Questions_and_Answers_SOL-623-15-000003.pdf

SOL-623-15-000003 Questions and Answers

1. RFP Reference: Cover Letter, H4, H5 Page Number: 1, 42 Relevant RFTOP Language: The authorized source for procurement is Geographic Code 937 unless otherwise specified in the schedule of this contract.

Question: Provision of in-kind items (such as refrigeration or technological equipment) may be inconsistently available or unavailable locally -- or incur substantial shipping costs from the US. To allow for more cost effective use of in-kind grants and cost-share, would USAID change the Country Code to 935?

Unfortunately, the Geographic Code cannot be changed due to the type of funding. If there is a compelling need, 935 may be considered on a case-by-case basis, but it will require a waiver with significant justification.

2. RFP Reference: D3, L8(b); L10, J1-F3, J2-F3; J1-C3 Page Number: 26, 89, 103, 119, 138, 114 Relevant RFTOP Language: D3: The Contractor must submit a Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan for each task order, which must be finalized and submitted for Task Order Contracting Officer approval no later than 30 days after each Task Order award. The Contractor will follow the approved plan during implementation of each task order unless a waiver is requested and approved by the contracting officer. Guidance on applying for waivers can be found in USAID Automated Directives System Chapter 320, Branding and Marking.

L10: In accordance with ADS 320, Branding and Marking, Offerors will submit a Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) and a Marking Plan (MP). These will be submitted as a separate annex to the technical proposal. These will be evaluated for sufficiency but will not be scored. The detailed Branding Implementation and Marking plans will be submitted for final review in the competitive range or before award. This B&M Plan, with any proposed exceptions, can be used to support aspects of the proposal specifically related to Somali ownership and leadership, as well as communications and dialogue aspects of the technical approach.

Question: While on illustrative branding strategy, branding implementation plan, and marking plan is included in the proposal outline (p. 89), J1 and J2 state that a separate BIPMP must be completed for each task order. Would USAID allow for one BIPMP in the Annex, covering the Overall Approach, Task Order 1, and Task Order 2?

Yes, for the purposes of the proposal, one illustrative branding strategy, branding implementation and marking plan may be submitted so long as it covers the overall approach, TO1 and TO2. Please note, however, that a BIPMP is required for each task order per Sections F of each TO after contract award.

This has been clarified in the amended solicitation in Section L.8, Annex F.

3. RFP Reference: D3, J2-F3 Page Number: 26, 138 Relevant RFTOP Language: D3: The Contractor must submit a Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan for each task order, which must be finalized and submitted for Task Order Contracting Officer approval no later than 30 days after each Task Order award.

J2-F3: Branding Strategy, Branding Implementation Plan, and Marking Plan for the TO Illustrative versions to be submitted with the technical proposal. Final versions due 30 days from the effective date of the task order, and in full compliance with ADS 320

Question: To allow for drafts and discussion with USAID and full alignment with final year one workplans, would 90 days suffice for finalization of each Task Order’s first annual Branding and Marking Plan?

We have changed this to 60 days, but we have also added language that requires the contractor to collaborate with the COR and Development Outreach and Communications Officer prior to submitting the plan.

4. RFP Reference: H.3.(d2) Page Number: 41 Relevant RFTOP Language: TCN and CCN Consultants: Compensation must not exceed the maximum rate of the highest senior FSN position authorized under the Mission Local Compensation Plan Question: Does the LCP for Kenya apply to GEEL?

Yes. The Kenya LCP is the LCP applied to Somalia.

5. RFP Reference: Section H.36 -Subcontracting Report and Section L.9 – Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal, Part 9- Subcontracting Plan and Small Business Plan Page Number: Pages 55 and 102 Relevant RFTOP Language: “Subcontracting reports must be submitted for each Task Order issued under this contract” Question: In accordance with FAR 19.702 (b)(3), Subcontracting plans are not required— “For contracts or contract modifications that will be performed entirely outside of the United States and its outlying areas”. As the place of performance of this contract is Somalia (as per Section F.3 of the RFP), would USAID consider eliminating the requirement for a subcontracting plan pursuant to FAR 19.702 (b)(3)?

While the FAR does not require subcontracting plans if the place of performance is entirely outside of the US, we are still requiring the plan, because USAID as an agency needs to track our small-business goals.

6. RFP Reference: L7 –Format and Presentation Page Number: 88 Relevant RFTOP Language: The technical proposal must be written in English and be presented in a readable font size. The technical proposal is limited to 55 pages. This page limitation includes all required documents for the technical proposal. All required aspects of the technical proposal as noted below must be combined into a single PDF, and the page limitation will be calculated by the total number of pages of the entire PDF.

Question: To allow focus on technical requirements and improve ease of evaluation, would USAID to exclude the Cover, Title Page, Cover Letter, Acronym List, and Compliance Matrix from the page limitation?

No, however, we have increased the page limit to 60 pages. Please note, there is no requirement for a Cover, Title Page, or “Compliance Matrix,” there is however a requirement for a past performance matrix.

7. RFP Reference: L-9, Part 2 and L8 (b.6.B) Page Number: 97, 91 Relevant RFTOP Language: ‘Key Personnel must be available to start in a timely manner according to the Offeror’s proposed mobilization plan. Key Personnel must be aware of the living and working conditions in Somalia and must be willing to be based in country.”

However, no mention of letters of commitment Question: Should letters of commitment be included in the cost volume?

While letters of commitment for key personnel are not required, we do expect offerors to propose key personnel that are committed to working on this contract in Somalia. For example, we do not appreciate the “bait and switch” approach. Since Letters of commitment are not truly binding, they don’t necessarily serve this intended purpose.

8. RFP Reference: Section L.9 – Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal, Part 2 – Proposed Costs/Prices, Grants Under Contracts Page Number: 99 Relevant RFTOP Language: “Fee may not be taken on GUCs” Question: Because contracts are reimbursed after costs are incurred, a significant portion of the proposed fee consists of the cost of financing the activity (interest), which cannot be included as a reimbursable cost. Requiring contractors to expend ongoing costs (financing grants) without a means of recovering them would put at risk the contractor’s ability to effectively implement the program and would not seem to be in USAID’s best interest.

In addition, by performing grant management and quality assurance functions contractors provide added value in accomplishing the work to be performed under the contract, which is a benefit to the Government.

Based on the above, would USAID consider allowing Offerors to propose a fixed fee on grants under contract to ensure that Offerors are able to recover the costs associated with providing those services?.

Fixed fee may not be taken on GUCs; however, please note there are ways to mitigate risks with GUCs.

For example, Fixed Amount Awards with payment based on milestones may be used to mitigate risk rather than cost-type grants that may require advances. Please also note that in the RFP amendment, the GUC plug figure for TO2 has been reduced to $5 million, and the overall maximum for GUCs noted in Section C.5 of the IDIQ has been reduced to $12 million.

9. RFP Reference: Section L.9 – Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal, Part 2 – Proposed Costs/Prices, Fee Page Number: 100 Relevant RFTOP Language: “It is not expected that fee will be applied to other than direct costs for sub-awards (i.e., not profit or indirect costs).”

Question: In accordance with cost principles defined in FAR 31, the total value of subcontracts (including subcontractors’ direct, indirect costs and fee) is part of Offerors' direct costs.

Also, in accordance with FAR 52.215-23, by performing subcontract management functions, contractors provide added value in accomplishing the work to be performed under the contract, which is a benefit to the Government.

Based on the above, would USAID consider allowing Offerors to apply fee on total subaward costs (including direct, indirect costs and fee)?

This language has been clarified in the RFP. Fee may be taken on the entire subcontract cost EXCLUDING the subcontractor’s fee. Please note, the prime contractor’s fee may not be taken on the fee of subawards, as this is an unallowable cost.

10. RFP Reference: J1-F3, J2—F3 Page Number: 120, 138

Relevant RFTOP Language: Annual Work Plans, Theory of Change, and Logical Framework for the IDIQ: Due30 days from the effective date of the Task Order for the first work plan and 30 days before each work plan ends for subsequent work plans; must be approved by the COR [. …]affecting implementation. The final Theory of Change and log frame is due 90 days from the effective date of the Task Order and must be revised as necessary within 30 days of the award of each new TO.

Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the IDIQ 90 days after the effective date of the Task Order, and in accordance with ADS 203.3.5; must be approved by the COR; updated annually and revised within 30 days of award of each new TO. The plan must be linked to the logframe and comprise concrete measures including rationale, data collection tools and methodology, quality control, data sources and targets for achieving and capturing results with a blend of output, outcome, and impact indicators (standard and/or custom). Guidance on developing the plan will be made available by USAID. ..

Question: To allow for drafts and discussion with USAID, would 90 days for finalization of the documents suffice for each Task Order’s first annual workplan, theory of change, and logical framework?

We have changed this to 90 days, but we have also added language that requires the contractor to collaborate with the COR and Monitoring and Evaluation Officer prior to submitting the plan.

11. RFP Reference: J2-C5, J2-F4 Page Number: 134, 142 Relevant RFTOP Language: Facilitate at least 20 new private agribusiness (i.e.

agricultural, fishery, or livestock) investments, resulting in at least $500,000 of private funds invested in each.

Question: The deliverable requirement of 20 investments valued at a minimum of $500,000 each risks perpetuating elite capture while challenging the capabilities of Somalia’s financial sector. Fewer larger investments alongside many smaller investments could open up opportunity and lead to important catalytic investment effects in associated services and products. Given these concerns, would USAID consider the following options:

• Modify the deliverable language to ”at least $100,000 of private funds invested in each”, while retaining the total $20 million investment target?

• Remove the minimum investment size target, but with the same $20M private investment total?

USAID is aware of the potential of elite capture. One of the objectives of GEEL is to carry out interventions that open up the economy to small- and medium-enterprises and promote competition.

USAID is also aware that in order to reach the employment creation targets, contractors will need to work with larger businesses. Please note that the amendment to the RFP has shifted the employment deliverable targets to better align with the investment targets.

Additionally, USAID has information from other development partners that private investors (this includes both Somali and international) are willing to invest significant resources, ranging from $500,000 to several million dollars, in investments. Therefore, we will not reduce the minimum investment to $100,000 of private funds invested, nor will we remove the minimum investment target size.

This will require innovative approaches with significant outreach.

12. RFP Reference: J2-F4 - Deliverables Page Number: 142-4 Relevant RFTOP Language: Fixed fee tied to deliverables (followed by detailed table).

Question: 70% of project fee is tied to achievement of a long, detailed list of deliverables and within specific years. Would USAID consider streamlining the nuanced list to limit administrative burden on USAID and its evaluators or tying a lesser amount of fee to Offerors to propose their own AMEP targets and timeline? Fee in such an environment as Somalia reflects factors outlined in FAR 15.404-4, including:

A. Cost of money. Because most contracts are cost-reimbursable (i.e., the contractor incurs the cost, pays the expense, and then requests reimbursement from the government), contractors incur operating costs by either borrowing money to pay project expenses or foregoing interest earnings on endowment funds or cash reserves. For most organizations, this cost of money is around 3.5%.

B. Contractor risk. Project risk stems from unpredictable local conditions, such as wild currency fluctuations, political instability, rampant corruption that can lead to disallowed costs, and from project complexity . Where more project risk exists, a contractor is expected to charge additional fee to mitigate possible real-world costs that could jeopardize implementation. These costs could include emergency evacuation of staff due to unrest or implementation delays while keeping staff on payroll. The higher the risk, the higher the fee.

C. Material Acquisition, aka contractor effort. On projects that require more effort to implement, contractors are rewarded by the government for putting in the extra effort.

D. Indirect cost control and general management cost control. Ceilings on indirect rates can create additional management effort as contractors work to keep indirect costs lower than the ceiling. If a project requires unusual managerial effort and attention, greater fee should be expected.

E. Federal socioeconomic programs. Greater profit opportunity should be provided contractors that have displayed unusual initiative in these programs (e.g., support for US-based small businesses).

These are all factors that must be taken into consideration when proposing the fixed fee. The current fee schedule is not seen as a burden to USAID, in fact, USAID has determined this is the best approach to ensure the deliverables are accomplished. A lesser amount of fee tied to deliverables will not be considered. USAID has also taken a second look and made some minor modifications to the fee schedule in the amendment to the RFP.

13. Please provide the latest FSN scale and Local Compensation Plan for Somalia.

The LCP for Kenya is the LCP applied to Somalia. It has been attached to Amendment 1 of the RFP.

14. Page 9 of the RFP, section B.5.a Fixed Fee Ceiling states that “this fee must not be applied in addition to sub-grant cost fees (if applicable), which has a separate ceiling established below.” The solicitation does not include a separate section for Offerors to propose a grants under contract fee. Would USAID allow Offerors to propose a GUC fee assuming there will not be a letter of credit provided for GUCs?

No, as noted in Section L.9 of the RFP, fee may not be taken on GUCs. Please also note that in the RFP amendment, the GUC plug figure for TO2 has been reduced to $5 million, and the overall maximum for GUCs noted in Section C.5 of the IDIQ has been reduced to $12 million.

15. Page 71, FAR 52.237-8 – Restriction on Severance Payments to Foreign Nationals is incorporated in section K.1 of the RFP. Would USAID consider allowing a flow-down of FAR 52.237-9 – Waiver of Limitations on Severance Payment to Foreign Nationals if severance is required under local law?

FAR 52.237-9 is not incorporated into this contract.

16. Page 88 of the RFP, section L.8. Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal states that “the technical proposal is limited to 55 pages. This page limitation includes all required documents for the technical proposal.” Can USAID please confirm that divider sheets (such as between major sections of the proposal, such as annexes) are not included in the 55 page limit?

Divider sheets are not required, but if they are included, then they do count towards the page limit. All required annexes also count toward the page limit. Please note the page limit has been revised to 60 pages.

17. Page 88 of the RFP, section L.8.b. Content of the Technical Proposal states that the Cover Letter, Table of Contents, and Acronym List are included in the 55 page limit. Would USAID consider excluding the Cover Letter, Table of Contents, and Acronym List from the 55 page limit?

No, however, we have increased the page limit to 60 pages.

18. Page 94 of the RFP, section L.8.b.9 Past Performance (Annex A) states the following: “provide a list of the recent (within the past year) contracts for which you submitted subcontract reports to eSRS and a copy of any similarity recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS.” Would USAID consider excluding the copies of recent subcontracting reports that were not submitted to eSRS from the 55 page limit? These can amount to 30 pages.

Copies of the subcontracting reports not included in the eSRS are no longer required to be submitted as part of the proposal. This language has been revised in the RFP.

19. Page 99 of the RFP, section L.9. Part 2 – Proposed Costs/Prices, Grants under Contracts states that a “fee may not be taken on GUCs.” Would USAID allow for a standard GUC fee to account for financing of grants without a letter of credit, or will USAID guarantee a letter of credit for GUCs upon award?

Fee is not permitted to be taken on GUCs. USAID does not see a compelling reason for letter of credit for GUCs at this time, since there are ways to mitigate risks and reducing the need to provide advances for GUCs. For example, Fixed Amount Awards with payment based on milestones may be used to mitigate risk rather than cost-type grants that may require advances. Please also note that in the RFP amendment, the GUC plug figure for TO2 has been reduced to $5 million, and the overall maximum for GUCs noted in Section C.5 of the IDIQ has been reduced to $12 million.

20. Page 102 of the RFP, section L.9. Part 9 – Subcontracting Plan and Small Business Concerns states that “if the Offeror is other than a small business, it must submit a Subcontracting Plan.” Please confirm whether a submission of past performance using SBC (pg. 94) and a subcontracting plan (pg. 102) is required given that work under the IDIQ will be performed almost entirely outside of the United States and its outlying areas.

While the FAR does not require subcontracting plans if the place of performance is entirely outside of the US, we are still requiring the plan, because USAID as an agency needs to track our small-business goals.

21. Page 123, section F.3 Reporting Requirements, states that drafts of final reports for the IDIQ and all TOs are due within 30 days of the end of the contract, with a final copy to be submitted 45 days after completion of the contract. Would USAID consider revising the final report submission due date to be prior to the end date of the IDIQ contract and all Task Orders?

Yes, this is an error. The draft will be due 60 days within the end of the contract, and the final report must be submitted prior to the end date of the IDIQ contract and all Task orders. This language has been revised in the RFP.

22. Page 133 of the RFP, section C. Statement of Work states that the goal of Task Order 2. Agriculture Value Chain is “to address Intermediate Result #3 of the results framework in the IDIQ – improved production, employment, and incomes in the agriculture value chain,” while the bulleted list of systematic interventions for Task Order 2, listed on page 135, Section C.6 Management and Coordination, correspond to Intermediate Results #1 - Business Enabling Environment Strengthened and Result #2 – Enterprise Development Promoted. Could USAID please clarify whether or not the bulleted list of systemic interventions should be addressed in Offerors’ response to Task Order 2?

Specific deliverables for systemic interventions will be detailed in a subsequent task order. However, as part of the technical approach under Task Order 2, the offeror must demonstrate potential synergies between the sectoral interventions under TO2, and systemic interventions which are highlighted in Section C.4 of the IDIQ. An example of an illustrative activity from Section C.4 is access to finance for agribusinesses. Using this example, while a future task order will provide the financing, TO2 may help identify the agribusinesses and provide guidance on what types of in-kind support are appropriate.

23. Page 134 of the RFP, section C.5 Deliverables, lists infrastructure interventions, including “30 critical small-scale civil works for improving economic infrastructure factoring in management and maintenance arrangement to ensure sustainability of investments.” According to ADS 303maw, construction must not be financed under a grant. Please clarify that infrastructure interventions will be acquired through acquisition instruments and not through assistance instruments issued under the grants under contract authority.

Yes, this is correct, infrastructure should not be acquired through assistance instruments.

24. Under Task Order 2 will the project work in all three zones? If so, could USAID provide an estimate of how much support each regions should receive?

Yes. The Offeror’s approach will determine how much support in each region will be provided; however, please note that Section C.4 of the IDIQ SOW states “The agribusiness component of the contract must focus primarily on agriculture in South Central Somalia.”

25. When is the anticipated award date for GEEL?

September 30, 2015.

26. Given conditions of the post in Mogadishu and the precedence set by USAID in similar posts (e.g.

Afghanistan, Iraq), would USAID consider a blanket 6-day work week for LTTA Expat/TCN staff when resident in Mogadishu?

USAID has given this consideration. Six-day workweek requests may be considered on a case-by-case basis after award. At this time, offerors must budget for a 5-day work week.

27. In L.8 (b.9) (pg 94) the RFP states that offerors are permitted to include a noncounting quality awards and certifications section as part of the past performance annex. Should offerors submit a separate PDF document with just this section?

No – this should be part of the past performance matrix, Annex A of the proposal, which is included as Appendix J.5 of the RFP. A column in the matrix has been added for space to provide this information.

This does count toward the page limit, and the language has been revised to reflect this.

28. In L.8 (b.9) (pg 94), please clarify the timeframe for “recent” subcontract reports. In addition, given the large number of subcontract reports that may not have been submitted to the eSRS, may the offeror provide with the proposal five or 10 of the most recent, relevant reports? Further, kindly consider not counting these reports in the 55-page limit or increasing the page limit. Under the current instructions, more than half of this offeror’s 55 pages will consist of subcontracting reports.

Copies of the subcontracting reports not included in the eSRS are no longer required to be submitted as part of the proposal. This language has been revised in the RFP.

29. In L.8 (b.9) (Pg 94), the RFP requests a narrative summary of the offeror’s use of small business concerns over the past three years. As there is not space for this information in the Annex A template, may offerors submit a separate noncounting PDF document with just this section?

The narrative summary, list of the recent (within the past year) contracts for which you submitted subcontract reports to eSRS, and small business references can be provided on a separate page of the proposal as part of Annex A; however, this will count toward the page limit. This narrative does not need to be exhaustive.

30. In Section L.9, Part 2 (Pg. 97) the RFP indicates “labor cost for TCNs and CCNs must not exceed the threshold in the US Embassy’s local employee compensation plan (LCP).” Can USAID please provide a copy of the Local Compensation Plan for Somalia?

The LCP for Kenya is the LCP applied to Somalia. It has been attached to Amendment 1 of the RFP.

31. Section L.9, (Pg. 99) states “Fee may not be taken on GUCs”. Please confirm that USAID will be issuing a Letter of Credit associated with the GUC component of the contract. Without a letter of credit, offerors must borrow funds to finance grants, incurring costs associated with borrowing. Alternatively we request that USAID allows for a nominal grant handling fee to cover costs associated with financing GUC component.

Fee is not permitted to be taken on GUCs. USAID does not see a compelling reason for letter of credit for GUCs at this time, since there are ways to mitigate risks and reducing the need to provide advances for GUCs. Appropriate staffing must of course be budgeted for grant management; however, a grant handling fee is not permitted unless it is part of your organization’s NICRA. For example, Fixed Amount Awards with payment based on milestones may be used to mitigate risk rather than cost-type grants that may require advances. Please also note that in the RFP amendment, the GUC plug figure for TO2 has been reduced to $5 million, and the overall maximum for GUCs noted in Section C.5 of the IDIQ has been reduced to $12 million.

32. Under Section F.5 Key Personnel of Task Order 2 (pg. 144) the RFP indicates “The project will also require Cooperating Country National staff and short-term technical expertise that complements the experiences and skills of the key personnel.” Can USAID confirm they would be open to either international or CCN candidates for the key personnel Value Chain Specialist position? Similarly, can USAID confirm they would be open to either international or CCN non-key personnel candidates under this task order?

Yes, USAID is open to any key personnel candidate that meets the qualifications as noted in the RFP.

Please note, however, that allowances for TCNs requires a waiver from the Mission Director.

Additionally, Offerors must propose candidates that best meet the needs of their approach; however, it seems that CCN staff would be crucial to accomplishing the goal of GEEL.

33. Language in Section L (L.8(b)(b.6.A) on pg 92) and in Section M (M.2(3)(a) on pg 107), of the RFP, implies that only agriculture activities should be addressed in the offeror’s Task Order 2 responses but in Attachment J Section C.4 (page 132) the RFP states that the “TO must focus initially on horticulture in South Central Somalia and subsequently on fisheries and livestock (non-pastoralism).” Would USAID please clarify whether fisheries and livestock approaches should be addressed substantively and in detail within offers Task Order 2 proposals? Additionally could USAID clarify if livestock and fisheries are part of Task Order 2 or if they will be part of a future task orders?

Yes, fisheries and livestock (non-pastoralism) interventions are part of Task Order 2 and must be proposed as part of the offeror’s Task Order 2 approach. Please take a careful look at the definition of agriculture in Section C.4 of the IDIQ, it is the first footnote. While the primary focus of Task Order 2 is on horticulture, fisheries and livestock interventions that will significantly increase employment must be proposed in detail under Task Order 2.

34. Would USAID kindly confirm that Section H.3 (c) which limits annual salary increases for U.S. staff to three percent applies only to LTTA expatriate project staff and that the offeror’s policies and procedures on salary increases governs annual increases for corporate staff providing STTA?

This applies to all staff that work full time on the contract – this includes home office staff that are full time on this award. Please note, this section states: “Annual salary increases (e.g. cost of living and merit increases and other) totaling not more than three percent (includes promotional increase) of the current labor pool may be granted once a year.” This means that as long as the average of annual salary increases is 3% over the labor pool, then it is compliant with these terms. While the offeror’s policies and procedures must be adhered to, the cap on the labor pool for salary increases is 3%.

35. Would USAID kindly confirm that per L.9 Part 2. Indirect Rates (Pg 99) subcontractors whose standard policy and practice is to price using fully loaded commercial rates, a fixed multiplier, or auditor certified indirect rates may budget indirect costs so long as sufficient supporting documentation is provided? Having firms without a NICRA direct bill a portion of costs to the contract as stated in L.9 Part 3 (pg 100) would be complex and administratively burdensome for USAID to evaluate; particularly in the case of small businesses large enough to have audited indirect rates or commercial rates. Many of these small businesses have a number of contracts, making an accurate allocation of direct costs to one contract extremely difficult and outside of their standard business practice.

So long as the indirect rates proposed are supported by audited financials, per the first bullet in this Indirect Costs section in L.9, then organizations may propose indirect costs. However, if no audited financials are provided, then the costs must all be direct charged.

36. Due to the importance of branding and marking, the offeror requests that the Branding and Marking Plan be a non-counting annex so that the offeror can properly address the nuances involved in operating in a complex insecure environment such as Somalia.

No, it must be included in the page limit. However, the page limit has been increased to 60 pages.

37. Understanding that 70% of fixed fee under task order 2 must be tied to the deliverables in section F.4, is the offeror permitted to propose its own percentage allocation per a deliverable based on their own risk assessment?

Offerors must propose a fixed fee based on their own analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-4;

however, the percentage of the fixed fee tied to deliverables cannot be changed.

38. In section F.4 under task order 2 (pg 142) would USAID consider changing the target from “Facilitate at least 20 new private agribusiness (i.e. agricultural, fishery, etc.) investments, resulting in at least $500,000 of private funds invested in each” to “Facilitate at least $10 million in new private agribusiness (i.e. agricultural, fishery, etc.) investments as having a minimum deal amount may disincentivize the contractor from pursuing beneficial deals that are slightly less than $500,000.

USAID has information from other development partners that private investors (this includes both Somali and international) are willing to invest significant resources, ranging from $500,000 to several million dollars, in investments. The Contractor must pursue investment deals that result in at least $500,000 in private funds. This will require innovative approaches with significant outreach.

Questions from Pre-Proposal Conference

Q1: Could you explain why USAID chose geographic code 937 for this solicitation?

A1: The type of funding stipulates that geographic code 937 be used. If there is a compelling need, 935 may be considered on a case-by-case basis, but it will require a waiver with significant justification.

Q2: How long does USAID anticipate will it take to get from proposal to awarding the contract?

A2: USAID’s goal is to have the IDIQ and TOs 1 & 2 awarded by September 30, 2015.

Q3: How do US non-profits working with/through local organizations fit into this solicitation process?

A3: The way your organization fits into this process depends on your technical approach as well as that of your partners. USAID considers there to be plenty of opportunity for local as well as international organizations here.

Q4: TO 2 on Agriculture – Is fisheries & livestock work anticipated under TO 2 or perhaps a later TO?

A4a: Yes, fisheries and livestock (non-pastoralism) interventions are part of Task Order 2 and must be proposed as part of the offeror’s Task Order 2 approach. Please take a careful look at the definition of agriculture in Section C.4 of the IDIQ, it is the first footnote. While the primary focus of Task Order 2 is on horticulture, fisheries and livestock interventions that will significantly increase employment must be proposed in detail under Task Order 2.

Q5: How do we reference/portray the work we are currently doing in this field, especially as regards value chain development, into our proposal? We’re already working in this sector with certain partners – how do we portray what I consider to be a natural fit with this program?

A5: It is up to the offerors to best decide what is appropriate for your technical approach. We will note that USAID values coordination between and inclusion of complementary efforts. Make sure your work and ideas reflect in your proposal.

Q6: Does USAID envision this project incorporation of Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) work and if so should we include indicators for this in our proposals.

A6: Over the past few years USAID has not seen compelling evidence that supports a direct linkage of economic growth and stability. The primary focus of this activity is achievement of economic growth through those interventions laid out in the RFP only, so we don’t expect the offerors to propose stability indicators.

Q7: Regarding the investment requirement, is USAID targeting foreign or domestic investment?

A7: Both domestic & foreign investment are acceptable potential sources of investment.

Q8: Regarding the size of investments, is USAID seeking large scale investments only?

A8: The IDIQ lays out the need to work with both small and medium enterprises and larger enterprises in different ways. For the specific deliverable on investments in TO2, USAID recognizes that there is potential for large-scale investments in Somalia, and these types of investments are needed to support large-scale employment creation.

Q9: Please elaborate on the investment notion, specifically as regards the Fixing of the value $500,000 investment requirement.

A9: We believe $500,000 as a minimum investment is feasible in Somalia, based on our experience and consultations with other partners.

Q10: Comment - We are seeing groups of Somali investors at that level. Well promoted access to this program would be very valuable in garnering interest. Implementation will be the trick, but we see investments that big already arising.

A10: USAID encourages offerors to be innovative.

Q11: Should we consider $500k a minimum? Would smaller be considered?

A11: The contribution for private investment figure of $500k is a minimum.

Q12: Our organization has a similar program in Senegal and we’ve found that anchor investments bring in others. The $500k figure doesn’t capture everything involved. What is defined as an ‘investment’ for the purposes of this solicitation? Someone committed to spending money, an operational plant being built? Is the ‘investment’ the outcome or incremental steps?

A12a: Be innovative in how you propose this but remember that saying you will invest $500k is not the same as actually doing it. The investment can be phased. If ultimately your partner doesn’t invest the agreed upon amount that means you haven’t met your deliverable. Also a reminder that those deliverables aren’t due until years 4 & 5 because USAID recognizes that this process takes time.

Q13: Would USAID consider an aggregate amount for reaching the required investment figure rather than defining the number and minimum amount per investment?

A13: USAID has already taken this into consideration and determined that for this particular deliverable, $500,000 for each of the 20 investments will not change as a deliverable. USAID anticipates a future TO to be released which may have a different focus. For the purpose of this task order we are trying to tie to bigger investments, to get a greater impact on employment generation.

Q14: Half of the employment figure requirements are due before years 4 & 5, might USAID reconsider this?

A14: We did take this into consideration and made an adjustment to the deliverable schedule. Remember that your employment figures won’t only come from the investment piece, but from the program overall.

Q15: Regarding past performance – Can only contracts be presented? Can we include similar sized cooperative agreements instead?

A15: Because the resulting awards will be acquisition mechanisms (contracts) USAID specifically needs to see previous contracts only. There are large differences in management requirements and regulations in acquisition vs. assistance mechanisms.

Also remember that lack of past performance will not count against you in the evaluation of your proposal per Section M.2(5).

Q16: What level of importance is being placed on ‘duty of care’ and risk management?

A16: For a program in Somalia security is of course a very important factor. USAID will review the required Risk Mitigation plan to ensure that you have taken security factors into due consideration; however, it will not be evaluated. Each organization has its own levels of comfort and policies and procedures in place on this issue, USAID cannot determine the level of security necessary for your organization.

Q17: Regarding the structure of fixed fee being tied to deliverables, can we propose different percentages per deliverable?

A17: No. USAID set the percentages included in the RFP based on the importance of each deliverable.

Q18: Please discuss the fixed fee more, is this an award fee?

A18: The fixed fee is not an award fee – there will not be an award fee board. This is a cost-plus-fixed-fee completion-type contract. The fixed fee is tied to achievement of concrete deliverables.

Q19: Regarding the risk mitigation plan- do you have further instruction on operational requirements, evacuation plans, or the level of capacity that needs to be demonstrated in proposals?

A19: No. We have outlined in Section L.8, under instructions for Annex E, factors to consider in the risk mitigation plan; however, USAID cannot dictate what level of security, etc. is appropriate for each offeror. Please note that the Evaluation criteria does include a criterion for Institutional capacity & experience that evaluates the offeror’s capacity and experience to operate in comparable fragile state environments.

Q20: The World Bank defines economic development in terms of social and economic inclusion.

Sould we include social & economic indicators?

A20: We leave that up to you. We are trying to leave a degree of flexibility & innovation since you are the experts on the ground.

Q21: Follow-up: so there is no definition of what inclusion should be?

A21: Correct. We have laid out priorities for women & youth as you see in the RFP.

Additional population groups can be included depending on the Offeror’s proposed approach.

Q22: When developing a sub-award, do you expect the contractor to develop feasibility studies and determine their grantees?

A22: Regarding Grants Under Contracts (GUCs) – upon award the contractor will develop a GUCs manual, in which the offeror will define procedures for making new GUCs. This must be a competitive process. Further the COR does have ability to be part of the selection process and the COR will approve final selection before a sub-grant is made, but the contractor must follow that agreed upon procedure. If offerors feel they need to do feasibility studies as part of the technical approach, they may; however, some Somali partners are experiencing assessment fatigue. Please be mindful of that and try to utilize information already out there.

Q23: Under TO 2 USAID expects to work in south central Somalia – do you know what proportion of activity/funding will be allocated throughout the country?

A23: USAID is looking to contractor to define/propose that. We left this area flexible to allow for innovation.

Q24: Regarding indirect costs for subcontractors. How should we proceed with subs that don’t have a NICRA?

A24: Please refer to section L.9 of the RFP – If an organization doesn’t have a NICRA, indirects can be included as long as you submit audited financials for the organization.

If there are no audited financials available then all costs need to be direct.

Q25: Follow-up – this may be burdensome for small businesses.

A25: Most US small businesses should have audited financials. If they do not, then all costs proposed must be budgeted as direct costs.

Q26: Regarding the page limit, does that include the cover page and letters of commitment for key personnel?

A26a: While letters of commitment for key personnel are not required, we do expect offerors to propose key personnel that are committed to working on this contract in Somalia. For example, we do not appreciate the “bait and switch” approach. Since Letters of commitment are not truly binding, they don’t necessarily serve this intended purpose.

A26b: A cover page is not one of the required documents. Try to cut out the superfluous pages, such as a pretty cover page with pictures and divider pages. We simply don’t need to see things if they are not specifically required. You should be able to describe your approach as succinctly as possible.

A26c: On past performance- please note that we need the information required in the Past Performance Information Sheet, and the additional few items for small business information. We will refer to PPIRs or talk to your references for information; therefore, long narratives describing your work are not necessary, because we cannot evaluate past performance based on this. Be sure to put such information in the Institutional Capacity and Experience section if it is relevant.

Q27: What’s your stand-up time…as in time to stand-up the project?

A27: We requested a realistic mobilization plan in the RFP. This is up to you. We don’t have the access to Somalia the way you do, so you are best place to understand the realities on the ground to determine what is feasible. We expect something realistic, but also quick/efficient. We understand that Somalia is a difficult place to work.

Q28: On sub contractor reports – what does ‘recent’ mean?

A28: Within the past year.