Questions_and_Answers.pdf

SOL-623-14-000002 Questions and Answers

1. Is SOL-623-14-000002, Resilience Learning Project, a new procurement or a follow-on to previous work? If this is a re-compete, could you please provide the incumbent name, contract number, contract award dollar amount, and period of performance dates?

The Resilience Learning Project is a new procurement

2. Can you please advise if this upcoming tender will involve printing of books etc as that would be our primary interest.I have listed our interest, but will withdraw it if it is not going to be in our line of work. We recently completed a very large contract with USAID in Ethiopia for the printing of textbooks.

Please read Section C of the RFP to determine if your company’s line of work would fit within the requirements.

3. On page 80 in the Instructions for the Technical Proposal, Section L.8 part (a) Organization Of Technical Proposal it states that Annexes are not included in the page limitation. However, on page 85 under part (j) Annexes, it states “iv. Organizational Chart: The Offeror should provide an organization chart (included in the page total) that clearly illustrates how staff, either of the contractor or its partners, will be coherently organized.”

Can you please confirm that the Organization Chart does not count toward the 30 page limit?

While an organizational chart is not required, if it is included, it should be part of the technical proposal and not an annex, thus it will count towards the 30 page limit. L.8 has been amended to reflect this.

4. On pages 80-81 in the Instructions for the Technical Proposal, Section L.8 part (a) Organization Of Technical Proposal and again in part (b) Content Of Technical Proposal it states that the Executive Summary is not included in the page limitation. However, on page 81 under (d) Executive Summary it states that the Executive Summary does count towards the 30‐page limit.

Can you please confirm that the Executive Summary does not count toward the 30 page limit?

The Executive Summary does count toward the 30-page limit. L.8 has been amended to reflect this.

5. On page 84 in the Instructions for the Technical Proposal, Section L.8 part (i) Past Performance Information, it states “(a) The offeror must provide performance information for itself and each major subcontractor (one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost) in accordance with the following: 1. Provide in a table as an annex to the technical proposal up to four (4) of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal.”

Can you please clarify if up to four (4) total current or past contracts should be provided for both prime contractors and subcontractors, or if up to four (4) current or past contracts should be provided for each prime contractor with an additional four (4) provided for their subcontractors, resulting in a total of up to 8?

Up to 4 references must be provided for the prime and each of the major subcontractors.

Therefore, if you anticipate one major subcontractor, you would provide up to 8 references.

6. On page 86 in the Instructions for the Technical Proposal, Section L.8 part (j) Annexes, it lists

viii. SF Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (see Attachment J.4) as an annex to the technical proposal. However, this item is usually included in the cost proposal.

Can you please confirm that this document should be included in the cost proposal and not as an annex to the technical proposal?

This should be included as part of the cost proposal and the RFP has been amended.

7. On page 1 of the RFP, it states: “USAID discourages the use of exclusive agreements with international or regional organizations as this limits USAID’s ability to receive the best services.

Exclusivity contracts or teaming agreements with local organizations in East Africa are prohibited given the limited pool of partner organizations fitting the criteria for a locally-controlled organization.” Further on pg. 91, under L.9 Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal, Part 9 – Subcontracts, it states: "USAID discourages the use of exclusive agreements with international or regional organizations as this limits USAID’s ability to receive the best services. Exclusivity contracts or teaming agreements with local organizations in Kenya are prohibited given the limited pool of partner organizations fitting the criteria for a locally-controlled organization."

We have the following related questions:

a. Can you please confirm that it is not USAID’s intent to limit the competitive process vis-à-vis teaming arrangements among US-based or international organizations and that this prohibition only applies to teaming arrangements with local organizations, and that U.S.-based firms and organizations, while they are working internationally, including in the region, are not intended to be covered by this statement?

Please note the language in the RFP has been revised both in Section L.9 and the cover letter to read as follows: “USAID discourages the use of exclusive agreements with international or regional/local organizations as this limits USAID’s ability to receive the best services.” USAID understands the hesitancy to provide detailed information to potential subcontractors that are not exclusive, but nondisclosure agreements could be used.

b. Can you please confirm that non-exclusive teaming agreements are permitted with local organizations?

Yes.

c. Can you please clarify “local organization,” particularly with regard to the distinct references to “East Africa organizations” noted on page 1 and “Kenyan organizations” noted on page 91?

Please note the language has been revised to read as follows “USAID discourages the use of exclusive agreements with international or regional/local organizations as this limits USAID’s ability to receive the best services.” The statement refers to all organizations.

8. On page 105 in Attachment J.1, Task Order 01 in SOW Section C.4.3: Collaboration, Learning, and Adaptation (CLA) approach catalyzed, Minimum Expected Outcomes, bullet 1 states: “Increased number of community, national, and regional institutions using CLA to improve program design of resilience projects.”

Can you please clarify if the “community, national, and regional institutions” using CLA to improve program design mentioned here includes USAID implementing partners? In many places in the RFP, the use of the term “partner(s)” seems to imply both USAID implementing partners as well as institutions in the East Africa region.

This depends on the Offeror’s technical approach, but it could include USAID implementing partners. The amended RFP has been revised to provide more clarity rather than use the general term “partners.” For reference, when the term “development partners” is used in the RFP, it includes both USAID implementing partners and other development organizations such as DFID, SIDA, etc.

9. On page 105 in Attachment J.1, Task Order 01 in SOW Section C.4.3: Collaboration, Learning, and Adaptation (CLA) approach catalyzed, Minimum Expected Outcomes, bullet 6 it states: “Academic centers throughout Horn of Africa with increased capacity to support resilience learning through strengthened research and training capacity.”

Can you please clarify if the academic “training capacity” to be increased includes academic degree programs that involve resilience-related topics, e.g., grassland management, or conflict prevention?

It depends on the Offeror’s technical approach, but it could include this.

10. On page 108 in Attachment J.1, Task Order 01 in C.9 Key Personnel, 3) The Collaborative, Learning and Adaptation (CLA) Trainer, it states under bullet 1 "The CLA Trainer must have an advanced degree in the relevant field."

Given the small pool of candidates with CLA experience, would USAID reconsider the advanced degree requirement and consider candidates with 2-5 additional years of experience in lieu of an advanced degree?

No

11. On page 109 in Attachment J.1, Task Order 01 in C.9 Key Personnel, 4) The Finance and Operations Manager, bullet 2 states that the Finance and Operations Manager must have "an advanced degree in management, finance, or a related field from an accredited university."

Would USAID allow offerors to substitute appropriate certification or additional years of experience in lieu of an advanced degree?

No

12. Could you please provide additional information regarding the technical direction to be provided under the RLP contract for task orders other than No. 1? For example, will USAID/EA’s RLP COR be the only source of technical direction, or will this be shared with Missions or other OUs issuing task orders?

Technical direction for Task Order 1 will come from the COR from USAID/East Africa. Other task orders issued out of bilateral missions will have their own CORs from the issuing mission. While Task Order 1 will provide overall management/oversight of other task orders issued under this IDIQ, it is primarily to ensure all knowledge gained/lessons learned will be shared through Task Order 1, and team leaders will be appointed in other task orders.

13. Can you please clarify if the RLP annual Work Plans, RLP M&E Plan, and Program Progress Reports, and the Final Report prepared by the Contractor, referenced on pages 112-114 in Section F.3 Reporting Requirements, are anticipated to cover not only Task Order 1, but all other subsequent task orders?

These are reports required for Task Order 1. Subsequent task orders will have separate reporting requirements.

14. Given that future task orders could constitute half the total contract value, in order to help orient Offerors, could you please provide additional information regarding future task orders, to the extent that the information is available? Specifically we have the following related questions:

a. What is USAID’s expectation regarding the nature of the task orders that will follow TO 1?

For example, should bidders assume any subsequent TOs would need to conform to one of RLP’s five objective areas as determined by the COR?

Yes. Per Section F.6, “Task Orders may be issued by Contracting Officers so long as the scope falls within the IDIQ statement of work described in Section C.”

b. On page 97 under Section M - Evaluation Factors gor Award, M.2 Technical Evaluation Criteria, V. Ability to Respond to Additional Task Order Requests, offerors are asked to describe how they will “quickly harness resources to satisfy subsequent task orders.” Should proposals also illustrate the offeror’s technical response capacities including illustrative STTA?

It is up to the Offeror to determine how to best demonstrate ability to respond to additional task orders; therefore, this is not required but could be included if the Offeror feels it appropriately demonstrates their ability.

15. On page 87 and 101, the RFP instructs that “no fee may be taken on GUCs”. However, the contractor would be responsible for financing the cost of the grants (paying out the grant funds and subsequently being reimbursed by USAID). This necessitates interest costs required for the performance of the contract, yet interest costs are unallowable direct OR indirect costs and are recovered as part of fee. The implementing contractor would therefore be in a position of being unable to even recover its operating costs related to any GUCs implemented through this contract.

We therefore respectfully request that USAID allow offerors to propose a reasonable fee on GUCs.

The Offeror may propose a fixed fee, but it is not be permitted to be taken on GUCs.

16. On page 86 in the Cost Proposal Instructions, Section L9, Part 2 – Proposed Costs/Prices, paragraph (a) “Offerors must complete and provide Section B.3 and B.4 in separate Tabs in the budget or otherwise be determined non-responsive.”However, in the TO1 RFTOP, section B.4 is entitled “OTHER RFTOP INFORMATION” and contains only the following text:

“The final statement of work for the Task Order from the Offeror’s final proposal that will result from this RFTOP will be incorporated at the time of award and must be based on the proposal by the successful Offeror.

Additionally, all Sections from the basic RLP IDIQ are hereby incorporated. If there are any discrepancies between IDIQ and the Task Order, then the Task Order shall take precedence.”

The above section does not appear to be intended to be filled in by offerors at the proposal stage.

Can you please confirm that only section B.3 BUDGET needs to be completed by offerors.

The language has been revised in the amended RFP to clarify that Section B.3 and Section B.4 do not need to be completed by the Offeror, and it is the summary budget that must be provided in the format shown in Section L.9.

17. On page 90 in the Cost Proposal Instructions, Section L.9 Part 3 – IDIQ Ceiling Rates, it states:

“Indirect Costs: Offerors must propose indirect cost ceiling rates (See Section B.8.). The prime and all major subcontractors may propose lower overhead rates than their established Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA). The proposed indirect cost ceiling rates will be incorporated into the IDIQ as the maximum indirect cost rates allowed for all task orders. Offerors may not propose indirect cost ceiling rates higher than those established in their NICRA. See USAID CIB 92-17 for additional information.”

However, USAID CIB 92-17 provides the following guidance:

“5. (b) […] Provisional rates may be less than, equal to, or, in special circumstances, more than proposed by the contractor. Ceiling rates may equal or exceed the negotiated provisional rates. In the latter case, ceiling rates normally should not be established which exceed the provisional rates for the same period by more than ten percent (10%) of the provisional rate.”

Given the 5-year length of this engagement, and the fact that for some organizations the latest NICRA may be outdated and not accurately reflect their current cost structure, we respectfully request that offerors be allowed to propose reasonable ceiling rates that may be in excess of their current NICRA, in accordance with their cost and pricing structure, to be reviewed as part of the competitive process.

This is particularly important, given that one contractor may propose ceiling ICRs that are higher than their own current NICRA, but that could be lower than other offerors’ NICRAs, and therefore still represent a better value to USAID.

The language in L.9 has been revised in the amended RFP. Offerors are allowed to propose reasonable ceiling rates in excess of their current NICRA as noted in CIB 92-17.

18. Section L.8.J states the Organizational Chart should be included as an annex which is included in the page total, however in Section L.8.A, the RFP states that annexes are excluded from the page limitation. Can you confirm that annexes are excluded from the page count?

Required annexes are excluded from the page limit. While an organizational chart is not required, if it is included, it should be part of the technical proposal and not an annex, thus it will count towards the 30 page limit. L.8 has been amended to reflect this.

19. Page 9, Section B.8, Note 2 states that “Ceiling rates are not applicable to small business primes.”

QUESTION: What should small businesses provide in order to be compliant with the request for IDIQ ceilings in Section L on page 90?

This was an error and has been removed in the amended RFP. All offerors are required to submit indirect fee and ceiling rates. The only exception is organizations that do not have a NICRA and must direct charge all costs. If this is the case, to be compliant, please provide this explanation in lieu of providing indirect ceiling rates.

20. Page 9, Section B.8 - The table does not provide a place to include the Fringe Rate % ceiling. QUESTION: Should offerors and major subs amend the table to include a fringe rate ceiling or is a ceiling for fringe not required?

The table has been revised in the amended RFP to include a column for fringe rate ceilings.

21. Page 25, Section F.3, Place of Performance: includes “Kenya, Somalia, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Djibouti, Burundi, South Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, and Ethiopia.” On Page 103, Section C.4 the RFP states that the task order will focus on “Ethiopia and Kenya, but cal also include activities in […] Uganda, South Sudan, Djibouti, and Somalia.” QUESTION: Please define place of location for IDIQ vs. Task Order 1.

The place of performance for the IDIQ and Task Order 1 is the same. Please note the place of performance has been revised in the amended RFP to the following countries: Kenya, Somalia, Uganda, Djibouti, South Sudan, and Ethiopia.

22. On pages 80-81, Section L.8(b) states the Executive Summary is “not included in page total”.

Yet, Section L.8(d) states that “The Executive Summary does count towards the 30‐page limit.”

QUESTION: Please clarify if the 2-page executive summary is or is not included in the 30-page technical proposal page limit.

The Executive Summary does count toward the 30-page limit. L.8 has been amended to reflect this.

23. On page 83, Section L.8(h) states “Contractor must establish key personnel presence in Nairobi within thirty (30) days from the award date.” QUESTION: Please clarify if it is required that all project personnel be based full-time in Nairobi or if it acceptable to maintain key personnel in satellite offices within East Africa.

Per Section C.8 of Attachment J.1 (Task Order 1), the project must maintain its headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya. The Chief of Party and Finance and Operations Manager at minimum must be located in this office. Offerors are welcome to use their creativity, and if an Offeror feels strongly that placing key personnel in satellite offices would be beneficial, this is acceptable, but it must be adequately justified in the Technical Approach to Task Order 1 and Management Plan and Key Personnel sections of the proposal, and it must be cost effective.

24. Page 86, (j) Annexes viii: SF Disclosure of Lobbying Activities is listed as an annex to the technical proposal. QUESTION: please confirm if this form should be included as an annex to the technical or cost proposal; if part of the latter, please confirm in which order it should be included.

This should be included as part of the cost proposal and the RFP has been amended to reflect this.

See Part 11 of Section L.9 in the amended RFP.

25. Page 86, Section L.9, Part 2 (a) states that “Offerors must complete and provide Section B.3 and B.4 in separate tabs . . .” QUESTION: Does this statement refer to B.3 and B.4 of the IDIQ (page 8) or the Task order (pages 101 & 102)? If the IDIQ, please explain what is expected in response to B.3 and B.4. If the Task Order, please explain what is expected in response to B.4.

The language has been revised in the amended RFP to clarify that Section B.3 and Section B.4 do not need to be completed by the Offeror, and it is the summary budget that must be provided in the format shown in Section L.9.

26. Page 87, Section L.9, Part 2 - Direct Labor Salaries and Wages states that “Offerors are to state the FSN grade equivalent for all TCN and CCN positions using the guide in Attachment J- 2.” QUESTION: This appears to be a mistake as attachment J-2 that was included in the proposal has an acronym list, but no FSN grade equivalent guide. Can USAID provide the documentation that is referenced in the clause?

This was a mistake and this language has been removed from the amended RFP. Offerors do not need to state the FSN grade equivalent for TCN and CCN positions, but TCN and CCN positions cannot exceed the LCP. USAID has provided the LCPs, but Offerors must ensure rates are competitive in the prevailing market rates. Please note South Sudan and Somalia use the Kenya

LCP.

27. Page 87, Section L.9, Part 2 -Direct Labor Salaries and Wages states that “Minimum qualifications of key personnel (See Section F) must be provided.” QUESTION: Task Order 01 provides minimum qualifications for key personnel in Section C.9 Is the Offeror expected to provide additional information in the budget narrative related to the minimum qualifications?

No. This sentence has been removed from Section L.9 in the amended RFP.

28. Page 89, Section L.9, Part 2 -Subcontracts states that “The Offeror must submit a hard copy of the subcontracting plan submitted in eSRS or wtih teh SF-294 if not registered in eSRS (please inform of such.) QUESTION: Can USAID please confirm that this does not apply to small business offerors.

This does not apply to small business offerors.

29. Page 89, Section L.9, Part 2 - Indirect Costs states that an Offeror must direct charge all costs if the offeror does not have a NICRA or cognizant Government Audit Agency. QUESTION: Our company anticipates receiving a NICRA within 60 days of November 18, 2013, which means that we would have a NICRA by the time Task Order 01 is awarded, but not before the proposal closing date. In anticipation of the NICRA, can we submit a budget with our established, audited indirect rates for this proposal?

Any organization that does not currently have a NICRA must direct charge all costs. If a NICRA is obtained after award, then the contract will be modified.

30. Page 90, Section L.9, Part 5 requests policies and procedures from offerors without federal contracting experience. QUESTION: If an offeror has experience directly implementing grants and cooperative agreements for the federal government (but not contracts), can the offeror waive the requirement to submit the policies and procedures?

This requirement has been removed from the amended RFP. If the Contracting Officer requires additional information in order to make a responsibility determination prior to award, then such policies and procedures may be requested.

31. Page 97, Section M.2, Evaluation Criteria II. QUESTION: Will USAID permit small business offerors to use the experience of individuals as part of the offeror’s Institutional Capacity and Experience?

No.

32. Page 97, Section M.2, Evaluation Criteria IV: “The feasibility of the Offeror’s plan to manage partners, the appropriateness of the roles of partners, and how well the team as a whole links together to achieve the RLP goal will also be evaluated,” QUESTION: Please clarify this statement, specifically if “the RLP goal” refers to the full IDIQ or to Task Order 1 only.

The RLP goal for both the IDIQ and Task Order 1 is the same. This sentence refers to Task Order 1, and it has been revised in the amended RFP as follows: “The feasibility of the Offeror’s plan to manage subcontractors, the appropriateness of the roles of subcontractors, and how well the team as a whole links together to achieve the RLP goal will also be evaluated.”

33. Grants Under Contract (GUCs): GUCs are mentioned several times in the RFP (page 49, 87, 101 & 112), but it is unclear if the offeror should include GUCs in Task Order 01. QUESTION: Can USAID please clarify if the offeror should plan on issuing GUCs in Task Order 01 or other forthcoming task orders under the RFP?

GUCs are not required as part of Task Order 1, but they are an option if the Offeror feels it contributes to their technical approach. Since the Offeror is responding to a SOO, it is up to the Offeror’s discretion if they want to propose issuing GUCs in their Task Order 1 technical approach. It is possible that future task orders may include a GUCs component.

34. “Partner Organizations” are referred to throughout the RFP. QUESTION: Can USAID please clarify if the term “partner” refers to stakeholders, subcontractors, or both?

The amended RFP has been revised to provide more clarity rather than use the general term “partners.” For reference, when the term “development partners” is used in the RFP, it includes both USAID implementing partners and other development organizations such as DFID, SIDA, etc.

35. On Page 1, the RFP states “USAID discourages the use of exclusive agreements with international and regional organizations […] Exclusivity contracts or teaming agreements with local organizations […] are prohibited.” QUESTION: Can USAID please confirm if any type of exclusive agreement between the offeror and another organization is acceptable, and if so please clarify what type of organizations this would include?

Please note the language in the RFP has been revised both in Section L.9 and the cover letter to read as follows: “USAID discourages the use of exclusive agreements with international or regional/local organizations as this limits USAID’s ability to receive the best services.” USAID understands the hesitancy to provide detailed information to potential subcontractors that are not exclusive, but nondisclosure agreements could be used.

36. Can USAID please provide the contract type for Task Order #1?

Per Attachment J.1, Section B.2, the contract type is a Cost-Plus-Fixed Fee Task Order.

37. The Section L.9 Part 2 bullet requires Offerors to complete and provide Sections B.3 and B.4 in separate tabs. Section B.3 is the Minimum Obligated Amount and Section B.4 is the Maximum Contract Ceiling. Please advise what Offerors are to provide in these tabs.

The language has been revised in the amended RFP to clarify that Section B.3 and Section B.4 do not need to be completed by the Offeror, and it is the summary budget that must be provided in the format shown in Section L.9.

38. Section L.9 Part 2 – Direct Labor Salaries and Wages requires Offerors to use the FSN grade equivalent as a guide and refers to Attachment J-2. This attachment is not the FSN grade equivalent and is not included elsewhere in the RFP. Can USAID please provide?

This was a mistake and this language has been removed from the amended RFP. Offerors do not need to state the FSN grade equivalent for TCN and CCN positions, but TCN and CCN positions cannot exceed the LCP. USAID has provided the LCPs, but Offerors must ensure rates are competitive in the prevailing market rates. Please note that South Sudan uses the Sudan LCP, and Somalia’s LCP is the same as Kenya’s.

39. Section L.6 instructs offerors to email proposals with “SOL-615-14-000002” in the subject line.

This RFP number does not match that provided on the cover page and footers. Please confirm that “SOL- 623-14-000002” is the RFP number for this solicitation.

SOL-623-14-000002 is the correct solicitation number, and Section L.6 has been revised to reflect this in the amended RFP.

40. Sections L.8 (a) and L.8 (b) 4 indicate that the Executive Summary will not be included in the 30-page technical proposal limit while Section L.8 (d) states that the Executive Summary will be included in the page limit. Can USAID please confirm that the Executive Summary is not included in the 30-page limit?

The Executive Summary does count toward the 30-page limit. L.8 has been amended to reflect this.

41. Section L.8 (a) states that annexes do not count against the 30-page technical proposal page limit.

However, Section L.8 (j) states that the Organizational Chart to be provided in an annex is to be included in the page total. Please confirm that the organizational chart annex will not count against the technical proposal page limit.

While an organizational chart is not required, if it is included, it should be part of the technical proposal and not an annex, thus it will count towards the 30 page limit. L.8 has been amended to reflect this.

42. SectionL.8 (j) states that Offerors are to include letters of commitment from key personnel and from sub-partners. Does “sub-partners” refer to subcontractors? Please confirm that we should include subcontractor letters of commitment this technical proposal annex in addition to including them in the cost proposal.

Yes, it means subcontractors. Letters of commitment are only required as a technical annex, and Section L.9 has been revised to reflect this in the amended RFP.

43. Reference: Section L.8(a), page 80, states that the Executive Summary is not included in the 30 page limitation. Also, L.8(b) includes this list item: “4. Executive Summary (2 pages maximum, not included in page total).” However, Section L.8(d), page 81, states “The Executive Summary does count towards the 30-page limit.” (Emphasis added.)

Question: Can USAID please confirm that the Executive Summary does not count against the 30-page limit?

The Executive Summary does count toward the 30-page limit. L.8 has been amended to reflect this.

44. Reference: Section H.26, page 47, states: “All proposed key and long term personnel positions located in Kenya must only be filled by citizens of Kenya or the United States.” Section H.26 further states: “TCNs are only engaged when there is proof the required skills are not available at present in Kenya and the US. If that is the case, a Kenyan understudy with relevant skills must be engaged and trained under the TCN to take up the position after a period of two years but no more than four years.”

Section L.8(h) (Management and Key Personnel), page 83-84, states: “In the event that the contractor proposes Third Country Nationals (TCNs) in key personnel positions, there must be strong justification that includes a clear strategy for building host country capacity to take over the TCN position before the end of the project, and a schedule for replacing the TCN with a host country citizen.”

Regarding the geographic focus on the contract, Section C.4, page 103, states: “The Resilience Learning Project will focus on the JPC countries Ethiopia and Kenya, but can also include activities in any of the other IGAD member states involved in the drought resilience strategy: Uganda, South Sudan, Sudan, Djibouti, and Somalia.” Section F.3, page 25, states “Performance of this contract and task orders issued hereunder must be East Africa (this includes Kenya, Somalia, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Djibouti, Burundi, South Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic, and Ethiopia). Task orders may identify more specific countries of performance.”

Question: Given the geographic scope of the RLP IDIQ, can USAID clarify if proposed key personnel who are citizens of the IGAD member states would qualify as host country candidates as opposed to TCN candidates?

This depends on where the person is hired. Any long-term employee expected to work in a country outside of his/her country of residence is considered a TCN. For example, if an Ethiopian is hired to work in Ethiopia, this would be considered a CCN position. If an Ethiopian is hired in Kenya, then this would be a TCN position.

The language in Section L.8(h) has been removed in the amended RFP, but Section H.26 is in the RFP so that Offerors are aware of the difficulties and delays USAID/East Africa has experienced in obtaining work permits for TCNs in Kenya. It is not USAID’s intention to limit regional expertise, USAID must also stress that it is the contractor’s responsibility to obtain work permits for all employees, and while we are able to provide assistance, it is extremely difficult, particularly in Kenya, to obtain work permits for TCNs.

45. Reference: Section L.8(e), page 81, states “The Offeror must describe its understanding of resilience in the Horn of Africa, specifically, the Offeror must demonstrate a clear understanding of…The Organizations, Host Governments and Regional Institutions, involved in Drought Reduction and Resilience.”

Additionally, Section L.8(g), page 83, states “The Offeror must also include the prospective partner organizations, including regional or national academic and research bodies and key host government entities, that will be engaged to serve as key learning partners.”

Question: Can USAID confirm which countries are to be considered “host” countries, for purposes of identifying “host government” entities?

The countries named in Section F.3, Place of Performance. Please note the place of performance has been revised in the amended RFP to the following countries: Kenya, Somalia, Uganda, Djibouti, South Sudan, and Ethiopia.

46. Reference: Section H.29, page 48, states: “Title to all non‐expendable property purchased with contract funds under this contract and used in the Cooperating Country, shall at all times be in the name of the Cooperating Government, or such public or private agency as the Cooperating Government may designate, unless title to specific types or classes of non‐expendable property is reserved to USAID under provisions set forth in the schedule of this contract…”

The following statement appears at the bottom of Section H.29, page 48: “Title to property is with USAID with care and custody with the Contractor.”

Question: Can USAID please confirm that title to all non‐expendable property purchased with contract funds under this contract will be with USAID, rather than the Cooperating Country?

Confirmed.

47. Section C.8. -Management of Grants under Contract states, “…Funds may be available in individual task order for the award and administration of grants…These grants will be secondary or minor to the overall work performance under the task order”. In Section L.9., Part 2-Proposed Costs/Prices, the budget summary table includes the “Grants Under Contract” budget item. Could USAID please clarify whether the Offerors should budget for Grants Under Contract costs, and if so, could USAID kindly provide a “plug figure” for the Grants Under Contract that all Offerors will use to ensure consistency amongst offers?

GUCs are not required as part of Task Order 1, but they are an option if the Offeror feels it contributes to their technical approach. Since the Offeror is responding to a SOO, it is up to the Offeror’s discretion if they want to propose issuing GUCs in their Task Order 1 technical approach.

48. On Page 80, Section L.8. (a)-Organization of Technical Proposal, the Executive Summary is not included in the page limitation. On Page 81, Section L.8.(e)-Executive Summary, states “The Executive Summary does count towards the 30-page limit”. Could USAID clarify whether the Executive Summary is included or excluded from the 30 page limitation?

The Executive Summary does count toward the 30-page limit. L.8 has been amended to reflect this.

49. Section L.8.(i)(a)(1) - Past Performance Information, states that the past performance information should be provided in a “table as an annex to the technical proposal up to (4) of the most recent and relevant contracts…” Could USAID please clarify whether the Offeror should submit a total of (4) past performances, or (4) past performances for the Offeror and (4) for the major subcontract for a total of (8) past performances?

Up to 4 references must be provided for the prime and each of the major subcontractors.

Therefore, if you anticipate one major subcontractor, you would provide up to 8 references.

50. On page 85, Section L.8.(j)-Annexes, states “The Offeror should provide an organizational chart (included in the page total)…” Could USAID please clarify whether the organizational chart is included in the page limitation or forms part of the Annexes not included in the 30 page limitation?

While an organizational chart is not required, if it is included, it should be part of the technical proposal and not an annex, thus it will count towards the 30 page limit. L.8 has been amended to reflect this.

51. Would USAID/East Africa kindly confirm that implementation work being performed by a prime contractor or subcontractors on one or more of the Mission’s current projects or, on an implementation projects that will be awarded during the period of performance of the Resilience Learning Project qualifies as a conflict of interest for this proposal and thereby restricts Offerors from submitting bids a Prime Contractor or Subcontractor for this activity?

This depends on the nature of the work being performed. To determine if there is a conflict of interest, specific examples should be addressed with the task order’s cognizant contracting officer.

52. Section. L.9-Part 2; INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE COST/BUSINESS

PROPOSAL – PROPOSED COSTS/PRICES – DIRECT LABOR SALARIES AND WAGES, STATES,

“Completed biographical data sheets, From AID1420-17 (see Attachment J.3) must be provided for all key personnel and professional positions expected to perform on the contract”. Could USAID please further define professional positions as they appear to be a request in addition to just Key personnel? For example, would a project accountant be considered professional, or is USAID only requesting technical positions proposed that are in addition to Key Personnel?

All positions proposed require biographical data sheets except support staff such as drivers, cleaners, etc. Yes, a project accountant would be considered professional.

Questions from Pre-Proposal Conference:

53. Would USAID consider extending the deadline?

No.

54. Is a project website required, or could we instead focus on partners’ websites to ensure the website lasts beyond the project?

Please refer to the deliverables table in Attachment J.1, Section C, specifically, the deliverables noted in Objective 4.

55. How broad is the scope of “resilience”?

This is defined in Section C of the RFP.

56. Does exclusivity as it is referred to in the RFP include international and U.S. organizations? We ask because this makes it difficult to share information with our subcontractors if they have not signed exclusivity agreements.

Please note the language in the RFP has been revised both in Section L.9 and the cover letter to read as follows: “USAID discourages the use of exclusive agreements with international or regional/local organizations as this limits USAID’s ability to receive the best services.” This refers to all organizations. USAID understands the hesitancy to provide detailed information to potential subcontractors that are not exclusive, but nondisclosure agreements could be used.

57. Is the CLA Trainer, a key personnel position, envisioned to be a full-time position, or could it be a part-time position?

All key personnel must be full-time.

58. The RFP talks about task orders being issued from other missions, who will be providing technical direction?

Technical direction will be provided by the COR from the issuing mission.Technical direction for Task Order 1 will come from the COR from USAID/East Africa. While Task Order 1 will provide overall management/oversight of other task orders issued under this IDIQ, it is primarily to ensure all knowledge gained/lessons learned will be shared through Task Order 1, and team leaders will be appointed in other task orders.

59. Could you define the focus of task order 1 in terms of countries? Perhaps could you provide percentages on how much time/money should be spent on each country?

Please note the place of performance has been revised in the amended RFP to the following countries: Kenya, Somalia, Uganda, Djibouti, South Sudan, and Ethiopia.

Percentages cannot be provided, but Sections C.3 and C.4 provide information on what USAID has done with resilience to date. It is up to the Offeror to propose an appropriate and impactful approach.

60. The partnering question is confusing—there’s no ability to dig in with your partner to propose your strategy. If we’re not allowed to exclusively partner, is it okay to partner non-exclusively and these will be our implementation partners and to what degree can you have teaming on the proposal?

It is up to Offerors to work out the relationship with any potential subs; USAID cannot dictate the relationship, we only discourage exclusivity arrangements in order to ensure USAID receives the best offer. If you identify a sub that is fully committed to your organization, or use nondisclosure agreements, that’s up to the Offeror to work it out.

61. Given the geographic scope of the RFP, can you clarify if key personnel of IGAD member states would qualify or would they be TCNs?

If this is in reference to Section H.26, it is in the RFP so that Offerors are aware of the difficulties and delays USAID/East Africa has experienced in obtaining work permits for TCNs in Kenya. It is not USAID’s intention to limit regional expertise, USAID must also stress that it is the contractor’s responsibility to obtain work permits for all employees, and while we are able to provide assistance, it is extremely difficult, particularly in Kenya, to obtain work permits for TCNs.

This depends on where the person is hired. Any long-term employee expected to work in a country outside of his/her country of residence is considered a TCN. For example, if an Ethiopian is hired to work in Ethiopia, this would be considered a CCN position. If an Ethiopian is hired in Kenya, then this would be a TCN position.

62. Does the TCN work permit issue relate to short-term consultants/staff?

No, this only relates to long-term staff who require work permits in order to work in Kenya.

63. Is there potential in other USAID projects to pilot and test some of the innovations that will be identified in this project?

Yes, it’s part of a broader portfolio; we want to push the collaborative learning approach.

64. Is there a plug figure for GUCs?

No. GUCs are not required as part of Task Order 1, but they are an option if the Offeror feels it contributes to their technical approach. Since the Offeror is responding to a SOO, it is up to the Offeror’s discretion if they want to propose issuing GUCs in their Task Order 1 technical approach.

65. In Attachment J.1 (Task Order 1) you mentioned community national and regional organizations— does this include USAID implementing partners as well?

Yes.

66. Under Knowledge Management Section, you mention a few different host institutions and say it will be demand driven—do you have specific preferences in taking what this project does and handing it off to local and or regional orgs?

The preference would be to focus on organizations with the most receptivity. Wherever USAID’s investment can make the most difference and have the greatest effect.

67. Is the executive summary included in the page limit?

Yes.

68. What do you consider “host governments”?

Those governments of the countries within the place of performance.

69. Regarding past performance, should the Offeror submit a total of 4 past performances, or 4 past performances for the Offeror and 4 each major subcontract?

Up to 4 references must be provided for the prime and each of the major subcontractors.

Therefore, if you anticipate one major subcontractor, you would provide up to 8 references.

70. For objective 2 in the minimum deliverables table, when you say “border areas”, how do you define what border areas?

Border areas of the countries mentioned in the RFP; it doesn’t have to be all, just where we’ll have the greatest impact

71. In Section M, Ability to Respond to Additional Task Order Requests, should offerors’ proposals include illustrative STTA?

It is up to the Offeror to determine how to best demonstrate ability to respond to additional task orders; therefore, this is not required but could be included if the Offeror feels it appropriately demonstrates their ability.

72. In terms of knowledge management, is there any elaboration regarding prioritization of groups to target?

It is up to offerors to prioritize where they will have the greatest impact.

73. Is there a deadline as to when the award will be made?

We don’t have a set date, but we pride ourselves in quick turnarounds. We are committed to fairness; early next year (2-3 months generally after the due date of proposals).

74. Is there some documented and evaluated experiences of the CLA approach that one could refer to?

We expect offerors to do this due diligence and bring this up in their proposals. Please refer to Sections L and M.