Questions_and_Answers.pdf

SOL-623-14-000015 Strengthening Somali Governance (SSG) Questions and Answers

1. I have been asked by a client if non-US entities can bid on the contract. I am aware of the OFAC and similar restrictions limiting business with restricted parties. My simple question is this: is the solicitation limited to U.S. entities?

No, however, entities must meet the nationality requirements of 937 per Section H.10 of the RFP.

2. Section B.7, Page 9, Note 2. - Ceiling on Indirect Costs and Section L.9.2(c), Page 103 – Indirect

Ceiling Rates Our company has historically submitted to USAID cost proposals with indirect costs using certified indirect rates supported by independently audited financial statements in lieu of a U.S. Government NICRA Letter.

Our established financial systems capture cost data within cost centers and pools isolating indirect costs in order to be in accordance with standard U.S. Government Contracting practices. In order to support an effort charging all costs directly, we would be less efficient, increase administrative costs, and could inadvertently create additional risk associated with not using indirect rates.

Below is a clause that has been included in previous USAID RFPs:

“If the offeror or any subcontractor(s) does not have a NICRA or a cognizant U.S. Government Audit Agency, audited balance sheets and profit and loss statements for the last two complete years, and the current year‐to‐date statements (or such lesser period of time if the offeror is a newly‐ formed organization), must be included in the proposal. The profit and loss statements must include detail of the total cost of goods and services sold, including a listing of the various indirect administrative costs, and be supplemented by information on the offeror's customary indirect cost allocation method, together with supporting computations of the basis for the indirect cost rate(s) proposed. The proposal must include the most recent two fiscal year pool and base cost compositions along with derived rates, the bases of allocation of these rates and an independent certified audit by a certified accounting firm of these rates.”

Is it acceptable to USAID for this proposal for contractors to submit the documents highlighted above to support indirect rates in lieu of a NICRA Letter or by budgeting all costs directly?

In an instance when an offeror has certified indirect rates supported by independently audited financial statements, USAID will accept this provided the offeror submits the audited financial statements along with the certified indirect rates. Please note that in such instances, the offeror must still propose ceiling rates.

3. Please let us know if the 50-page limit for the Technical Response includes all annexes?

Yes, the 50-page limit includes all required annexes per the instructions in Section L.8 of the RFP.

4. Is there a need for Key Personnel Letters of Commitment to be included in the Technical Response?

Or, can these be provided only in the Cost/Business Proposal to save pages?

Key Personnel Letters of Commitment must be provided in the Cost/Business Proposal.

5. Does USAID have a preference for where to focus work under SSG between Somalia South-Central, Somaliland and Puntland?

USAID envisions the FGS, including the FPS, as being the major focus of this project. That said, there will be significant engagement in Somaliland and Puntland and possibly in newly emerging states as well.

Depending on security and other considerations that could affect implementation, however, the focus could very well shift over the life of the contract.

6. Section L.7 on page 94 of the RFP indicates that “The proposal shall be prepared in two separate parts: the Technical Proposal shall address technical aspects only while the Business (Cost) Proposal shall present the price and address related issues such as past performance and responsibility.” However Section L.8 on page 95 and again on page 98 indicates that Past Performance Information should be included in Technical Proposal Section 7 (Annex).

Yes, past performance must be included as part of the technical proposal. This language has been clarified in the amended RFP.

7. Can USAID please confirm that Past Performance information should be included in the Technical

Proposal and not in the Business (Cost) Proposal?

Confirmed.

8. Per Section C.7., Contract Implementation, RFP p. 21 states that activity designs will be developed after award based on findings from rolling assessments and directions from USAID during the first six months of award.

While there are activities offered in the RFP, the structure of the ASOW assessment and approval process (RFP pp. 21-23) makes it difficult to identify the resources required for a proposed set of activities when it is unclear when they will be approved, and if, or how they may change. In order to help Offerors be fully response, it would be helpful if USAID could advise further on the desired division of resources between the three objectives (recognizing that USAID expects cross-linkages and cross fertilization between the three). Is there an approximate division of project resources that USAID would like to see across the three objectives that offerors could use as a benchmark?

USAID anticipates that the division of resources will be in the following order, from greatest to least:

Objective Two, Objective One, Objective Three.

9. Section C: Scope of Work – The Mission names certain ministries as initial targets and it also names specific Commissions. We understand all these to exist at the federal level. To what extent does the Mission envision SSG working with the executive branch in Somaliland and Puntland and possibly other regions as/when regional governments emerge?

The assessment and ASOW(s) related to Objective Two will better define the support to the executive branches of the FGS, Somaliland, and Puntland, as well as newly emerging states. At this time, USAID envisions that the bulk of the support will go toward the FGS, particularly in year one and into year two.

This will be impacted by a variety of factors, including how the security situation unfolds, what other donors are doing, the extent to which conditions are amenable to progress, and the changing needs and priorities of the governments in question.

10. Section C: Scope of Work - Given the importance in the RFP of obtaining improvements in accountability and transparency, we wonder if USAID envisions the SSG project working at any point to strengthen the Office of the Auditor General, the Office of the Ombudsman, and/or the Anti - Corruption Commission?

At this point, USAID does not envision a great deal of focus on the Anti-Corruption Commission, Office of the Ombudsman, or Auditor General. However, this could change if the relevant assessments found that there was a great deal of potential to increase transparency and accountability by working with these organizations and the proposed ASOW presented a compelling way forward.

11. Section C.7, Contract Implementation, RFP p. 22 states that the Contractor will have two weeks to revise the ASOWs in accordance with COR direction. There is no mention of how long it will take USAID to approve the revised ASOW. Can USAID please clarify the timeframe for final approval of the revised ASOWs after submission?

The RFP has been amended as follows in Section C.7: “USAID anticipates that approval of ASOWs will take no longer than five weeks. USAID will respond within two weeks to the Contractor’s ASOW proposal(s), and the Contractor will have a week to revise the ASOWs in accordance with COR direction.

If there is a need for a second round of revisions, each party will have one week to review and then to revise. Should additional revision or time to review or revise be required by either party, this must be explicitly articulated and agreed upon by e-mail in order to ensure mutual accountability and the timely implementation of project activities.”

12. Section C.7, Contract Implementation, RFP p. 22 states that a total of three or four ASOWs are currently envisioned under this contract. Section F.3, Reports and Deliverables, RFP p. 38, includes reference to a total of 2-4 anticipated ASOWs. Can USAID please clarify if the total number of ASOWs under this contract is 3 to 4, or 2 to 3?

All sections of the RFP refer to 3-4 ASOWs; however, the contract is written to enable flexibility. As noted in the RFP, the number of required ASOWs could be greater than four, if necessary. To clarify Section F.3, please note it provides delivery information on the initial ASOW and then different delivery details for the remaining 2-3 ASOWs.

13. Section L.8. Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, (d) Technical Approach, Initial ASOW, RFP p. 96, states that the initial ASOW will be incorporated into the contract once finalized and approved.

Given that the Contractor must perform an assessment and then resubmit the initial ASOW for Objective 1, can USAID please clarify that no work is to be anticipated by the offeror, and/or performed prior to the initial ASOW approval? Per directions in the RFP, p. 22 and p. 38, the estimate for approval for the initial ASOW would be 80 days from the effective date of the contract (60 days for submission, plus 2 weeks for USAID review, comments, and revisions).

Work will be expected to commence as soon as possible after award. Please note that the first assessment report will be due no later than 45 days of the effective date of the contract and the first ASOW within 60 days. The contractor will also be expected to undertake any urgent work requested by the COR once the contract is awarded, for example, providing technical assistance to the FPS for specific deliverables. This need for rapid startup should be clearly reflected in proposals, for example in the technical approach and mobilization sections.

14. Section L.8, Instructions for the Preparation for the Technical Proposal, (i), M&E Plan (RFP p. 99) refers offerors to Section C.12 for instructions on content for the draft M&E Plan. Section C.12, RFP

p. 28, Monitoring and Evaluation, does not make any mention of setting targets. Can USAID please confirm that offerors only need to include indicators, not targets, in the draft M&E Plan to be submitted with the proposal?

Yes, offerors should submit a broad set of indicators without targets in the draft M&E Plan submitted with the proposal. Once the contract is awarded, the awardee must develop a more detailed set of indicators under each ASOW, with accompanying targets.

15. Section F. Reports and Deliverables, G. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, RFP pg. 41, states “the

M&E plan must outline key program activities, indicators of achievement, and associated annual and life of project targets.”

This will result in an extremely illustrative M&E Plan since at 90 days after award when this plan is due not all the ASOWs will be completed and approved. Would USAID consider allowing submission of targets only for those ASOWs approved at the time the M&E plan is submitted at 90 days after award? Subsequent revisions can be made to targets as ASOWs are approved and added.

Details of the initial M&E Plan will be finalized in discussions between the Contractor and the COR. In the initial M&E Plan, the contractor will be expected to provide a broad initial set of indicators. Some targets in the initial M&E plan will be required for USAID reporting to Congress. As assessments are completed and ASOWs approved, the awardee must develop a more detailed set of indicators under each ASOW, with accompanying targets.

16. Can USAID please provide offerors with any Regional Security Office travel and/or security requirements and restrictions that Contractors will need to abide by if selected to implement the SSG program in Somalia?

The contractor must be responsible for determining its own security needs and requirements, and the movement of staff will not be restricted by the Regional Security Office.

17. Section L, Instructions to Offerors, L.8 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, RFP pp. 94-95 states: “Technical proposals are limited to 50 pages…Only the annexes requested are permitted and are included in the page limit.” However, the information required in the annexes could be close to the 50-page length alone, as demonstrated below:

a. Past performance information (which includes information on small business subcontracting) o 3 PPRs for prime and eg. 1-2 major subs = 4-6 pages o SB narrative & references = 2-3 pages o Subcontracting ESRS/non ESRS required info = 20 pages (or more)

b. CVs of key personnel – 4 KP x 2-3 pages = 8-12 pages

c. M&E Plan – 4-6 pages

d. Branding and Marking Plan responsive to USAID requirements – 4 pages

This would bring the pages needed to provide the required information in the annex to 42-51 pages.

We therefore respectfully request that USAID either exclude the annexes from the page limit or increase the page limit significantly.

Required annexes are not excluded from the page limit; however, revisions have been made to the required information for past performance in the amended RFP, reducing the number of pages the past performance section will require. A “Past Performance Information Sheet” has been attached, and offerors are required to submit past performance information in this document as Annex 1 to the Technical Proposal (which still counts towards the page limit).

18. Further to the above question, would USAID consider excluding divider pages from the page limit, which facilitate review of the proposal?

Dividers are not required, and any dividers included in the proposal will be counted towards the page limit.

19. Section L, Technical Approach to Overall Contract, RFP p. 96, “…Offers must include a proposed methodology for the assessments done to inform the ASOWs. The proposed methodology should include tools, sampling frame and an illustrative list of informants.” While there may be similarities in the methodology deployed across ASOWs, there may also be differences. Could the Mission please clarify if it is asking for these specific elements only for the first ASOW related to Objective 1, or for all ASOWs anticipated?

Please provide a proposed methodology for all of the anticipated assessments done to inform ASOWs.

This methodology may be refined by the contractor as necessary for individual assessments once the contract is awarded and prior to undertaking them.

20. Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, M.2. Technical Evaluation Criteria, Past Performance, RFP

p. 109. Could USAID please articulate how it envisions the “pass/fail” criterion for past performance affecting the overall scoring? Hypothetically it seems possible for a bidder to score high on the other criteria yielding a high total score yet still fail on past performance with no impact on the numerical score. Is this a threshold issue, such that a pass is necessary to compete?

The short answer is yes. The offeror must achieve a “pass” in the area of past performance in order to be considered for award as part of the responsibility determination.

21. Grants Under Contracts Manual – RFP p. 37 states the GUC Manual is due 60 days from the effective date of the contract, while RFP p. 39 states that the GUC Manual will be approved within 60 days from the effective date of the contract. Can USAID please clarify when the GUC manual must be submitted versus when it will be approved?

The GUC Manual must be submitted for approval within 60 days of the effective date of the contract.

Page 39 states, “The Contractor must develop a ‘Grants under Contract’ Manual to be approved by USAID prior to awarding any sub-grants (unless specific approval is provided by the Contracting Officer or CO) within 60 days of contract award. “

22. Annual Work Plans – RFP p. 37 states that the first annual work plan is due 60 days from the effective date of the contract, while pg. 39 states within 90 days of the award. Can USAID please clarify if the first Annual Work Plan is due within 60 or 90 days from the effective date of the contract?

The first annual work plan is due within 90 days of the effective date of the contract. This has been clarified in the amended RFP.

23. Section L, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal (RFP p. 95) does not include an

Executive Summary. Can USAID please confirm that the offeror may include an Executive Summary not to count against the page limit?

No Executive Summary is required. If an offeror includes an Executive Summary then it will count against the overall page limit.

24. Will the implementing contractor be able to use free of charge the UN compound in Mogadishu when staying in the city?

USAID does not have any jurisdiction over the UN compound in Mogadishu.

25. Can USAID confirm, per Section F.3 (page 37), that the Grants Under Contracts Manual is due “60 days from the effective date of the contract?”

Yes.

26. Can USAID confirm that the contractor will have the authority to implement a grants program pursuant to ADS 302.3.4.12?

Yes.

27. In Section B.4 Budget (page 7) there is no line indicated for material costs. Can USAID please clarify how they wish this cost category to be represented in the final negotiated cost elements?

The budget in B.4 has been revised in the amended RFP.

28. In Section B.5 Approvals (TBD) (page 7) the RFP states, “The use of contract funds is approved for the following (A, B, C, D & E) below” however, ‘E’ is not reflected in the subsequent section. Can USAID please clarify this omission?

There is no part “E,” and this has been reflected in the amended RFP.

29. In Section B.6 Indirect Costs (page 8) the RFP states that, “All costs for organizations without a

NICRA shall be budgeted and billed as direct costs.” We request that USAID provide offerors with the flexibility of entering into Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) or Time and Materials (T&M) type subcontracts with organizations that do not have NICRAs when the following conditions are met:

An organization can provide evidence that it has an accounting system capable of administering a

CPFF or T&M type subcontract.

An organization is committed to undergoing annual audits of their indirect cost rates in accordance with the cost principles of FAR Part 31.

The prime contractor has the appropriate subcontract management systems in place to ensure a

CPFF or T&M subcontract with a local organization is administered properly.

An organization has established indirect cost rates, and the use of indirect cost rates is an integral part of their cost accounting standards.

With strong prime contractor oversight and the requirement for organizations to undergo annual audits in accordance with the cost principles of FAR Part 31, these contracting mechanisms serve as a tool to build the capacity of local organizations so they can eventually have the financial and administrative capacity to receive direct funding from USAID.

In our experience, managing direct cost allocation subcontracts typically results in a higher financial and administrative burden for prime contractors and reduces overall cost control due to monthly costs varying significantly depending on the services being provided by the subcontractor. Indirect cost rate ceilings (under CPFF subcontracts) and fixed multipliers (under T&M subcontracts) reduce the government’s cost risk of potential indirect cost rate increases and allow for a higher level of cost control and financial and administrative oversight by the prime contractor.

USAID is not limiting the type of mechanism a prime determines is appropriate to enter into with its subcontractors. It is up to offerors to determine what mechanism is most appropriate to enter into with its subcontractors. USAID is only clarifying that indirect costs shall not be allowed for organizations without NICRAs, thus they must budget and bill all costs as direct costs (however as stated in question 2, USAID will consider exceptions to this if the organization has certified indirect rates supported by independently audited financial statements).

30. In Section B.7 Ceiling on Indirect Rates (page 9) USAID indicates that contractors should propose ceilings on Fringe. While we recognize that ceilings on Overhead and G&A are standard, we respectfully request clarification on USAID’s goal in establishing a ceiling on Fringe for the purposes of this solicitation.

This requirement has been removed in the amended RFP.

31. In Section H.3(c)(1) (page 51) the RFP notes that annual increases for expatriate staff cannot exceed 3 percent each year, while (2) provides for a 5 percent increase for TCN and CCN staff. This is referenced again in L.9 (page 101). However, this language contradicts Section H.2, AIDAR

752.7007 (page 50), which requires the contractor to follow its own policies and procedures for personnel compensation. Please clarify which of the above statements best reflect its expectations of the contractor.

Contractors must follow their own policies and procedures while also maintaining the restrictions set forth in the contract, including clause H.9.

32. Please confirm that offerors are not required to submit proposals in paper media, as referenced in RFP

Section L.4(c)(1) (page 89), because the cover letter and RFP Section L.7 (page 94) both specify that proposals must be submitted electronically.

Proposals must only be submitted electronically. Paper or fascimile proposals will not be accepted.

33. In consideration of the requirement stipulated in Section L.8(g)(4)(c.2) (page 99), we respectfully request that USAID consider allowing offerors to submit 10 recent and relevant small business subcontracting reports to satisfy this requirement in recognition of the volume of information applicable to the last three years.

This requirement has been removed in the amended RFP.

34. In Section L.8(d) (page 96) the RFP states, “The initial ASOW must articulate activities the offeror proposes to undertake under Objective One. … The initial ASOW will be incorporated into the contract and will guide the contractor’s initial work in Somalia.” Please clarify whether the initial ASOW is expected to cover all activities anticipated under Objective One over the life of the program or whether this ASOW is expected to cover an initial group of activities most relevant to the program under Objective 1 at the outset of the program.

The initial ASOW is expected to cover all activities anticipated under Objective One over the life of the program. The language in Section L.8 has been clarified in the amended RFP.

35. In Section C.3 (page 13) the RFP states that SSG is informed by the findings of a USAID-funded study in 2010, “The Future of Stability in Somalia.” Can USAID please clarify whether these findings were released as a written, public report and if so, where it can be found?

USAID has attached “The Future of Stability in Somalia” report.

36. Taking into consideration the 50 page limit and the requirement that the technical proposal be legible without magnification, is there a preferred font and minimum font and margin sizes for text, charts, and endnotes?

No, but the proposal must be readable, requiring no magnification.

37. P. 94, last paragraph under L.7: “The proposal shall be prepared in two separate parts: the Technical

Proposal shall address technical aspects only while the Business (Cost) Proposal shall present the price and address related issues such as past performance and responsibility”. Question: Is past performance to be addressed in the Cost Proposal rather than in the Technical Proposal? Please note that on page 95, Past Performance is indicated to be included in the Technical Proposal.

No, past performance must be addressed in the technical proposal. This has been clarified in the amended

RFP.

38. Page 98. Under L.8 (g) (1) a). Please clarify whether the requirement of providing up to four (4) of the most recent and relevant contracts in the past performance table includes both offeror’s and its major subcontractors’ past performance information. In other words, can the prime provide 4 contracts while at the same time each of its major subs provides their own 4 contracts?

Yes, the prime can provide up to 4 and each sub can provide up to 4.

39. Is it possible to provide a copy of “The Future of Stability in Somalia” (2010)?

USAID has attached “The Future of Stability in Somalia” report.

40. Does USAID have in mind a balance of effort and/or expenditure between the three components in mind?

USAID anticipates that the balance of effort will be in the following order, from greatest to least:

Objective Two, Objective One, Objective Three.

41. Is it possible to provide a copy of the Mission’s current Local Compensation Plan?

Yes, the Kenya LCP has been attached, and this is the LCP used for Somalia as well.

42. Would USAID make available any research it has on prevailing market rates for local salaries?

USAID is sharing the Kenya LCP, which is the same LCP that is used for Somalia.

43. What is the accepted Mission policy for vacations, holidays, and R&R for expat (USN) personnel?

Please refer to AIDAR 752.7031 and paragraph (e) of Section L.9.

44. Page 104 Procurement Plan Requirements calls for a degree of detail that will be very difficult to specify without a thorough needs assessment. Would it be possible for the Mission to provide guidelines or a “plug figure” for this item? Alternatively, may the offeror provide an illustrative plan?

The procurement amount depends on the offeror’s proposed technical approach; therefore, a plug figure would not be appropriate. Yes, Offeror’s may provide an illustrative plan.

45. On Page 94, "the RFP states "The proposal shall be prepared in two separate parts: the Technical

Proposal shall address technical aspects only while the Business (Cost) Proposal shall present the price and address related issues such as past performance and responsibility". As past performance is a part of the technical evaluation criteria, would USAID confirm that past performance information is part of the technical proposal and not the cost proposal?

Past performance must be included as part of the technical proposal. The language has been clarified in the amended RFP.

46. Would USAID please confirm that EBDs are only required for key personnel and named LTTA and

STTA staff?

Per Section L.9 of the RFP, biographical data sheets must be provided for all key personnel, all professional positions expected to perform on the contract (including local, TCN, and US), and all consultants proposed.

47. On Page 105, under "Instructions for Preparation and submission of the cost proposal," the RFP mentions "Legislative Reporting Information."

Can USAID confirm that the "Legislative Reporting Information" is part of the cost proposal and not the technical proposal?

Can USAID provide a template for the "Legislative Reporting Information?"

Yes, this is part of the cost proposal. While there is no template, all of the necessary information is found in paragraph (l) in Section L.9.

48. Would USAID please confirm that the Branding and Marking Plan is part of the Cost Proposal?

No, the Branding and Marking Plan is required as part of the Technical Proposal, as is noted in Section L.8 of the RFP.

49. Would USAID please confirm that we may submit the cost proposal in PDF format?

Please see the instructions quoted below from Section L.9 of the RFP:

“All spreadsheets must be submitted in Excel format as unlocked spreadsheets with unlocked formulas – this means spreadsheets must not be password protected. The detailed narrative for the cost proposal must be written in English in Microsoft Word, be readable, and be text accessible. Biographical Data Sheets must be submitted in PDF format, duly signed by both the employee and the contractor and must be put in alphabetical order.”

50. On Page 15, the RFP mentions "The Speaker’s Office has prepared a detailed strategic plan that catalogues the kinds of support he thinks are needed for establishing an effective parliament, including ..." Would USAID please make the UNDP strategic plan available to offerors?

The Draft Strategic Plan of the FPS is an internal document that has not been released publicly. Offerors may be able to obtain the document directly from the FPS or other sources.

51. On Page 15, the RFP mentions "In 2013, the FPS introduced new rules and procedures, which remain a work in progress and are not well integrated into parliamentary routines." Would USAID please make the rules and procedures document available to offerors?

The FPS rules and procedures is an internal document that has not been released publicly. Offerors may be able to obtain the document directly from the FPS or other sources.

52. On Page 24, the RFP makes reference to the State Department's "dual-track" strategy announced in

October 2010. Would USAID please make that strategy available to offerors?

USAID is not able to make the strategy available to offerors.

53. On Page 23, the RFP makes reference to USAID's Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance

Assessment conducted in January 2014. Can USAID make that assessment available to offerors?

Unfortunately, it has not yet been finalized or cleared for release. However, it will be shared with the awardee if possible once it is finalized.

54. To allow for more comparable cost proposals in light of the evolving and often unpredictable needs of the government counterparts, would USAID please provide offerors with a plug figure for procurement over the life of the contract?

The procurement amount depends on the offeror’s proposed technical approach; therefore, a plug figure would not be appropriate.

55. Would USAID confirm that offerors are expected not to bid under the $22-24 million range provided in the solicitation?

Offerors are permitted to bid under the $22-24 million range provided the offer is realistic to achieve the requirements noted in the statement of work.

56. Would USAID confirm offerors’ option to exclude a Cover Letter and Table of Contents in order to maximize available space for a nuanced discussion of proposed technical implementation?

Alternatively, would USAID allow Cover Letters and Tables of Contents to be excluded from the page limitation?

All required information noted in Section L.8 of the RFP is included as part of the page limit for the technical proposal.

57. On Page 108 in Section M.1(f) the RFP makes reference to option periods, though option periods are not discussed elsewhere in the RFP. Would USAID please clarify this clause?

This was an error and has been removed from the amended RFP.

58. On pg. 51 the RFP states, "annual salary increases exceeding the maximum salary of the highest senior foreign service national (FSN) position authorized under the US Embassy Compensation Plan requires the advance written approval of the Mission Director...." and on pg. 101 it notes "labor costs for TCNs and CCNs must not exceed the threshold in the US Embassy's local employee compensation plan." Can USAID please provide a copy of the US Embassy Local Compensation Plan for Somalia?

Yes, the Kenya LCP has been attached, and this is the LCP used for Somalia as well.