Amend 1- Q As - MARKETS II SOL 620-11-000001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

PAGE OF PAGES

1 6

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

8/23/2011

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO

5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (IF OTHER THAN ITEM 6) CODE

USAID/Nigeria 1, Zambezi Crescent, off Aguiyi Ironsi Way, Maitama, P.M.B. 519, Garki, Abuja.

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State, and Zip Code)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO. SOL-

620-11-000001

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11) 8/3/2011

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

CODE:

FACILITY CODE:

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered, solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers, FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If Required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO., AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify Authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43,103 (b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is NOT is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.

The purpose of Amendment 01 to Request for Proposal (RFP) Number SOL-620-11-000001 is to provide formal responses to questions received from Offerors. Please note that only one answer is provided for duplicative or similar questions. All questions and answers are hereby incorporated into this RFP.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

JAMALA UKWA

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE

SIGNED

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

16C. DATE

SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Previous Edition Unusable Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Request For Proposal (RFP) Number: SOL-620-11-000001 Amendment Number 1

Maximizing Agricultural Revenue and Key Enterprise in Targeted Sectors (Markets II) Program

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

GENERAL

1. Could you please clarify whether equipment from the current MARKETS projects will be transferred to the implementer of the MARKETS II project?

Answer: Government Furnished Property previously purchased under Markets I and Bridge to Markets II will be made available to the successful offeror under Markets II, following the property disposition process contained in Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 45.

SECTION B

2. Section B.2 of the RFP defines the contract type as Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF), and Section

F.4 identifies the deliverables, reports and outputs expected by the end of the performance period. Could USAID kindly confirm that the award will in fact be made under a CPFF- Completion type contract?

Answer: The resulting award will be a CPFF Completion-type contract.

SECTION C

3. Will peri-urban farmers be included as beneficiaries for the MARKETS II program?

Answer: Peri-urban farmer may be included as long as they form an important link in the selected value chains.

4. Section C.3, Paragraph 1, Page 16 – Could you please confirm that the MARKETS II project is not expected to work with the very poor as stated on page 16 (“Activities currently being undertaken to improve the agricultural policy environment with the Federal Government of Nigeria particularly with the FMARD, those being undertaken within the trade and transport sector and those associated with supporting the very poor of Nigeria will be carried out as administratively separate activities” ), and not as stated in section C.4.b.6 on page 18 (“Under MARKETS II, the Contractor shall: …The program shall privilege gender, youth and the very poor by tailoring its interventions specifically to these cohorts.”).

Answer: Markets II will not directly address the needs of the very poor, however, this group may be impacted through linkages as Markets II seeks to improve the productivity of the value chains identified in this statement of work.

5. Section C.4.d, Paragraph 3 and 4, Page 19 – Could you please clarify whether the MARKETS II project is expected to work with 8 value chains as specified in paragraph 3 (that “MARKETS II is conceived of as a follow-on of the MARKETS project and shall continue MARKETS activities to build the eight value chains currently being supported:

Rice, Cassava, Sorghum, Cowpea, Aquaculture, Sesame, Maize, Cocoa.”) or with a larger number as specified in paragraph 4 (“The contractor shall expand activities to new value chains as it refocuses and concentrates on selected states.”)?

Answer: The two statements are not contradictory. The current 8 value chains provide the initial basis for moving forward. Over the 5-year duration of the project, it is expected that there will be changing market conditions and priorities of the Government of Nigeria, therefore; the contractor is expected to look for new opportunities, conduct the proper analysis and recommend other competitive value chains.

6. Section C.4.d.3.i, Illustrative Milestones, Page 23 – Could you please further define “Technology packages” as one of the illustrative milestones on page 23 of the RFP?

Answer: In the context of MARKETS II, a technology package would be a collection of tools, methods or systems that is put together to address a specific problem and when deployed in the recommended manner, will very likely serve that purpose.

7. In section C.4 (d) (5) Access to finance on page 25. Request clarification of illustrative target numbers of agribusiness/smallholders receiving commercial loans for each year and for the LOP.

Answer: Corrected figures as below:

Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Yr. 4 Yr. 5 total 8,000 9,000 10,000 12,500 10,500 50,000

8. Section C.6, FTF Indicators Table, Page 28 – Could you please further clarify the distinction between rural and vulnerable households as defined in indicators 10 (“Number of rural households benefiting directly from USG interventions”) and 11 (“Number of vulnerable households benefitting directly from USG assistance).

Answer: “Vulnerable” suggests weakened, susceptible, or insecure. In the context of MARKETS II, vulnerable groups could include, but are not limited to, HIV/AIDS sufferers and their families, female headed households, marginalized ethnic groups, etc.

It is possible that the number of rural households (indicator #4.5.2-13) may include some vulnerable households so that one could have a total for the “Number of rural households benefitting directly from USG assistance”, of which “x” number are vulnerable.

9. Section C.6, FTF Indicator Table, Page 28 – Please clarify whether indicator 12 on the Feed the Future Indicator Table represents the aggregated amount for all project activities.

Answer: It is incremental sales measured as the value (in U.S. Dollars) of the total amount agricultural products sold by farm households (i.e. farm-level sales) relative to a base year and can be calculated based on the total quantity/volume (in metric tons) of a crop sold, times the crop price in the previous year minus the total quantity/volume (in metric tons) of a crop sold, times the crop price in the base year. Pre-existing sales should not be counted; only incremental sales facilitated by the project should be counted. The target is cumulative over the life of project for all value chain farm-level sales.

10. On page 33 in C.13(a), it states that all key personnel “should be employed by the prime contractor”. Will USAID please consider proposed key personnel from the prime contractor and subcontractors?

Answer: For the purposes of this activity, proposed key personnel should be employed by the prime contractor.

SECTION H

11. Section H.4 (g) states that “the contractor’s established policies and practices and shall not be less than 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week”. Could USAID please confirm that a 6-day work week for short-term personnel is acceptable?

Answer: A six-day workweek for short-term personnel is not authorized.

SECTION L

12. Would USAID reconsider the use of 12-point font for text boxes? Given 12-point font is the same size as the body of the text, it will be difficult to differentiate between the two. Instead would USAID consider 10-point font, which is readily readable?

Answer: A font smaller, larger or otherwise different than that used in the main body of the text, as long as it is reasonably legible, may be used in text boxes. The stated text body size remains unchanged in accordance with section L.7(i) of this RFP.

13. In Section L.7 Delivery Instructions, the RFP states that “the offeror shall submit the proposal in both hard copies and electronically”. Would USAID kindly consider only an electronic submission of the proposal? If both electronic and hard copy submission is required, could USAID please clarify the closing date and time for the hard copy submission? Would USAID consider hard copy submission a week after the electronic submission due date?

Answer: Both electronic and hard copies of the proposals are required. All hard copies should be post marked on the closing date of the solicitation.

14. Section L.7, Paragraph 6, Page 98 – In reference to the “Delivery instructions” described on page 98, will USAID accept an electronic copy by the close of the solicitation to be followed shortly after by the hard copy?

Answer: see response to Question 13 above.

15. Section L.8, Paragraph 5, Page 100 – Could you please further clarify the difference between the Performance Management Plan and the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, as references on page 100.

Answer: For the purpose of this RFP, the Performance Management Plan (PMP) and the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan may be considered synonymous. However, a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan is not required per Section L.8(b)(3) which requests only submission of a PMP as part of technical approach.

16. Section L.8.e.1, Paragraph 4, Page 104 – Could you please clarify whether the offerors should submit 5 Past Performance Reports (PPRs) total, or 5 PPRs for the Prime and 5 additional PPRs for each major subcontractor?

Answer: Offerors should submit 5 PPRs for the Prime, and 5 additional PPRs for each major subcontractor. “Major” has been defined in Section L.8 (e), paragraph 2.

17. Section L.11.a, Paragraph 6, page 116 – The RFP states that “USAID anticipates receiving up to $12.5 million from the Foundation for Partnership Initiatives in the Niger Delta funded by Chevron for the period of performance under the proposed contract… Your proposal will be evaluated for cost realism in accordance with Section M. Proposals exceeding this amount may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further evaluation.” Could you please clarify whether the offerors should take these funds into consideration in developing their technical approach?

Answer: The $12.5 million from the Foundation for Partnership Initiatives in the Niger Delta funded by Chevron is included in the total estimated cost which is not to exceed $65 million. Offerors should take these funds into consideration in developing their technical and cost approach.

18. Section L.10.7, Paragraph 7, Page 112 - Please confirm that copies of organizational Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreements are only required for major subcontractors, as defined on page 11, section B.6 in the RFP.

Answer: Only copies of Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreements for major subcontractors, as defined on page 11, Section B.6 of the RFP are required.

19. Section L.10.7, Paragraph 7, Page 112 - Please confirm that only the offeror is required to propose ceilings on indirect rates.

Answer: Offerors will include in their submission, the proposed ceiling on the indirect cost rate. Final ceiling rates shall be negotiated by the Contracting Officer.

20. Section L.10.b.3, Paragraph 7, Page 108 – Please confirm that detailed budgets, as demonstrated in section B.3 and B.4, are only required for the offeror and major subcontractors, as defined on page 11, section B.6 in the RFP.

Answer: Detailed budgets, as demonstrated in section B.3, B.4, and L.10(b)(6), are only required for the offeror and major subcontractors, as defined on page 11, section B.6 in the RFP.

SECTION M

21. Section M.3, All Paragraphs, Page 119 - 122 - Can you please provide additional guidance on the number of points, or percentages to be awarded to each the four criteria. Alternatively, are the criteria listed in order of importance? In addition, is each person on the technical committee expected to attach the same level of importance to each of the criterion?

Answer: As stipulated in Section M.6 of the RFP, the Government will conduct its evaluation of Offerors’ proposals using adjectival rating. There will be no points or percentages assigned. Non-Business/Cost Factors will be rated in descending order of importance as listed in Section M.2(d)(1). However, all non-business/cost factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price.

22. In Section M, no numerical evaluation weight/scale is given, only adjectival ratings are provided. Are each of the four components of rated non-business/cost factors of equal rate and importance?

Answer: see response to Question 21 above.