F.4. (5) and third sentence of Activity 1.1). Since one is delivered within ninety days and the other by Year 2, please clarify whether the strategy is used to develop the plan and the timing of each.

Response: The national sanitation marketing plan/strategy will be developed as a public good in partnership with government and sector stakeholders so the format and name will be dictated by the process and demand.

25. The instructions for the technical approach on page 83 ask that the Contractor’s approaches take into consideration geographic focus, but then only ask the Contractor to propose a selection approach, criteria and assessment process for the districts. However, on page 84, under the Management Approach and Staffing Plan, offerors are asked to describe the geographic location of all offices, and on page 93 under Evaluation Criteria, the technical approach evaluation criteria mentions “focus districts.”

a. Could USAID clarify whether the Offeror should suggest potential focus districts and a phased approach to reach them within its proposal or focus on selection criteria only?

Response: Given that community led total sanitation (CLTS) is a demand driven activity, USAID did not want to suggest focus district (these will need to be done in consultation with the Government of Uganda and other donors). However, there are many criteria that should/could be considered. The offeror is free to suggest focus districts if they choose, but must discuss their phased approach to reaching targeted districts within their proposal.

b. If offerors must suggest potential districts, can USAID provide additional information on priority districts or regions so that the offeror can make appropriate assumptions about location and staffing of field offices?

Response: No, USAID will not provide additional information about priority districts or regions beyond what is spelled out in the RFP. The Offeror is expected to use their knowledge of the local environment to suggest selection criteria and identify potential field offices if part to the offerors proposal.

26. On page 84, the RFP asks for outputs, outcomes, deliverables, and milestones to be in the work plan.

Given the 5-page work plan limit, is it sufficient to include outputs and outcomes in the AMEP instead of in the work plan?

Response: The 5-page work plan limit is only for purposes of the RFP (a longer work plan will be required upon start up). Proposals may include outputs and outcomes in their AMEP (also not to exceed five pages); however, the work plan must describe the tasks and actions necessary to achieve the results including deliverables and milestones.

27. In section F.2, the Period of Performance is noted as five years. Can USAID please provide the anticipated start date?

Response: USAID anticipates this activity will start o/a October 2016.

28. Given the nature of the scope of work, can USAID provide some examples of amortized costs that would be subject to FAR 17.103 and FAR 17.106 and reported as cancellation charges and cancellation ceilings?

Response: This would depend on the offerors approach and whether fixed assets have been charged to expense through either depreciation or amortization. At this time it cannot generalized but can be determined when negotiations are completed and incorporated at award.

29. Section B.2. Contract Type: Can USAID provide guidance regarding the allowability of submission of a Time and Materials budget for subcontractors in response to the proposal?

Response: Time and Materials are the least preferred contract type but may be allowable in certain circumstances if the offeror can adequately demonstrate that it is not possible at the time of placing the contract to estimate accurately the extent or duration of the work or to anticipate cost with any degree of certainty. Offerors should submit all budgets for both the prime and subcontractors in the format within Attachment J.15.

30. May offerors submit a list of acronyms and abbreviations that will not count toward the page limit?

Response: List of Acronyms and abbreviations can be included and will not be part of the 25 page limit. See revised RFP section L.8 (b).

31. Please confirm that offerors may include a cover page and list of acronyms in the technical proposal that do not count against the 25-page limit.

Response: Cover page and list of acronyms can be included and will not be part of the 25 page limit.

See revised RFP section L.8 (b).

32. Pg. 77 – Could USAID please confirm that proposals should include a cover page containing the information described in L.2.c.2.i-v that is not subject to the page limit?

Response: See response to Question 31 and revised RFP section L.8 (b).

33. May applicants include an acronyms list that does not count toward the 25 page limit?

Response: See response to Question 30 and revised RFP section L.8 (b).

34. Please confirm that offerors may include title pages to the technical proposal annexes that do not count against the page limits listed in the RFP.

Response: Title pages to the technical proposal annexes can be included and will not be part of the page limits listed in RFP.

35. Can USAID please provide a copy of the Uganda Local Compensation Plan?

Response: Attached to this amendment, as Attachment J.17, please find a memo summarizing the information in the current LCP.

36. While pages 20-21 discuss grants under contract, there isn’t a clause in the RFP that authorizes their use. Could USAID provide the authority to issue grants under contract (GUCs)?

Response: ADS 302.3.4.13 provides the Grants Under Contract authority. USAID will add language allowing the contractor to execute grants with non-governmental organizations and partner government entities in award resulting from this solicitation.

37. Please confirm that offerors are not to submit a Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) and Marking Plan (MP) at this time.

Response: Offerors should not submit BIP and MP at this time. BIP and MP will be requested of offerors for final review before award or in the competitive range. See revised RFP section L.10.

38. Section L.10 (pp. 91-92) of the RFP instructs offerors to include a Branding and Marking Plan with their submissions. Should this be included as an annex to the technical proposal or the cost proposal?

Response: See response to Question 37.

39. Could USAID clarify if offerors must submit a Branding and Marking Plan with their proposal? If so, may offerors include it as Annex 10 of the Cost Proposal?

Response: See response to Question 37.

40. Regarding the key personnel position for Private Sector Development Advisor noted on RFP Page 33, will USAID allow candidates who do not have Master’s degree to still satisfy minimum requirements by having more than the 10 years of required experience?

Response: USAID will only allow candidates who have Master’s degree in Business, Management, Economics, Finance, or related field. OR a Bachelor’s degree in Business, Management, Economics or Finance and a minimum of fifteen (15) years of work experience in private sector or providing technical assistance to improve private sector performance, demonstrating increased level of responsibility. See revised RFP section F.6 Key Personnel.

41. Section F.6: Will USAID consider years of professional experience in lieu of an advanced graduate degree, as part of key personnel minimum requirements?

Response: USAID will only accept candidates who meet the requirements as stated in Amendment No 1 of the RFP section F.6 Key Personnel.

42. Will experience in lieu of an advanced degree be acceptable for the COP and Private Sector Development Advisor role?

Response: See response to Question 41.

43. For the Private Sector Development Advisor role, experience in WASH small and medium enterprise development is currently listed as a requirement. Will USAID consider making small and medium enterprise (SME) development a requirement and the WASH SME development experience as preferred?

Response: Yes, USAID has revised this requirement. See revised RFP section F.6 Key Personnel.

44. Can USAID please clarify how many past performance references should be provided by the consortium?

Response: Refer to Attachment J.16 No.9 section. Each past performance information provided should have a minimum of one reference that is the Procuring Contracting Officer and/or the Contracting Officer’s Representative (and other references - e.g., Administrative Contracting Officer —if applicable. Offerors should include references who they believe will be able to provide necessary feedback about the Offerors past performance information.

45. RFP Section L.8-2 on page 84 discusses an Annex 3 covering Org Chart and Staffing Plan that must include “a third chart [staffing plan] showing titles, names and proposed LOE for personnel that will form part of the activity team.” Should offerors include proposed short-term staff in addition to long-term staff? Also, if a position has been identified as necessary yet a candidate has not yet been recruited for that position, should offerors list that position title, position description, and LOE while including the name as TBD?

Response: Yes, Offerors should include short term technical staff in the Organizations Chart and Staffing Plan to the extent that is deemed reasonable. Offerors should provide narrative on proposed short term technical staff and how they would benefit the Activity. 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.

46. Section L.7 Submission Delivery Instructions:

a. As submission of the proposal will be made to one email address, via multiple emails to submit the full set of application materials and annexes, can USAID provide further clarity regarding the process for confirmation of receipt for each submission email and the full set of emails comprising the submission?

Response: USAID will confirm receipt in a single email by stating the number of emails and attachments received.

b. Can USAID provide further guidance on the nature of the “text accessible” Excel format for the budget?

Response: Offerors should provide information within Excel format that is unlocked in order for USAID to verify formulae used.

47. In addition to Annexes 6 and 7 covering past performance, to what extent should offerors include text within the 25-page limit technical proposal discussing past performance?

Response: Offerors can provide a short performance narrative and/or a list of past performance in the technical proposal and the details in “Annex 6”.

48. In the narrative Past Performance section of the technical proposal, may offerors provide performance information for all subcontractors rather than just the prime and major subcontractors?

Response: Past performance information should be provided for the entire project consortium members; that is five for prime and five for each major sub-contractor. See RFP Section L.8 (d)4)3.

49. L8: Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal:

a. Past Performance: Per page 83 of the RFP, can USAID clarify whether past performance

(using the template included in attachment J.16) will be counted as part of the 25 page limit of the technical proposal, or if past performance should be included as an annex?

Response: Performance using the template included in attachment J.16 will not be counted as part of the 25 page limit of the technical proposal. Also see response to Question 48.

b. Past Performance: If Past performance is to be included as an annex, is there a page limit for the Past Performance Matrix?

Response: No, there is no page limit for the Past Performance Matrix.

c. Past Performance: Would USAID confirm that each proposal should include only 3-5 past performance examples total, rather than per partner?

Response: See response to Question 48.

d. Annexes: Should Annexes contain page numbers?

Response: Yes.

e. Annex 7: Would USAID please provide a template for the ESRS and Small Business

Utilization annex?

Response: Offerors should visit the ESRS website: http://www.esrs.gov in order to know how ESRS is submitted. USAID does not have a template for Small Business Utilization.

Offerors should provide all information requested for under L.8 (d) 4) Annex 7 paragraph 2.

50. In the Past Performance Section on page 85, offerors are asked to provide performance information for itself, the “teaming arrangements, if any, and each major subcontractor…” Would USAID please clarify what is meant by “teaming arrangements?”

Response: Teaming arrangements as defined in FAR 9.601are:

“Contractor team arrangement,” as used in this subpart, means an arrangement in which—

(1) Two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or

(2) A potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program.

51. For Annex 6: Past Performance Matrix on page 85, the RFP states that up to 5 recent and relevant awards of 3-5 years are to be included “for the prime inclusive of all partners.” Could USAID confirm that no more than 5 past awards are to be submitted in total, and that these are to provide past performance for the prime and all partners? Given that a consortium may have 5 or more members, could the 5 past awards be limited to the prime and major subcontractors? Finally, does the reference of “3-5 years” refer to the duration of the programs, or that recent programs should have ended within the last 3-5 years?

Response: Past performance information should be provided for the entire project consortium member; that is five for prime and five for each major sub-contractor. See RFP Section L.8 (d)4)3.

The reference 3-5 years refers to programs which ended within the last 3-5 years.

52. For Annex 6: Past Performance Matrix, can the 5 most recent and relevant awards include cooperative agreements of similar size, scope and complexity?

Response: Yes, USAID will accept past performance references for both Contracts and Cooperative Agreements of similar complexity, size and scope.

53. Could USAID clarify that offerors must provide the same information for subcontractor personnel that are provided for prime personnel?

Response: Similar information as submitted by the prime offerors on the cost proposal must be provided for all Subcontracts. See revised RFP section L.9 Part 2(4) (H).

http://www.esrs.gov/

54. On pg. 87, paragraph H says, “Similar information as submitted by the prime offerors on the cost proposal must be provided for all Subcontracts provided under the category for personnel.” Could USAID please clarify what is meant by ‘subcontracts provided under the category for personnel’?

Response: See response to Question 53.

55. L.9 Cost Proposal Instructions: Biographical Data Sheets: For staff that is proposed at less than 100% LOE, are biographical data sheets necessary at this stage of the proposal? Is there any threshold below which biographical data sheets will not be required by USAID?

Response: Yes, biographical data sheets are required non key personnel including long and short term expatriate staff, long and short term cooperating country personnel identified in the budget. No, there is no threshold below which biographical data sheets are not be required by USAID.

56. Section J of the RFP advises offerors to “See attachment” for Items J.9: District Map, J.15: Budget Template, and J.16: Past Performance Information. We could not access these attachments. Can USAID please provide the noted attachments electronically?

Response: These attachments can be accessed from FBO website by typing in the SOL-617-16- 000002 at https://www.fbo.gov

57. On page 77, the RFP states: “(2) The first page of the proposal must show—(iii) A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item.” Given that costs estimated in 2016 may change over the course of a five-year program, would USAID please clarify this requirement?

Response: This requirement enables the Offerors certify that they are in agreement with all terms, conditions and provisions included in the solicitations as well as agreeing to the fact that Offerors shall provide any information required about any of their prices an time during evaluation or during the performance of the award.

https://www.fbo.gov/