Amendment_04_-_RFP_SOL-620-15-000009.pdf

Request for Proposals (RFP) Number SOL-620-15-000009

Questions from Solicitation

USAID Integrated Health Program

CONFERENCE RECORDING LINK

USAID Mission to Nigeria held a webinar on May 13, 2016. Below is the link or the conference recording for public viewing:

https://interactivegov.adobeconnect.com/p9i3j4f63ws/

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

GENERAL

1. Could USAID please describe the co-design process among USAID, state counterparts, and IHP staff, including timing relative to the issuance of subsequent request for task order proposals?

USAID Response: Fundamental to this RFP is a strengthened partnership foundation with all stakeholders at the state level (both public and private), beginning in the design early phase. Following the award of TOs, USAID/Nigeria will lead a process whereby implementing partners, state government, LGA government, and other stakeholders collaborate to define the program priorities. This collaboration will be maintained throughout implementation and monitoring and evaluation based on a partnership framework agreed to by USAID and the state government. This co-creation/co-design process will allow for direct communication between partners, as well as promote accountability for results. The process is to be initiated pre-award, and will continue beyond the award date for this activity.

2. Could USAID please provide an anticipated award date for the IHP IDIQ?

USAID Response: USAID anticipates awarding by end of February/early March, 2017.

3. Since offerors and USAID do not yet know the state selection and size of future task orders, can

USAID please confirm that Task Order 1’s budget should not include purchase of equipment, vehicles, and other materials for state-level task orders?

USAID Response: Task Order 1’s budget should NOT include purchase of equipment, vehicles, and other materials for state-level task orders. However, Task Order 1’s budget

SHOULD include purchase of equipment, vehicles, and other materials for the Abuja

Office.

4. Can USAID please confirm that offerors may provide local country nationals with danger pay for short term travel when conducting program work outside of their home of record

USAID Response: In accordance with AIDAR 752.7028 Differentials and Allowances, TCN and CCN employees are not eligible for differentials and allowances, unless specifically authorized by the cognizant Assistant Administrator or Mission Director. USAID will not https://interactivegov.adobeconnect.com/p9i3j4f63ws/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=41838d2ef8a752a9b96e871a86b2bafc1e6739dadb745912d5884dc2bc0b1ad2 reimburse contractor for allowances, including Danger Pay, paid to employees that are deemed ineligible under the contract.

5. Can you USAID kindly provide illustrative example of the process for releasing and responding to subsequent task orders under this IDIQ vis-a-vis the roles of USAID, contractor, TO 01 staff, and other Nigeria stakeholders?

USAID Response: Prior to releasing state-level TOs, USAID/Nigeria will engage with state-level government to determine priorities and develop a partnership between USAID and the sates. Once a TO is released, USAID/Nigeria, contractor, TO 01 staff (who will transition to TO2), and other stakeholders will develop the proposal in an effort to co-design, co-create, co-invest, and collaborate in the development process based on a partnership framework.

Please see section F.6 of the RFP for ordering procedures. Role of USAID, contractor, TO

01 staff, and other Nigeria stakeholders will be specified in subsequent RFTOPs, as applicable.

6. What is the process that USAID Nigeria will follow regarding identifying the targeted states for the Nigeria IHP?

USAID Response: USAID/Nigeria is in the process of engaging with partners, government, and other stakeholders to select states for subsequent TOs. It is anticipated that the selection of states will be phased, although the timing is not yet finalized.

7. The RFP has setup a page limit for the following sections of the Technical Proposal: Case Study

1 (15 pages), Case Study 2 (15 pages), Management Approach (20 pages), making a total of 50 pages. Will USAID consider keeping the total number of pages (50), but giving flexibility to the applicants on their use to fulfill the requirements of each these three sections?

USAID Response: No. Offerors must follow the instructions provided in section L.6 in preparing their technical proposal.

SECTION B

8. Section B.5 of the RFP calls for Fixed Fee Ceilings. The header implies that the fixed fee ceiling given will only apply to Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Task Orders, but the opening sentence of paragraph

(a) states that “For each cost-reimbursement TO issued under this IDIQ, the TOCO and

Contractor agree to negotiate a set dollar amount for fixed fee. … In no event, however, may the amount of fixed fee in any individual TO exceed TBD percent of the task order’s estimated cost, excluding fee.” Can USAID confirm that the fixed fee ceiling bidders propose in Section B.5 only applies to Cost Plus Fixed Fee Task Orders, and that other Cost Reimbursable Task Order

(i.e. Cost Plus Award Fee, Cost Plus Incentive Fee) will not be held to the ceiling established here?

USAID Response: Yes. Fixed Fee dollar ceiling will apply only to Cost –plus-Fixed-Fee

TOs. Additionally, this represents the maximum ceiling each TO Fixed Fee ceiling will be negotiated separately representing performance risk for that TO.

As indicated in the last paragraph of B.5(a) “Fees for CPIF or CPAF task order types will be negotiated by the TOCO at the time of task order award.”

9. Page 5, B.6(a), references “non-monetary incentives.” Please clarify or provide examples of

“non-monetary incentives.”

USAID Response: Please review guidance on monetary and non-monetary incentive-type contracts provided in FAR 16.402.

10. Under Section “B.8 Labor” USAID describes the level of education and work experience required to categorize a staff person as Junior, Mid, or Senior, to assist Contractors in populating the Labor Matrix found in B.11. However, guidance has not been provided on the Labor

Categories that USAID would like to see calculated in the Labor Matrix. Does USAID have a list of the anticipated Labor Categories that Contractors should include in the Labor Table?

USAID Response: No. Each Offeror must propose labor categories specific to their technical approach and that are appropriate for successful execution of the IDIQ and TOs.

11. Under Section “B.8 Labor” USAID writes that “The single unburdened ceiling daily rate for each labor category/group below represents the mid-level and senior level rate in each category/grouping. One unburdened ceiling daily rate for each labor category/grouping is included in the contract to provide more flexibility under task orders. If junior-level personnel are required under task orders, they must be proposed at rates below the unburdened ceiling daily rate.” Given this language, would one ceiling daily rate for each labor category be appropriate, with mid and junior level staff rates falling below the ceiling rate?

USAID Response: Offeror must propose rates structure consistent with requirements in their proposal.

12. Sections B.10 and B.11 (page 8-9) request that the offeror provide fully burdened rates for short-term technical assistance (STTA). Given that USAID has not indicated that the release of time and materials task orders are anticipated, please confirm that offerors should propose unburdened ceiling daily rates (CDRs) as opposed to fully burdened fixed daily rates (FDRs) for STTA.

USAID Response: Offerors must propose rates consistent with what is deemed feasible in their proposal.

13. Can USAID please clarify that section B.10, regarding certain TOs requiring STTA, does not mean that ALL task orders must use fully burdened STTA rates but rather that when contractors decide to propose fully burdened rates they may not add additional fee, overhead, etc.?

USAID Response: Offerors must propose rates consistent with what is deemed feasible in their proposal. No additional fee, overhead, G&A, or other costs may be added to the proposed fully burdened rates.

14. RFP Section B.11 Labor Matrix (page 9): Could USAID please confirm whether fully burdened

STTA labor rates are intended to be used to establish CDRs for independent consultants, short-term HQ staff, long-term HQ staff providing STTA on specific TOs, or all of the above?

USAID Response: Fully burdened rates are intended for all staff providing Short Term

Technical Assistance (STTA) under the contract and subsequent task orders, as applicable.

Offerors are responsible for identifying the categories of such STTA consistent with their proposal.

15. RFP Section B.11 Labor Matrix (page 9): Could USAID please clarify whether offerors are required to propose fully burdened STTA labor rates for all STTA positions, or whether offerors may instead propose unburdened STTA labor rates?

USAID Response: Please see response to Question 14 above.

16. RFP Section B.11 Labor Matrix, Notes (page 10) relating to CCN/TCN compensation state that CCN/TCN are to be paid in accordance with AIDAR 722.170 which states that compensation for those who are hired “abroad for work in a cooperating country under USAID-direct contracts, generally be extended the same benefits, and be subject to the same restrictions as TCNs and CCNs employed by the USAID Mission. Exceptions to this policy may be granted either by the Mission Director or the Assistant Administrator having program responsibility for the project.”

Many of the CCN/TCN individuals who are most qualified in relation to position requirements and who have experience working with similarly complex RMNCH projects have history of salary higher than the current Nigeria Local Compensation Plan as a result of their prior salary history, qualifications, and having worked primarily under Cooperative Agreements without the

LCP salary limitation.

Will USAID/Nigeria consider and approve CCN/TCN salaries above the LCP provided they have justification? And if so, will approval of the awardee’s proposal constitute approval by the

“Mission Director or the Assistant Administrator” as required by 722.170?

USAID Response: Offerors must follow guidance provided under AIDAR 722.170 and

AIDAR 752.7007 regarding compensation exceeding stipulated limitations, and present required justifications to facilitate approvals prior to hiring concerned personnel.

Approval of the awardee’s proposal does not constitute approval by the “Mission Director or the Assistant Administrator” as required by 722.170. Approvals will be treated on a case-by-case basis.

17. Can USAID confirm that if an organization does not possess a NICRA, but would like to charge an indirect cost rate, that in accordance with 2 CFR 200.331, pass-through entities may allow subcontractors to propose a de minimis indirect cost rate of 10% applied to modified total direct costs (MTDC) by including the following information in the subaward: “(4) An approved federally recognized indirect cost rate negotiated between the subrecipient and the Federal

Government or, if no such rate exists, either a rate negotiated between the pass-through entity and the subrecipient (in compliance with this part), or a de minimis indirect cost rate as defined in §200.414 Indirect (F&A) costs, paragraph (f) of this part.” Can USAID also confirm that in so doing, the submission of documentation from subcontractors cognizant Government Audit

Agency, if any, stating the most recent provisional indirect cost rates (as stated on p. 133, Section

L.7.2 – Part 2) is not required.

USAID Response: Offerors, and its proposed subcontractors must charge indirect cost rate in accordance with its accounting procedures, consistent with FAR 31, and an approved

Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA). Offerors and/or proposed subcontractors without a NICRA must present all proposed costs as “direct costs” in their respective budgets.

18. The IDIQ RFP Section B.12 requires that both the prime and subcontractor indirect cost rates information be part of the contemplated prime IDIQ Contract. Pursuant to FAR 27.402 (b)

“Policy” states “Contractors may have proprietary interests in data. In order to prevent the compromise of these interests, agencies shall protect proprietary data from unauthorized use and disclosure. The protection of such data is also necessary to encourage qualified contractors to participate in and apply innovative concepts to Government programs. In light of these considerations, agencies shall balance the Government’s needs and the contractor’s legitimate proprietary interests.” Further Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act exempts from mandatory disclosure information such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained by the government from a company on a privileged or confidential basis that, if released, would result in competitive harm to the company. Accordingly, based on the proprietary nature of the indirect cost information, we request USAID to clarify and confirm that

Subcontractor’s indirect cost information be submitted directly to USAID Contracting Officer in reference to the Prime Contractor Proposal and that post award Subcontractor indirect rates shall not be published and disclosed in the Prime IDIQ Contract under the subject solicitation.

USAID Response: Subcontractors’ indirect cost information, and/or Financial Statements must be submitted with the cost proposal, as a single submission, in the appropriate tab, consistent with instructions contained in the RFP or RFTOP, as applicable. Offerors must mark appropriately, any pages in their proposal that contain data that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes.

19. Page 11, B.13 Cost Reimbursable – references outdates circulars for cost principles. We request that the reference be changed in the solicitation from Circular 1-21 and A-122 to 2CFR200 subpart E.

USAID Response: Please note that referenced circulars for cost principles are applicable to this solicitation. The new numbering sequence is noted as follows:

OMB Circular A-21, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions is now Relocated to 2

CFR, Part 220

OMB Circular A-122, Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations is now Relocated to 2

CFR, Part 230

SECTION C

20. The RFP notes on page 12 (C.1) that the “Mission will consult widely, both internally and externally, before selecting the eventual states for implementation”. Could USAID please provide a timeline for selection of states, including any phasing, and the estimated total number of states that will be initially considered and then selected?

USAID Response: USAID/Nigeria is in the process of engaging with partners, government, and other stakeholders to select states for subsequent TOs. It is anticipated that the selection of states will be phased, although the timing is not yet finalized. There is no information at this time regarding the number of states to be selected but all states are being considered.

21. In RFP Section C. 4 (page 15), the RFP references a co-creation/co-design process. Can USAID please provide more information about what to expect for this process?

USAID Response: Please see response to question 1.

22. RFP Section C.5 (page 16) includes Figure 1: HPN and HIV/AIDS Results Framework. Could

USAID clarify whether they regard sub-result 3.3 ‘Commodity logistics management and information systems improved’ as relevant to this tender?

USAID Response: Commodities logistics management and information systems are a critical element in improving maternal and child survival in Nigeria. The USAID-funded

Global Health Procurement and Supply Chain Management program (GH-PSM) project has commenced work in Nigeria. The GH-PSM program is responsible for forecasting, quantification, and procurement of key health commodities, and in partnership with the states, provides the support needed for warehousing and distribution of RMNCH commodities to the service delivery points. In the state TOs, the Integrated Health Program will be the lead for the RMNCH program at the state level and will need to collaborate with

PSM to link with government and other critical stakeholders to ensure coordination/collaboration.

23. According to the RFP, 11% of the program’s funding per year is intended to cover malaria activities under USAID/Nigeria. However, on page 20 of the RFP, two of the three Illustrative indicators under “Sub-objective 2” focus on malaria: “Percentage of women with at least 2 doses of intermittent preventive treatment for malaria during pregnancy,” and “Percentage of children under five who slept under insecticide treated mosquito net the night before the survey.” Are these illustrative indicators intended to reflect achieving population-based results, or contributing, alongside other partners/programs to these results? Similarly, can USAID please https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/fedreg/2005/083105_a21.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/fedreg/2005/083105_a21.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/fedreg/2005/083105_a122.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/fedreg/2005/083105_a122.pdf provide additional explanation of how 11% of the total estimated cost will be sufficient to cover the activities required to address these population-based indicators? If USAID anticipates additional resources or donor activities to support interventions affecting these two indicators, could it please provide additional explanation or details about those resources or donor activities?

USAID Response: The indicators listed under Sub-objective 2 are illustrative to provide an example of types of indicators that the offeror may consider.

In addition, it is anticipated that the states of implementation will receive malaria commodities through a separate USAID award, and the 11% funding projection excludes the cost of commodities. Importantly, USAID is also awarding a separate malaria project, “U.S. President’s Malaria Initiative for States.” Additionally, the 11% for malaria is the project source of funds for the entire award; however, the level of effort/funding elements varies by the individual states. Malaria fund is not expected to exceed 11% of the overall project fund.

24. Page 19, C.9 references security considerations for a high threat post. Will USAID please clarify if a core management task order is envisioned for all years of the project to cover operational costs such as security?

USAID Response: There will not be a core management task order. Security considerations should be included in response to this RFP as well as within each TO.

25. Paragraph C.9 of SOL-620-15-000009 (Security Considerations) states that “the Contractor is encouraged to establish a comprehensive and dynamic safety and security plan pertaining to all aspects of its activities and the activities of its employees in the performance of all work related to this contract as well as the off-duty activities of its employees.”

a. Question 1 – What level and extent “off-duty” activities should be covered and regulated by published program security plans?

USAID Response: The Offeror must propose level and extent of “off-duty” activities covered by the Offeror’s Security Operational Plan (Refer to Section F.5.1 (9).

b. Question 2 - Does the paragraph C.9 reference to “employees” include all program personnel including local national staff or is this requirement only directed at expatriate and third-country nationals?

USAID Response: The Offeror will make the determination on employees to include in the

Offeror’s Security Operational Plan and ability to ensure their security.

26. Page 19, C.10 Grants under Contract – As a grants manual is required to be submitted as part of the proposal, would USAID consider establishing an IDIQ grants approval process that will be applied consistently across task orders in order to establish a consistent GUC approach?

USAID Response: The Offeror must submit a grants manual with the proposal to be approved by USAID pre-award. Refer to Section H.29. Such processes must be outlined in the grants manual.

SECTION D

27. Based on the May 13 th webinar, USAID indicated that offerors should submit two “Branding

Strategy, Branding Implementation Plan, and Marking” Plans: one for the IDIQ and one for Task

Order 1. Can USAID please confirm this guidance?

USAID Response: Two Branding Strategy, Branding Implementation Plan, and Marking

Plans will be submitted in response to the RFP and RFTOP as follows:

Section D.2(b) and section L.8 of the RFP provides guidance and instructions for preparation of the IDIQ Branding Strategy, Branding Implementation Plan, and Marking.

Section D.2(c) of the RFP and section L.5 of the RFTOP provides guidance and instructions for preparation of the TO Branding Strategy, Branding Implementation Plan, and

Marking.

SECTION F

28. Per Section F.5.1 (page 27), a grants manual is required and to be approved pre-award. With respect to the requested activities in Task Order 01, it is our practice to develop a grants approach and manual during a project’s startup in coordination with the technical team and

USAID so that the approach is reflective of the overall technical work and the nuances of local implementation. Would USAID allow for a sample grants manual to be submitted with the proposal, with a final, tailored manual to be submitted and approved within 30 days of award?

USAID Response: Offerors are expected to develop an IDIQ grants manual approved pre-award that will serve as a framework for the life of the contract. Subsequent TO grants manuals will be developed using the IDIQ grants manual framework, but tailored to respective requirements, as applicable.

29. On Page 27, ‘F.5.1 IDIQ REPORTS, (6), the RFP states, “Develop Grants Manual in accordance with Section H.29 and all applicable policies, and submit as part of the technical proposal”. Considering the requirements on page 19, ‘C.10 MANAGEMENT OF GRANTS

UNDER CONTRACT (GUCs)’, and the need for organizations to adapt their Grants Manuals to reflect the USAID/Nigeria Missions needs and context of each Task Order, can organizations submit the Table of Contents of their Manual as a sample during the proposal application, instead of the entire manual which would be finalized upon award?

USAID Response: An entire Grants manual must be submitted as part of the technical proposal to be reviewed and approved at pre –award.

30. RFP Section F.5.1 IDIQ Reports (page 27) instructs offerors to submit an Environmental

Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) as part of the technical proposal. Could USAID share the Initial Environmental Examination (referenced in Section H.28, page 66) that has been approved for FY15 -19 USAID/Nigeria Health Programs for this Contract?

USAID Response: All applicable information from the IEE has been incorporated into this solicitation. No additional info will be provided.

31. On page 28 of the RFP, section (1) IDIQ Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, can USAID clarify what it means by “Additional Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) may be proposed by the contractor”, as it implies that there are required KPIs for IHP that are not specified in the RFP?

USAID Response: The offeror can propose additional key performance indicators as part of the PMP revision process post-award. Additional details on the Key Performance

Indicators will be provided at TO level.

32. On page 31 of the RFP, the majority of the deliverables for the task order reports are specified with the exception of the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. What is the time frame that USAID

Nigeria will use to approve IHP’s Monitoring and Evaluation Plan?

USAID Response: Section F.5.2 indicates the types of reports to be incorporated under subsequent TOs, in addition to other reports such as Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, deliverables and timeframes that will be specific to each respective TO.

33. On page 32 of the RFP, section (2) TO Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, the first bullet mentions the need for performance indicators reference sheets. Yet in the second bullet, most of the same information that is included in the performance indicator reference sheets is listed again (i.e., unit of measure, data source, justification/management utility, baseline values, annual targets, annual actual data, etc.) Does USAID Nigeria expect this information twice in the M&E Plan, or should all this information be included only in the performance indicators reference sheets?

USAID Response: The TO Monitoring and Evaluation plan should include performance indicator reference sheets. The contents of those performance indicator reference sheets are further detailed in a subsequent bullet on page 32 of the RFP, section (2). The performance indicator reference sheets should include unit of measure, data source, justification/management utility, baseline values, annual targets, annual actual data, etc.

USAID/Nigeria does NOT expect this information twice in the M&E Plan – all information should be included in the performance indicator reference sheets, which are part of the overall M&E Plan.

34. On page 32 of the RFP, section (2) TO Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, the fourth bullet indicates the need for all indicators baseline data be collected and reported to the TOCOR during the first 12 months of award. The establishment of all indicators baseline data requires knowing the IHP targeted states. What is the expected time frame for USAID Nigeria to determine the targeted states?

USAID Response: The expected timeframe for USAID/Nigeria to determine the targeted states is under development (see question 21) and will most likely be phased. It is anticipated that the initial targeted states will be determined within 30 days after the IDIQ award is made. Baseline data for key indicators are required within the first 12 months of the TO award.

35. On page 32 of the RFP, section (2) TO Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, with regard to baseline data, does USAID Nigeria expect the Contractor to conduct a population-based survey or to use existing secondary data?

USAID Response: USAID/Nigeria expects the Contractor to use existing data from the

2013 Demographic and Health Survey, the 2015 SMART survey, and the 2016 MICS, as well as other existing secondary data sources.

36. In Section F.6.2(d) “Adequate Accounting System”, USAID requests evidence of an adequate accounting system. Can USAID confirm whether a contractors A-133 report is evidence that the accounting system is approved by USAID? Additionally, who is the cognizant federal auditor?

We are not aware of this term.

USAID Response: A-133 report may be considered as evidence of an adequate accounting system if the offeror can provide supporting documents attesting that they have implemented only assistance awards in the past 5 years .

Per FAR 42.101, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) is the

Government audit agency for contractors other than educational institutions and nonprofit organizations. The cognizant U.S. audit agency or an independent USAID pre-qualified public accounting firm conducts audits of for-profit organizations.

37. Section F.9(b) (page 42) states “A 6-day work week is authorized for consultants.” Please confirm that this authorization extends to both short-term employees and home-office employees on temporary duty in-country as well.

USAID Response: A 6-day work week is authorized for consultants and short-term hires not salaried and fulltime employment.

SECTION H

38. RFP Section H.2(a) Personnel Compensation (page 49) states that “Direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this Contract.” Section H.3(d)(1)

(page 50) states “U.S Staff (including expats: Annual salary increases (e.g., cost of living, merit, promotion increase, or any other type) of not more than 3% of the current labor pool ...” Could

USAID confirm which guidance to use when determining compensation in the event that a contractor’s established policies are in conflict with Section H.3(d)(1)?

USAID Response: Sections H.2 and H.3 are applicable to this Contract. The Contracting

Officer for the contract will provide guidance in the event that a contractor’s established policies are in conflict with Section H.3(d)(1).

39. Section H.2(a) (page 49) states that “Direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices” and Section

H.3 (page 49-51) notes that TCNs are to be treated as CCNs. Please confirm that offerors may treat TCNs as expatriates in line with the contractor’s policy.

USAID Response: Offerors may treat TCNs as expatriates in line with the contractor’s policy. However, in order to be treated the same under this contract, an appropriate approval must be provided in accordance with guidance in Section H.3(3) of the contract, and AIDAR 722.170.

40. On Page 50, under ‘(d) Annual Salary Increases’, the RFP states, “U.S Staff (including expats:

Annual salary increases (e.g. cost of living, merit, promotion increase, or any other type) of not more than 3% of the current labor pool may be granted after the employee's completion of each twelve-month period of satisfactory services under the Contract. Annual salary increases of any kind exceeding these limitations or exceeding USAID maximum SES established rate

(AWCPAS), or the USAID CST, require the advance written approval of the Contracting

Officer.”

Additionally, under (e), it states, “TCN and CCN Staff: One annual salary increase of not more than 5% (includes promotional increase) may be granted after the employee’s completion of each twelve months of satisfactory services under the Contract. Annual salary increases of any kind exceeding these limitations require the advance written approval of the contracting officer, and annual salary increases exceeding the maximum salary of the highest senior Foreign Service national (FSN) position authorized.”

Can USAID please provide the USG regulatory reference which provides the basis for this restriction? Can USAID consider revising to include an exception for organizations that have a written policy on annual salary increases?

USAID Response: The 3% restriction is specific to this contract, set in accordance with with applicable FAR and AIDAR cost principles. As a matter of policy annual salary increases of any kind exceeding these limitations or exceeding USAID maximum SES established rate (AWCPAS), or the USAID CST, require the advance written approval of the Contracting Officer. The USAID Contractor Salary Threshold (CST) sets a maximum rate on salaries under contracts where the Agency establishes the price or the fixed labor rate for services after considering what the actual staff salaries would be. The USAID CST is equivalent to the maximum rate at Federal agencies without a certified Senior Executive

Service (SES) performance appraisal system.

USAID will not provide an exception under this solicitation, for organizations that have a written policy on annual salary increases.

41. With reference to H.3 (a) 1: The FAR gives weight to the contractor’s established compensation policy. In FAR 31.205-6(a)(3), it states that “The compensation must be based upon and conform to the terms and conditions of the contractor’s established compensation plan or practice followed so consistently as to imply, in effect, an agreement to make payment.”

The cost principle on compensation in 2CFR200.430 sets the standard for allowability as

“reasonableness for the services rendered and conformance to established written policy of the non-Federal entity consistently applied to both Federal and non-Federal activities.” Further the cost principle also gives due consideration to “compensation paid for similar work in the labor market in which the non-Federal entity competes for the kind of employees involved.” The standard for reasonableness in Part 31.201-3(a) does not prescribe limited the salary to what the prospective employee currently earns or has earned in the past.

The reasonableness of compensation is again addressed in FAR 31.205-6(b)(2) which states that compensation for each employee or job class of employees must be reasonable for the work performed.

With regard to the requirement for Contracting Officer approval, AIDAR 752.7007(b) H.2, requires CO approval only when compensation exceeds the USAID contractor salary threshold.

Under this regulation, Contracting Officer approval is not necessary if the proposed compensation is within this approval threshold. The current salary or wage, or the highest rate of annual salary or wage received during any full year of the immediately preceding three (3) years is not referenced as a limitation in any other AIDAR clause. There is no other salary approval threshold found in the AIDAR.

Therefore we respectfully propose a revised contract clause as follows:

“Salaries and wages that are charged to this contract will be reimbursed provided they do not exceed the contractor’s established policy and practice, including the contractor’s established pay scale for equivalent classifications of employees, which shall be certified by the contractor.

The contractor shall apply the standards of reasonableness found in FAR 31.205-6(b)(2). Any individual salary or wage in excess of the USAID CST must be approved in advance and in writing by the Cognizant Contracting Officer.”

USAID Response: Clause H.3 of the RFP remains unchanged. Please also note that 2 CFR

200.430 is for assistance not acquisition.

42. In regards to H.3 (d): USAID is kindly requested to (a) reconsider lumping salary increases due to merit and promotions. A differentiation is indicated when the prospective Contractor has separate established policies for salary increases due to merit or promotion. Furthermore, the timetable for when salary increases are given will not always be on the same cycle as the commencement of service under the contract because some Contractor employees that may serve under the prospective contract could already be under the employ of the prospective Contractor prior to the award of the prospective contract. We request USAID to consider an alternative clause that will recognize differentiated policies of prospective Contractors but still hold them to the standards of reasonableness of the applicable cost principles. Would USAID consider an alternative to H.3(d) substantially as follows:

"One annual merit increase may be granted in accordance with the Contractor's established policies, procedures, and practices and the cost principles applicable to this contract. The award of annual merit increases shall conform to the standards of the Contractor's established policies and will be effective on the date consistent with the Contractor's annual salary review cycle. Promotional increases and equity adjustments may be granted according to the

Contractor's established policies, procedures, and practices. Salary increases of any kind

(merit, promotion, or equity adjustment) shall conform to the standards of reasonableness in 2

CFR 200.430 and FAR 31.205-6(b)(2). Salaries exceeding the USAID CST must be approved in advance and in writing by the Cognizant Contracting Officer.”

USAID Response: Clause H.3 of the RFP remains unchanged. Please also note that 2 CFR

200.430 for assistance not acquisition.

43. RFP Section H.3(d) Additional Requirement for Personnel Compensation (pages 50 & 51) includes language regarding annual salary increases for US staff and TCN and CCN staff.

Specifically, the solicitation states that for TCN/CCN staff “one annual salary increase of not more than 5% (includes promotional increase) may be granted after the employee’s completion of each twelve months of satisfactory services under the Contract.” In light of the significant fluctuation of the naira, could USAID consider a salary percentage increase range that was higher than the 5% to accommodate these fluctuations in the local currency, and the risk of losing staff to other projects that are not subject to the same limitation?

USAID Response: Section H.3(d.2) of the RFP specifies that for TCN and CCN Staff: One annual salary increase of not more than 5% (includes promotional increase) may be granted after the employee’s completion of each twelve months of satisfactory services under the Contract. Annual salary increases of any kind exceeding these limitations require the advance written approval of the contracting officer, and annual salary increases exceeding the maximum salary of the highest senior Foreign Service national

(FSN) position authorized under the U.S. Embassy Compensation Plan require the advance written approval of the Mission Director through the contracting officer.

44. Can USAID confirm that Sections H.3(a)(1) (salary or wage higher than the preceding three years), H.3(a)(3) (TCN and CCN salary tied to Local Compensation Plan of USAID Mission), and H.3(d) (U.S. Staff Annual Salary Increases) apply only to Full Time Project Staff?

USAID Response: Sections H.3(a)(1) (salary or wage higher than the preceding three years), H.3(a)(3) (TCN and CCN salary tied to Local Compensation Plan of USAID

Mission), and H.3(d) (U.S. Staff Annual Salary Increases) apply only to Full Time Project

Staff.

45. In Section H.3(d) can USAID expand on what is meant by annual salary increase being not more than 3% “of the current labor pool”? How is “the current labor pool” being defined?

USAID Response: Annual salary increases (cost of living, merit increases and other) totaling 3% percent ceiling of the current labor pool (as opposed to an individual) may be granted once a year. Annual salary increases of any kind exceeding these limitations or exceeding the maximum salary in Section H.3(d)(1) may be granted only with the advance written approval of the Contracting Officer.

46. With reference to H.3 (e): Similar to the position outlined above on limitations on personnel compensation, we request USAID to reconsider the limitations placed on consultant rates and propose the following alternative language:

“No compensation for consultants will be reimbursed unless their use under the contract has advance written approval of the Cognizant Technical Officer; and if such provision has been made or approval given, compensation will be reimbursed provided they do not exceed the contractor’s established policy and practice, including the contractor’s established pay scale for equivalent classifications of consultants, which shall be certified by the contractor. The contractor shall apply the standards of reasonableness found in FAR 31.205-6(b)(2). Any consultant rate in excess of USAID CST must be approved in advance and in writing by the

Cognizant Contracting Officer.

USAID Response: Clause H.3 (e) of the RFP remains unchanged.

47. RFP Section H.29 Grants Under Contract (GUC) (page 68) states that “the total value of all

GUCs 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.” Is the intention that a specific government entity can only receive a grant of no more than $300,000 under a specific task order or for all task orders under this IDIQ. Please clarify.

USAID Response: Yes, the intention is that a specific government entity can only receive a grant of no more than $300,000 under each specific task order under this IDIQ.

SECTION J

48. RFP Attachment J.6 - Proposal Preparation Checklist (page 155). Can USAID confirm that the checklist included in attachment J.6 – Proposal Preparation Checklist – is not tailored to the requirements for this RFP and is not required with the submission?

USAID Response: Proposal Preparation Checklist does not need to be submitted with the proposal and serves as a tool only.

49. Some of the headings and information in attachment J.6 Proposal Preparation Checklist do not match what is in the RFP. Please confirm that offerors should follow the instructions in section

L and not the headings in the attachment J.6

USAID Response: Yes, the instructions for proposal preparation are clearly outlined in

Section L. Attachment J.6 is a checklist provided as a guide/tool for offerors to populate in the preparation of their proposals.

50. Page 124 says J.7 is an annex, but page 129, section L.6.8 (b) seems to imply it should be part of the “Small Business Utilization” section of the main proposal. Please confirm that J.7 “Small

Business Participation Plan” only needs to be included as an annex and not in the main body of the proposal.

USAID Response: It is expected that all critical information included in the technical proposal volume as appendices/annexes will be clearly identified and summarized in the technical proposal narrative.

51. In the case studies (Attachments J. 12 and J.13), "political stability" is given as a factor to consider in the analysis. Please provide a more detailed definition of the variables that are included within that factor (e.g., what level of the political system does it refer to, does it include both to formal and informal political structures, what is a benchmark for stability)?

USAID Response: The offeror must be able to convey critical assumptions; which of one is political stability, these assumptions are those factors that could directly or indirectly impact the project, yet neither USAID nor the Offeror have control over.

52. In the case studies (Attachments J. 12 and J.13), does the indicator "# of health facilities" include both public and private health facilities? The data for tertiary facilities notes there is one private facility among the 3 in the North, but does the 777 secondary and the 800 primarily facilities also include private sector providers? This question also applies to the data from the Southern State.

USAID Response: Yes, the indicator "# of health facilities" includes both public and private health facilities. The 777 secondary and the 800 primarily facilities does include private sector providers. The same applies to the data from the Southern State

53. Regarding Attachment J.14 ‒ Sample Key Personnel Matrix (pages 176-179), please confirm that the final column, Analysis/Justification/Remarks, is for USAID’s internal use and should not be completed by offerors.

USAID Response: Analysis/Justification/Remarks column must be completed by the offerors.

SECTION L

54. Section L.3 (page 118-119) states that the Proposal Preparation Checklist included as attachment

J.6 with the RFP “is to mainly assist Offerors in proposal development. The Government is not responsible for any omissions from this checklist. Offerors are fully responsible for the accuracy, completeness, and compliance with all proposal instructions set forth in the RFP.” Please confirm that offerers should follow the order of elements to be included with the proposal submission as outlined in both Section L of the IDIQ RFP and Section L of the RFTOP, given that there appear to be some discrepancies between these sections and the Proposal Preparation

Checklist that was provided to potential offerors.

USAID Response: Offerors are fully responsible for the accuracy, completeness, and compliance with all proposal instructions set forth in the RFP

55. RFP Section L.5 (b) Delivery Instructions (page 120) states that hard copies should be post marked on the closing date of the solicitation and that the post mark will be from the postal station of origin. Is use of FedEx or DHL, and a stamp indicating date and time that hard copies were shipped from the post of origin on or before the closing date of the solicitation acceptable?

Answer: All hard copies must be post marked before the closing date and time indicated in the solicitation. The post mark must be from the postal station (FedEx, DHL or any reputable international courier) of the proposal origin, and not the post mark/date stamp of receipt in Nigeria.

56. The cover letter states “…ensure that proposals are received at the USAID/Nigeria Mission by the due date and time as specified in Section L.” Page 120, section L.5.b indicates “All hard copies should be post marked on the closing date of the solicitation. The post mark will be from the postal station of the proposal origin, and not the post mark/date stamp of receipt in Nigeria.”

Please confirm hardcopy proposals must only be postmarked by the closing date of the solicitation (June 24

) not received at the Mission by this date.

USAID Response: See response to question 55 above.

57. Section L.5 (page 120-122) states that proposals are to be submitted both in hard and electronic copy. Would USAID allow for proposal hard copies to be delivered to Abuja within one week of the on-time submission of the electronic copies, with the understanding that no changes from the electronic versions will be made to the hard copies?

USAID Response: See response to question 55 above.

58. On Page 120, under ‘L.5-(b) Delivery Instructions’, the RFP states, “The Offeror will submit the proposal in both hard copies and electronically. All hard copies should be post marked on the closing date of the solicitation. The post mark will be from the postal station of the proposal origin, and not the post mark/date stamp of receipt in Nigeria”.

Considering the US Government Paperwork Elimination Act, would USAID consider eliminating the submission of hard copies?

USAID Response: The instruction for offerors to submit proposals in both hard copies and electronically remains unchanged.

59. RFP Section L.5 (b) Delivery Instructions (page 121) states that for electronic submission, the offeror must submit both PDF and Word versions of the technical proposal, budget narrative, and all other required documents, with the exception of signature pages that may be sent in PDF.

Could USAID consider revising this to require only PDF versions and the budget in unlocked

Excel format? The number of overall attachments and emails would be quite large given we would essentially be submitting duplicate copies of every component.

USAID Response: The instruction remains unchanged. As stated in Section L.5(f)

“Submissions per e-mail should not exceed 10MB in total file/data size.”

60. Per Section L.5 (page 120-122), proposal sections are to be submitted in both electronic hard copy. Please confirm that Past Performance information should be submitted only electronically, on June 10, 2016, to the email address indicated in Section L.2 (page 118).

USAID Response: As stated in Section L.2 “Past Performance information must be submitted no later than the date and time indicated on the cover letter. Past Performance information must be submitted electronically to ihpnigeria@usaid.gov, in accordance with instructions outlined in Section L.6.10.”

61. Technical proposal volume order: May offerors include the annexes to the overall IDIQ proposal (e.g., Branding Strategy, Branding Implementation Plan, and Marking Plan;

Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, etc.) after the required IDIQ sections and Task

Order 01 narrative and annexes (e.g., TO 01 Staffing Structure, TO 01 Mobilization Plan, etc.)?

USAID Response: Offerors will determine an appropriate location of any annexes to the technical proposal under Volume I. Note that all critical information from appendices/annexes must be clearly identified and summarized in the technical proposal, in order to be considered as part of Volume 1 for evaluation by USAID.

62. In Section L(6) USAID lists “Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan;” (EMMP) as an

Annex to the Technical Proposal. It is the Contractor’s understanding that the EMMP is only required for the apparently successful offeror. If the EMMP is required with the submission of the proposal, for pre-award approval, can USAID please provide the Initial Environmental

Examination (IEE)?

USAID Response: EMMP is required with the submission of the proposal, for pre-award approval. See response to question 30 above.

63. Page 124 (L.6.1) of the RFP defines “major subcontractors…as those expected to perform at least 20% of the Offeror’s total proposed IDIQ budget, or a prominent part of the technical effort.” However, on page 129 (L.6.9), the RFP defines major subcontractors as those subcontractors “whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the Offeror’s total proposed budget of the

IDIQ or TO 01, or both” and states only major subcontractors may provide past performance reports. Further, during the May 13 th webinar, USAID defined major subcontractors as those with 20% of the offeror’s proposed IDIQ budget or serving a core part of the technical effort.

Could USAID please confirm that offerors may define their major subcontractors as those that are expected to perform a prominent part of the technical effort, have 20% of the Offeror’s total proposed IDIQ budget, or have 20% of the Offeror’s proposed Task Order 01 budget?

USAID Response: Major subcontractors as those that are expected to perform a prominent part of the technical effort or have 20% of the Offeror’s total proposed IDIQ budget, or have 20% of the Offeror’s proposed Task Order 01 budget.

64. Page 124 (L.6(c)) of the RFP requires organizational charts to be included as an annex to the technical proposal. Page 20 (L.3(a)(2)) of the RFTOP requires organizational charts to be included as an annex to offerors Task Order 1 response. Can USAID please confirm that it is requesting two separate annexes that include organizational charts?

USAID Response: The list of annexes provided in Section L.6(c) may only be used as applicable, in response to the instructions provided in the RFP. Please note that Offerors must determine the type of information to be submitted as annexes to their technical

65. On pages 125 and 127 of the RFP (L.6.5 (c)(6) and L.6.6(c)(6), respectively), USAID requires offerors to provide “the milestones for…