SOL-623-14-000003_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

SOL-623-14-000003 Questions and Answers

1. a) Secondary data A desk review of key relevant documents (see list on page 9 of 26 below). For example, review of information from Joint Border Posts will be undertaken to understand the impacts of the project on reduction in trade barriers. Content analysis of all available secondary data relevant to the evaluation shall also be undertaken. (See list on page 9 of 26 below).

The RFP has repeatedly referenced page 9 of 26. Kindly clarify since the RFP’s page 9 of 64 has different contents

This is an error and has been fixed in the amended RFP.

2. We are wondering if you could give us an indication of the maximum budget you have for this evaluation? This will enable us to propose a more detailed design effectively in our proposal.

It is up to the offeror to propose the best price, which must be fair, reasonable and realistic to support the technical approach.

3. Could you please provide the Offerors with a list of the countries and USAID missions that will be involved in the evaluation?

The main countries involved in the evaluation are: Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Zambia (COMESA HQ), and Mauritius. While it is expected that evaluators will visit most of these countries, in certain circumstances (i.e. Mauritius), video conferencing may be a more cost effective means to gather information. The USAID trade team located in USAID/East Africa (Nairobi, Kenya) will be primarily involved in the evaluation, but evaluators should also also expect to meet with bilateral USAID missions in the countries noted above.

4. Would USAID be open to alternative configurations for the Evaluation Team Composition? For instance, could an Offeror designate the Trade and Integration Specialist as the Team Leader and the Evaluation Specialist instead as a team member, provided that all technical areas outlined in the RFP were covered under an alternative configuration?

No, the Evaluation Specialist must be the Team Leader as specified in the RFP.

5. Section H.23(a) on page 32 states that unallowable costs for TCNs and CCNs include compensation for TCNs and CCNs that exceeds the prevailing compensation paid to personnel performing comparable work in the cooperating country. Please confirm that this holds true despite the fact that the RFP calls for a fixed price contract.

Clause H.23 “EMPLOYMENT COSTS OF THIRD COUNTRY NATIONALS AND COOPERATING COUNTRY NATIONALS” has been removed since the anticipated award is a fixed price contract.

6. Section H.23(a) also states that allowances and differentials for TCNs and CCNs are unallowable costs. Despite this, please confirm that foreign per diems for TCNs and CCNs are allowable costs.

Clause H.23 “EMPLOYMENT COSTS OF THIRD COUNTRY NATIONALS AND COOPERATING COUNTRY NATIONALS” has been removed since the anticipated award is a fixed price contract.

7. What currency exchange rate should Offerors refer to for proposed CCNs?

This is up to the offeror to propose realistic and reasonable exchange rates, but it must be justified in the budget notes.

8. Could you please provide Offerors with a copy of the current Kenya Mission Local Compensation Plan? (See Section H.23(b)).

This has been provided as an attachment.

9. Please confirm that TCNs from developed nations must be paid in local currency.

Clause H.23 “EMPLOYMENT COSTS OF THIRD COUNTRY NATIONALS AND COOPERATING COUNTRY NATIONALS” has been removed since the anticipated award is a fixed price contract.

10. Section K of the RFP contains a number of outdated FAR provisions such as FAR 52.204-8, 52.209-5, 52.219, 52.227015 and 52.230-1 and Section L.3 has language that still refers to orca.gov. Please update those provisions in the solicitation.

Section K has been updated in the amended RFP.

11. Please confirm that for Section K.3, FAR 52.204-8, the small business size standard should be $33.5 million and not $14 million.

The small business size standard should be $14 million for NAICS code 541990. This has been corrected in the amended RFP.

12. Section M.7 on page 64 of the RFP states that USAID encourages maximum participation of small businesses, however, there are no points assigned for such utilization.

Would USAID reconsider assigning some points to make the use of small businesses more impactful?

No points will be assigned.

13. On page 10 of 64 of the RFP under secondary data, the referenced “key relevant documents (see list on page 9 of 26 below)”, are not seen. Where can they be found?

The reference to page 9 of 26 was an error and has been corrected. Any relevant documents can be found in Section J.

14. Kindly provide the following documents:

a) COMPETE project document approved by USAID

b) COMPETE baseline report if available

c) COMPETE internal evaluation program of august, 2011

d) COMPETE mid-term evaluation if any

e) COMPETE sub-grantees details

f) Annex containing specific collaborators and beneficiaries in each target country

g) Information on other donors and development partners complementing COMPETE project

Offerors can find publicly available documents related to the COMPETE project on the USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) at dec.usaid.gov. COMPETE is evaluated as part of the “Africa Trade Hubs Export Promotion Evaluation” report from October 2013, which is also on the DEC. Information on project collaborators, beneficiaries and other donors complementing the COMPETE project can be found either in the project documents or through research of publicly available information.