SOL-623-17-000004_Q&A.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 34 KB Posted Aug 28, 2017

Attached to: RIGO Systems Strengthening Activity Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number: SOL-623-17-000004
Issued by: US Agency for International Development Kenya

About this file

From the source

SOL-623-17-000004 Questions and Answers

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to RIGO Systems Strengthening Activity, newest first.
File	Type	Posted
Amendment_2_(Signed)_SF-30_SOL-623-17-000004.pdf	PDF	Sep 8, 2017
SOL-623-17-000004_Amendment_1_SF_30_(signed).pdf	PDF	Aug 28, 2017
SOL-623-17-000004_-_Amendment_1.docx	DOCX document	Aug 28, 2017
Attachment_J.5_IEE_Extension.pdf	PDF	Aug 4, 2017
Attachment_J.12_IGAD_Organizational_Risk_Assessment_-_Summary_(1).pdf	PDF	Aug 4, 2017
Attachment_J.5_IEE.pdf	PDF	Aug 4, 2017
RFP-SOL-623-17-000004_RIGO_Systems_Strengthening_Activity.pdf	PDF	Aug 4, 2017
Attachment_J.12_COMESA_Organizational_Risk_Assessment_-_Executive_Summary.pdf	PDF	Aug 4, 2017
Attachment_J.6_USAID_Guidance_on_Taxation.pdf	PDF	Aug 4, 2017

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Sheet1

Question Number	Question	Answer
1	B.3(b) and (c) under the CLIN 1 description applies to Phase 2 of the contract, which will be firm-fixed-price. This section contains language regarding fixed fee, an obligated amount, and Limitation of Funds per FAR 52.232-22. Given the nature of the contracting mechanism, there will be no fixed fee associated with the work. As such, we request that USAID remove reference to “fixed fee” in this paragraph.	Reference to B.3 CLIN 1 (b) as cost reimbursement will be eliminated. B.3 CLIN 2 (b) will be updated to include reference to Limitation of Funds Clause FAR 52.232-22
2	Under Section B.4, would USAID please clarify the types of costs to be included under “Direct Costs” versus “Other Direct Costs”? Further, would USAID please clarify why “Other Direct Costs” are not included under CLIN 0003?	Please refer to FAR Subpart 2.101 Definitions for "Direct Costs" versus "Other Direct Costs". ODC will be added to CLIN 0003.
3	Section D.3 states the project’s branding and marking must credit support from the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Would USAID please confirm this reference was not intentional?	The reference will be removed from the solicitation.
4	Would USAID please provide further guidance under Section L about the specifications for submitting the draft year 1 work plan, referenced in F.5, to be submitted with the proposal? Would USAID please confirm it will be excluded from page limitations and specify in which section or annex it should be included?	The solicitation will be modified to clarify that the Year 1 draft work plan will not be part of the 25 page limit of the technical proposal.
5	F.7 of the RFP requires résumés to be accompanied by detailed position descriptions, but this language is not included under L.6 on page 86. Would USAID please clarify if position descriptions are to be included as part of the letters of commitment, or if offerors are to provide position descriptions in a separate annex?	The detailed descriptions and letters of commitment are part of the same annex. The 3 page limit includes both as part of each resume. See revision to L.6
6	Attachment J.1 of the RFP includes a line item for grants under contract, but grants are absent from the rest of the RFP. Does USAID wish for the offeror to propose grants under contract?	There will be no grants under contract in this award. This line should remain $0.
7	L.6 of the RFP explains that a list of proposed consultants and a summary of each proposed consultants’ technical expertise by HICD area are not subject to page limitations.

Would USAID please confirm that the list of proposed consultants is the same as Annex 1, as detailed under the same section of the RFP?

Would USAID please confirm that the summary of consultants’ technical expertise is a separate annex, not subject to page limitations?

Would USAID please clarify what format summaries should be presented in? For instance, would USAID like to see one-page CVs with education, positions held, and dates?	1.The list of proposed consultants should be included with Annex 1, though now limited to 7 pages. 2. Will also go into Annex 1 and is now limited to 7 pages. 3. Resumes/CVs should follow the guidance as listed in L6 which is no more than 3 pages each.
	8	The RFP does not detail the section of the cost volume in which offerors should submit biographical data sheets. Would USAID please confirm that biographical data sheets are to be submitted under Part 2 of the cost proposal?	Biodata sheets, required per L.7, Part 2, are to be included in part 2 of the cost proposal
	9	Would USAID please confirm that the fee distribution schedule mentioned in L.7 on page 91 is for the cost-plus-fixed-fee CLINs only?	Yes.
	10	Section M.2, Technical Evaluation Criteria states that institutional capability/capacity may be scored up to 15 points, however there is no mention of an institutional capability/capacity section under Section L.6, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal. Would USAID please clarify if offerors are to include an institutional capability/capacity section? If so, would USAID please clarify the title and instructions for this section?	The solicitation has been modified to incorporate the requirement for institutional capability in section L.6, 6 Institutional Capacity
	11	Section M.2, Technical Evaluation Criteria, states that past performance may be scored up to 10 points. However, instructions for what should be included in the matrix are not listed under Section L.6. Would USAID please provide additional information about what detail should be included in the matrix? Further, should prime offerors submit a total of five relevant projects in this annex, as most USAID RFPs typically request?	See amendment to L.6, 7 Past Performance which now includes instructions regarding past performance as an evaluation criteria (including # of projects to propose). Reference J.4 "Past Performance Information" for format in which to provide information.
	12	The RFP mentions that “U.S. small businesses are encouraged to apply” and also a lot of reference to partnering with local organizations – does this give preference to U.S based firms and does it in any way affect the competitiveness of a locally registered firm in East Africa?
	U.S. Small Business are always encouraged to apply for USAID awards. There is no set aside for US Small Business, nor is it a requirement to utilize small business or local firms.
	13	The RFP also emphasizes limited resources, and the need to be cost conscious – we were wondering, given recent US government administration changes and directives, implying cost cutting for USAID projects, would this RFP be a priority for funding – something that USAID wants to put funds in, rather than reduce funding?	All awards are made subject to availability of funds.
	14	Are the proposed Chief of Party and Finance Officer positions also expected to be based in East Africa (with frequent travel), the same as the other proposed personnel?	The RFP does not require any personnel to be based in East Africa. However, offeror is expected to provide justification on how successful performance of work will be achieved wherever the personnel are located.
	15	Is there an expected number, minimum and maximum, of selected sub-entities that RIGOs can nominate to be included in the systems strengthening program?	The Contractor is expected to work with each RIGO Working Group to identify and prioritize organizational strengthening performance solutions, based on the assessments, and within the limited resources available. These performance solutions may, or may not, include support to selected RIGO sub-entities depending on whether the RIGO Working Groups prioritize the sub-entities for the limited available support.
	16	In section 3.B.2, p. 13 of the RFP outlines a requirement to conduct RIGO Performance Assessments as a fixed price phase. It states the Contractor is expected to “review performance assessments for each RIGO and plan and implement additional assessments if required to identify areas requiring improved performance and strengthened human and institutional capacity that address the unique context and needs of each RIGO and its performance at the individual, work and organizational level.”

As this phase is fixed price, can USAID specify parameters of the additional assessments?

Please review Section C, 3. Statement of Work, 3.B.2 (pg 13)
17	Also in section 3.B.2, on p.14, the RFP states: “Contractor must propose an assessment approach for each RIGO that minimizes duplication of existing assessments and minimizes the burden on the RIGO Working Groups, while collecting the information required to inform the organizational strengthening strategy and approach and establishing performance baselines.”

Is Section J a comprehensive list of these existing assessments? If not, can USAID provide any assessments not already public to be used to minimize duplication?

Section J is not comprehensive but includes assessments that the RIGOs have authorized USAID to release with this RFP. The Contractor is expected to work with each RIGO to identify and review other pertinent assessments.
18	Furthermore, in section 3.B.2 on p. 14 the RFP states “The proposed performance assessment approach is subject to approval by USAID and each RIGO Working Group.”

Since this is a fixed price phase, can USAID specify what process would be followed in the event that USAID and/or the RIGO Working Group were to request substantive changes that have cost implications?

Any substantive changes to the scope of work proposed by any stakeholders, that may have cost implications must be discussed in advance with the COR and CO.
19	In section F.3, p. 24 the RFP outlines the place of performance in Zambia, Djibouti and Tanzania.

Does USAID also anticipate significant Contractor time with the USAID Regional Mission in Nairobi?

	As stated in Section C of the RFP, "The Contractor must establish operations that enable the Contractor to be fully responsive to USAID/KEA and each RIGO." Also see answer to question #14.
	20	Given the continuing unrest in Burundi, is it realistic to be planning to set up a EAC health Secretariat in Bujumbura and also to be providing assistance to them under RIGO? What is the anticipated timeline for this and what might an alternative location be?	See answer to question #15
	21	Given that the bulk of the work is intra-organizational for COMESA, EAC and IGAD, what is the rationale for having the project office in Nairobi?	See answer to question #19
	22	To be responsive to the financial integrity mandate of the RIGO, the implementer will need close cooperation with the accounting staff and full access to financial records. Will USAID and other contributing donors help to provide this access?	The Contractor is expected to establish working relationships with each RIGO and each RIGO Working Group sufficient to obtain necessary documents and cooperation.
	23	In the past there have been issues with the EAC perceiving they were not properly included in the USAID project development processes for activities directly effecting their operations. The solicitation states the RIGOs have been involved in this project design. Can you elaborate upon their respective roles thus far please?	As stated in Section C of the RFP, "The EAC, COMESA, and IGAD Secretariats contributed to the development of the approach and desired results of this activity."
	24	According to the CBJ the East Africa Mission's FY18 budget will take a substantial reduction. How will this effect RIGO?	See answer to question #13
	25	How will the sub-entities within the RIGOs be selected for this activity?	See answer to question #15
	26	Will the organizations be expected to detail their regular staff to sit in the numerous working groups, committees and M&E clusters? If so, how will accommodations be made for time taken away from their already oversubscribed schedules?	Please review Section C, 3. Statement of Work, 3.B.1 (pg 13)
	27	When you talk about addressing "gender disparities" are you referring to inequities within each of the organizations? Should we have specific gender subject matter experts to address these inequities?	Please review Section C of the RFP, "As a cross-cutting theme, gender must be integrated into all activities of the project by identifying and supporting the RIGOs in addressing any gender-related disparities experienced by employees within the partner institutions." The Contractor is expected to work with each RIGO Working Group to address any gender-related disparities related to the organizational strengthening activities prioritized for support by each RIGO Working Group.
	28	Given the off-again, on-again nature of this solicitation, would USAID extend the submission date beyond September 7 for two more weeks to ensure the most high quality proposals?	The solicitation has been modified to reflect requests for a due date extension. The new due date for the solicitation is September 14, 2017.
	29	USAID includes a risk assessment of IGAD which states that it is not adequately overseen by governance organizations, including Ministers. The same assessment of IGAD notes that the organization is heavily dependent on donor funding, and: “it may be difficult for IGAD to sustainably finance its program activities if donors significantly reduce their funding levels.” Does USAID anticipate a reduction of its funding of IGAD in the years ahead? And: Is part of this contract to help IGAD become more attractive to more donor funding?	See answer to question #13. USAID expects that capacity building will result from all of its engagements.
	30	An executive summary of the IGAD Risk Assessment Report and background of the COMESA Risk Assessment were shared. Will the full report be made available following the award?	The Contractor is expected to establish working relationships with each RIGO and each RIGO Working Group sufficient to obtain necessary documents and cooperation.
	31	For the Nairobi, Kenya office, is any physical proximity to the USAID Mission sought or preferred?	See answer to question #19.
	32	For organizations that have conducted independent performance evaluations of USAID programming at these RIGOs in the past, does this represent any conflict of interest going forward?	No, having performed prior evaluations does not present a conflict of interest.
	33	CAADP and ACTESA are cited. Does the RIGO award, in the strengthening of COMESA apply to these also? Is the offeror requested to address their strengthening?	See answer to question #15.
	34	Similarly, the Regional Investment Agency – RTA -- of COMESA is cited. Should offerors plan to also explore building their capacity?	See answer to question #15.
	35	Regarding attachment J.6, are offerors expected to submit DA-1 forms now, in the offering phase?	No
	36	Does any reporting occur to USAID/Washington, DC during the life of the project?	Reporting requirements are detailed in the RFP.
	37	As this is one contract addressing each of the three RIGOs at the same time, does USAID desire that the three RIGOs share lessons, come together in joint workshops, and partner in the future as a result of this award? For example, on page 11 USAID seeks to “harmonize policies and standards” – does this mean harmonizing among the distinct RIGOs?	See Section C 3.B.3. Phase 3: RIGO Performance Solution Identification and Implementation. The phrase "harmonize policies and standards" on page 11 refers to the work the RIGOs do with their member states.
	38	Page 12 appears to say that gender issues are primarily within the component of human resources (employment) by the RIGOs. Is USAID saying that it will be sufficient to address gender in only this aspect?	See answer to question #27.
	39	On page 12, the solicitation is ambiguous in the following sense. After mapping each RIGO’s donor coordination system, it’s unclear whether USAID also is saying to aim to have one donor coordination system across all three RIGOs when saying “to avoid duplication. “In the same paragraph of 3.A, USAID says the Contractor must help each RIGO to leverage other donors’ support for organizational strengthening.” Does USAID mean by this that the Contractor is to invest effort, through the RIGOs, to raise new money from other donors, or to apportion existing contributions toward organizational strengthening? Will the Contractor be held responsible in its performance measurement by USAID for the resulting donations given by other donors?	As stated Section C of the RFP, "The Contractor must support each RIGO in coordinating donor assistance for organizational strengthening." The RFP does not require an additional donor coordination system across all three RIGOs. Please see Section C, 6. Contract Implementation, pg 17/18.
	40	When USAID refers in 3.B.1 to existing “stakeholder working groups” does USAID not include governmental ministries and governmental officers as the stakeholders? Are these “working groups” primarily internal to the secretariats, and managed/owned by the secretariats of the RIGOs? Are they intended to also include technical experts?	Each RIGO must have a RIGO Working Group, the membership of which is described in 3.B.1.
	41	On page 28, USAID references RIGO Working Groups with regard to their approving Performance Solutions and Implementation Plans. Does USAID therefore expect the Working Groups of stakeholders cited elsewhere to have formal authorities on behalf of each RIGO? If there are multiple Working Groups, by subject, for the one RIGO, will the PMES need to achieve consensus across all Working Groups? Does USAID envision that USAID staff could or should be on some of these stakeholder working groups?	See answer to questions #40.
	42	Have the RIGOs agreed to subject themselves to external/independent assessments, as cited in 3B.2? Have any other donors at this time agreed to allow their support to go toward these and to new M&E systems?	As stated in Section C of the RFP, "The EAC, COMESA, and IGAD Secretariats contributed to the development of the approach and desired results of this activity." The Contractor is expected to establish working relationships with each RIGO and each RIGO Working Group sufficient to obtain necessary documents and cooperation.
	43	The solicitation references on page 84 a realistic plan for ensuring RIGO buy-in. Methods to incentivize or facilitate buy-in are within offerors’ power, but each RIGO will ultimately be influenced by member governments which change with elections. Does USAID envision that the contract will entail COMESA representatives visiting and participating in events in Nairobi, Kenya; or EAC personnel coming to Nairobi?	See Section C, 3. Statement of Work 3.B.3. (pg 14) The RFP does not require any RIGO personnel or member governments to travel to Nairobi.
	44	Does USAID envision the offeror having permanent offices or staff in Arusha, Djibouti, or Lusaka?	See Section C 4. RIGO System Strengthening Responsiveness to USAID/KEA and each RIGO (pg 16/17)
	45	Does USAID expect contract professionals to be embedded within the three RIGOs at their secretariat offices?	See answer to question #44
	46	Page 62 requires the Contractor to have an ongoing business ethics awareness and compliance program. Is this somehow to be delivered or communicated to USAID during the contract?	Contractor is required to adhere to all requirements in FAR clause 52.203-13.
	47	How does it work, combining Firm Fixed Price and Cost Plus Fixed Fee? Pages 6-7 separate these out by CLIN, but the proportional scale of the budget between CLINS is not apparent.	See pages 6 and 7 the RFP. CLIN 0001 is a firm fixed price activity. RIGO performance assessments. CLIN 0002 and 0003 are cost reimburseable activities - see page 7.
	48	Referencing the COP’s expectations on pages 85-86, will the COP be expected to eligible to travel often between countries?	See answer to question #44
	49	Is there any preference for East African nationals as key personnel?	See Section L.6, (page 85-87); key personnel must meet the minimum criteria stated in the RFP
	50	On page 6, Section B.2 “Contract Type,” would USAID please clarify whether the cost reimbursement (CPFF) part of the contract is Completion or Term.	As noted page 1 of the RFP, this is a hybrid contract (FFP and Cost plus fixed fee completion type contract). Clarification will be provided in section B.2
	51	On Page 6, Section B.3 -CLIN 1 – Firm Fixed Price (FFP) the RFP states: “(b) Within the estimated fixed fee (if any) specified in paragraph (a) above, the amount currently obligated and available for reimbursement for performance hereunder is $TBD.” Will USAID/KEA confirm that this reference should not apply to the firm fixed price contract, given that under Firm Fixed Price contracts, the estimated fee is not fixed?	See answer to question # 1
	52	On Page 8, Section B.6 Ceiling on Indirect Cost Rates, will USAID/KEA please confirm that the ceilings will apply to the CPFF portion of the contract, but not the FFP CLIN?	Yes, any ceiling proposed would apply only to the CPFF portion of the contract.
	53	On page 29, Section F.7, the RFP states “Each [key personnel] resume must be accompanied by detailed position descriptions…”. However, the position description requirement is not referenced elsewhere in the RFP; specifically, it is not included in the summary of annexes or in the key personnel instructions in Section L.6. Will USAID/KEA please confirm whether position descriptions for key personnel positions are required in offerors’ proposal submissions, and if so, in which annex they should be included?	See answer to question # 5
	54	On page 38, Section H.20(2), the RFP states “The Contractor agrees to use an electronic payment system for any payments under this award to beneficiaries, subcontractors, or grants under contracts, where applicable.” However, Section H does not contain a clause authorizing Grants Under Contract (GUC). Will USAID please confirm that GUC are not intended to be utilized under this award?	Offeror must adhere to the requirements as stated in H.20, Electronic Payment System. RE: GUCs, refer to answer to question # 6.
	55	On page 84, Section L.6, the RFP lists the components of proposals which will not count toward the technical proposal’s 25-page limit. Will USAID/KEA please confirm if offerors may include an acronym list that will not count toward the 25-page technical proposal limit?	Offeror may include an acronym list which will not count toward the 25 page technical proposal limit.
	56	On page 84, Section L.6, the RFP lists the summary of Annexes that must accompany the Technical Approach. Will USAID/KEA confirm in which Annexes the offeror should include the following items listed on page 84 as not subject to page limitations: “List of proposed consultants;” “Summary of each proposed consultant’s technical expertise by HICD area;” and “Draft Branding Strategy and Marking Plan?”	See answer to question # 7
	57	On page 86, Section L.6, the Chief of Party minimum requirements include “Minimum ten (10) years of relevant, senior-level professional experience managing and implementing organizational capacity development programs in the areas described above with a minimum of (5) years’ experience in sub-Saharan Africa, East Africa experience preferred.” Will USAID/KEA please confirm that five years’ experience in sub-Saharan Africa is a preferred qualification?	Please see Section L.6, (page 85-87); key personnel must meet the minimum criteria stated in the RFP
	58	On Page 87, L.7 COST PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS, Part 2 - Proposed Costs/Prices, (1) Summary Budget, offerors are required to submit a summary budget for the five (5) years of performance. However, the template provided on page 99, ATTACHMENT J.1: BUDGET TEMPLATE appears to be a CLIN-based budget summary of total estimated contract costs.
Could USAID/KEA please confirm offerors should present a budget summary of total estimated contract costs rather than submit a summary budget detailed over the five (5) years of performance?	Please see changes to the solicitation, L.7 Cost proposal, Part 2.
	59	On Page 88, L.7 COST PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS, Part 2 - Proposed Costs/Prices, (3) Detailed Budget, offerors are required to present every estimated cost item, broken out. This section does not provide guidance on how USAID would like to see the breakdown of the required Firm Fixed Price for the RIGO Performance Assessments. Could USAD/KEA please clarify how the Firm Fixed Price portion of the cost proposal should be presented in the detailed budget?	Please see answer to question #58
	60	On page 95, Section M.2, the RFP lists “4. Institutional Capacity,” and “5. Past Performance” as two scored sections under technical evaluation criteria. However, these sections are not included in the required proposal structure under Section L “Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors.” Can USAID/KEA confirm where in the offeror’s technical proposal they would like to see institutional capacity and past performance addressed?	See answer to questions #10 and #11.
	61	To clarify instructions provided in Section L.6 on page 84, please confirm that offerors can provide an Acronym List as a section that will not be subject to the page limitations, to ease USAID review of proposals?	See answer to question #55
	62	To clarify instructions provided in Section L.6 on page 84, given that only four annexes are authorized for submission, please confirm that a "Draft Branding Strategy and Marking Plan," as listed at the start of Section L.6, is NOT required as part of the RIGO technical proposal, and will only be requested of offerors in the competitive range, as per Section L.8, page 93.	Per L.8, Branding Implementation Plan and Marking plans will only be requested of those offerors who are in the competitive range.
	63	In Section F.5, on page 28, the Delivery Schedule asks for a work plan as part of the proposal. To clarify instructions provided in Section L.6 on page 84, given that only four annexes are authorized for submission, please confirm that a "Work Plan" attached as a template in Attachment J.2, is NOT required as part of the RIGO technical proposal. If it is required, please clarify where it should be included as part of the technical proposal.	See answer to question # 4.
	64	In Section L.6, reference is made to a Contractor/Sub‐Contractor Past Performance Listing” and “Annex 4: Past Performance Matrix.” In Attachment J.4, the RFP provides a template for Past Performance Information (PPI). Will the provision of completed Past Performance Information templates meet the requirements for Annex 4? If it does not, please provide guidance as to the format and contents of the Past Performance Matrix.	See answer to question # 11.
	65	Is there an upper limit on the number of Past Performance Information sheets that may be provided to demonstrate past performance for each Prime? For each Major Subcontractor?	See answer to question # 11.
	66	Regarding Section L.6, page 84, please clarify where the requested “Summary of each proposed consultant’s technical expertise by HICD area (one page per consultant)” should be included in the proposal, as they do not align with any of the four requested annexes and “No additional annexes or attachments will be accepted,” as per the same section. Alternatively, please confirm that these Summaries are not required for submission.	See answer to question # 7.
	67	For budgeting purposes, can you clarify the anticipated number of RIGO sub-institutions that will be engaged by the RIGO Systems Strengthening Activity? Please define the anticipated scope of work for budgeting purposes as well, so we can price accordingly (e.g., will they engage in full OPI assessments and full performance packages?)	See answer to question #15.
	68	Are we required to provide biodata forms as an annex to the Cost Proposal, as referred to in Attachment J.3?	See answer to question 8.
	69	In Section C there are subsections #1,2,3,4, and 6. Please clarify if Section #5 refers to “COORDINATION” on p.17.	Yes, #5 is Coordination.
	70	Could USAID kindly provide the local compensation plans for Kenya, Tanzania, Djibouti, and Zambia?	No LCPs will be provided. Offeror is expected to have firm grasp of the employment and labor market in all countries where employment may occur.
	71	Section L.7 Part 2, 5.H.ii: If the Offeror’s major subcontractor is a local organization, are they subject to the proposal requirements listed in this clause including audited balance sheets and profit and loss statements for the last two years?	Yes
	72	On P.7 B.4 BUDGET, the table includes a separate line item for CLIN 3. Can USAID please clarify the difference between CLIN 2 and CLIN 3 costs?	CLIN 0002 includes PHASE 1, 3, and 4- RIGO Working Groups, Performance Solutions & Implementation Plan and Performance Monitoring & Evaluation; CLIN 0003 activities are all other activities under the cost reimbursement portion of the activity
	73	On P.8 B.7, given that CLIN 3 is also CPFF, does B.7 apply to CLIN 3 as well as CLIN 2?	Yes. The solicitation will be modified to address this.
	74	Please clarify what is expected in the Budget Notes column of the J.1 Budget Template. On P.88 a detailed budget narrative is mentioned. Would USAID like offerors to submit a separate budget narrative as well as notes within the excel budget?	Additional information added in amendment to solitication to clarify budget documentation
	75	Based on a close comparison of the earlier Scope of Work and Section C of the current RFP, USAID removed the request to provide expert consultation on HICD to USAID/KEA in Section C. However, this is still integrated in the technical evaluation criterion in Section M.2.1, page 96, as the last bullet in the list of “approaches to each HICD service”: “Ongoing Expert Consultation on HICD to USAID.” Please clarify if this service should be integrated as part of Section C, or if it should be omitted from Section M.	"Expert consultation on HICD to USAID" is now removed from Section M - see amendment to solicitation
	76	Given that Section M.2 Technical Evaluation Criteria lists criterion 5 as Institutional Capacity, should bidders address this in a separate section of the proposal, although Institutional Capacity is omitted in the instructions provided in Section L.6, regarding the Technical Proposal structure?	See answer to question #10
	77	Can USAID please provide details on the direct assistance that is being provided to each RIGO for technical activities?	USAID's direct assistance to the RIGOs for technical activities are generally described in Section J links to the RFP and are also described on USAID's website: https://www.usaid.gov/east-africa-regional
	78	Does USAID envision grants being provided to each RIGO to support working group meetings for conference venues, per diems, travel, etc.?	USAID does not anticipate grants to be provided to the RIGOs, but the Contractor may support each RIGO's RIGO Working Group meetings. Contractor must propose cost effective ways to support the RIGOs.
	79	Is DBA insurance only required for American citizens?	DBA insurance is required by US Law for all American citizens. Please see USAID AAPD 16-04 for information regarding waivers for third country and local nationals.
	80	Please confirm that there is no requirement to submit an M&E plan.	See Section F.5 Delivery - M&E Plan
	81	Does USAID envision that the fee be tied to deliverables / milestones listed on page 28 since there does appear to be a requirement to submit an M&E plan?	See amended Section L.6, 2 Technical Approach for amended requirement to submit M&E plans
	82	Are audited balance sheets and profit and lost statements required to be submitted by all members of a consortium, or just the prime?	See section L.7 Part 2 for requirements for current NICRA or if no NICRA exists, requirements to submit audit reports; see answer to question #71
	83	Given the size and complexity of this activity, would USAID consider extending the deadline to allow applicants to develop a responsive and comprehensive proposal?	See answer to question #28
	84	Can USAID please provide the anticipated start date for this award?	While there is no firm timeline, it is anticipated this award may commence on/about December 2017/ or January 2018.
	85	Can USAID please confirm that the branding and marketing plan is not require for the initial submission?	See answer to question #62
	86	can they provide more specifically the scope of work for the sub entities (EAC, COMESA, IGAD)? To inform on budgeting decisions and work plan.	No
	87	Can USAID confirm whether the OPI tool available is the most updated version. If not, can the version be shared?	As stated in Section C of the RFP, "The assessment package must include the USAID Organizational Performance Index (OPI) measurement tool, or a similar tool approved by USAID/KEA." Information on USAID's work with the OPI tool may be found here: https://usaidlearninglab.org/library/organizational-performance-index-measurement-tool
	88	Deloitte and EY had conducted risk assessment in the past. Are there any other assessments conducted and when can they be able to share the assessments conducted?	As stated in Section C of the RFP, "There are a number of assessments and performance evaluations, both internal and external, that have been recently done with the RIGOs." The Contractor is expected to work with the RIGO Working Groups to gain access and review prior assessments, which are not the property of USAID.
	89	Are there any current MOU’S with the RIGOS	USAID has recently signed five-year Regional Development Objective Agreements with each of the RIGOs.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Nov 14, 2017.