Amendment_01_to_SOL-656-16-000010.pdf

I. Technical Questions

1. FTF – VC purpose has been mentioned as “Increased equitable growth of agricultural sector”. Is it necessary that “improvement in nutritional status of children, pregnant and lactating women” need to be addressed under the proposal?

Response: No.

2. Is this the correct proposal layout according to the solicitation?

Abbreviations and acronyms

Table of contents

Executive summary

Value chain analysis

Value chain work plan

Feedback/Learning

Key Personnel

Response: Please review section L.2 of the RFP for the Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal.

3. What is a value chain map and should there be a map for each value chain if there is more than one in the proposal?

Response: As noted on page 11 of the RFP, “The Contractor should review the USAID

Value Chain Development Wiki Page for questions related to value chain methodology

(http://www.microlinks.org/good-practice-center/value-chain-wiki).

In addition, please note the following instructions from section L.2 of the RFP on page

45, “Value Chain Analysis based on the contract requirements in section C.5.1.A for one of the FTF focus value chains.”

4. In the value chain work plan, should there be a causal model (theory of change) and strategic framework for each value chain if the proposal is tackling more than one value chain?

Response: Please note the following instructions from section L.2 of the RFP on page

45, “Value Chain Analysis based on the contract requirements in section C.5.1.A for one of the FTF focus value chains.”

5. Are the specific commodity value chains aligned to specific districts?

Response: No.

6. Can proposed actions leverage resources from other sources (e.g WB catalytic fund etc) for increasing scale?

Response: Leverage of other funding sources is not a requirement in the RFP.

7. Can climate resilience intervention be included in value chain development?

Response: If climate resilience interventions are identified by the value chain analysis required in section L.2 of the RFP then they may be included.

8. Will there be any difference in consideration between choosing a single value chain and all the value chains together in the proposal?

Response: Please note the following instructions from section L.2 of the RFP on page

45, “Value Chain Analysis based on the contract requirements in section C.5.1.A for one of the FTF focus value chains.”

9. Will there be any difference in consideration between choosing all the Zones of Impact or some selective zones of impact?

Response: Section C.3 of the RFP on page 8 states, “FTF VC will work throughout the

FTF ZOI.” However, the value chain selected by the offerors for the technical approach portion of the proposal, required under section L.2 of the RFP, is not required to cover the entire FTF ZOI.

10. Reference to the results framework model: Is it enough if the sub results under

“Increased equitable growth of the agricultural sector” is addressed? Is it necessary that all the sub results need to be addressed in the proposal?

Response: Section C.4 of the RFP on page 9, states that the purpose of FTF VC is

“Increase equitable growth of the agricultural sector” and the FTF VC sub-purposes are

“Increase agricultural productivity” and “Expand agricultural markets and trade”.

11. There has not been any mention on ICT requirement in the RFP, is it necessary to include ICT solutions? Will there be any additional weightage for including such ICT component?

Response: If ICT is identified by the value chain analysis required in section L.2 of the

RFP then it may be included. ICT is not a specific requirement of the RFP and therefore no additional weight will be included for ICT.

12. What is the intended number of beneficiaries targeted under the RFP?

Response: The RFP does not state an intended number of beneficiaries. Please note that according to section L.2 of the RFP on page 45, targets must be included in the value chain work plan.

13. Section C.5 on page 15 of the RFP states that the Contractor must collect baseline data for each value chain. Would USAID please clarify whether the Contractor should also budget for mid-term and end-line assessments for the project, or whether these will be contracted externally?

Response: Yes, the contractor should budget for mid-term and final evaluations. Please see RFP revision on page 15.

14. Page 25, Section F.8. Reporting Requirements, do not include mention of a midterm or endline assessments. Question: Will USAID clarify if offerors are expected to complete midterm and endline assessments as part of the project implementation?

Response: The offerors are expected to perform a baseline, midterm, and final evaluation. Please see RFP revision on page 15.

15. Section C.1 on page 7 of the RFP states “The working title of this activity, which is subject to change, is Feed the Future Mozambique Value Chain Activity (FTF VC).”

Would USAID allow bidders to propose a new title for the activity in their proposals?

Response: No.

16. Page 22, Section F.5 KEY PERSONNEL, sub-section “Qualifications of Key

Personnel,” COP, page 22, states: “A master's degree in agriculture or a business related field.” Many prospective candidates of market system based approaches come from an

M4P background, which do not often require a master’s degree from its candidates.

Question: The Offeror respectfully requests that an additional two years of experience managing complex donor funded project in agriculture or value chain development be allowed in lieu of a master’s degree.

Response: The requirements for key personnel will remain as stated in the RFP.

17. Page 23, Section F.5 KEY PERSONNEL, requires offerors to propose a Value Chain

Manager with 5 years of experience or more as the technical manager for donor-funded value chain, M4P, and/or Market Systems projects. This emphasis on donor-funded experience may not be the best to manage the strong commercial focus of the FTF

VCA’s design, and does not consider the deep labor market of candidates with explicit experience in the private sector in Mozambique who understand its unique business environment. Question: The offeror respectfully requests that USAID consider expanding the current requirement, to include candidates who have performed the equivalent work within the private sector who are well suited to generate the private sector buy-in critical to project success.

Response: The requirements for key personnel will remain as stated in the RFP.

18. Page 23, Section F.5 KEY PERSONNEL, requires the proposed Monitoring and

Evaluation Manager to hold a master’s of science degree. Many qualified individuals who work within the M&E field have Master’s degrees but not Master of Science degrees. Question: Offeror request that USAID modify the requirement to include a

“master’s degree in agriculture, business, or an international development related field.”

Response: The requirements for key personnel will remain as stated in the RFP.

19. Section F.5, p. 22-23. Qualifications for Key Personnel lists a master’s degree as a requirement for all three key personnel positions. Would USAID be willing to accept applicable work experience in lieu of a master’s degree to ensure that the best-placed candidates can be proposed for these positions?

20. Section F.5, p. 23. Value Chain Manager. The required minimum qualifications for the

Value Chain Manager position include 5 years of experience and demonstrated success with donor-funded value chain, M4P, and/or Market Systems Development projects. As this is also a desired qualification for the COP position, would USAID consider accepting proven private sector value chain experience for the Value Chain Manager instead of donor-funded experience as long as the donor-funded experience is appropriately covered by the COP position?

21. Page 25, Section F.8. Reporting Requirement a. EMMP, identifies only one plan for submission. Question: Please confirm that only EMMP is required, addressing all activities/value chains.

Response: Only one EMMP is expected for FTF VC.

22. Page 26, Section F.8.Description of the reports, e. Quarterly Financial Reporting, requires the report of outline expenditures by results. Question: Please clarify what

USAID considers “results” for this financial report.

Response: Expenditures do not need to be outlined by results. This sentence has been deleted. Please see page 27 of the revised RFP.

23. Section C.5.1.B.b (page 13) – “Each value chain work plan must contain a causal model (i.e. theory of change), strategic framework, and annual targets for the selected

FTF indicators.” Section C.5.1.C.b (page 15) – “The Contractor must also include required (R) and required if applicable (RiA) indicators from the standard Feed the

Future indicators”. Question: It is clear from the RFP that we must include the indicators required under the Feed the Future Monitoring System in our work plan targets and PMP. Please clarify whether we must include all the required (R) indicators, or exclusively those from sub-element EG.3. In other words, must we include the indicators covering stunting, wasting, and underweight women and children? Or only those related to agriculture at the IR1 and IR2 level?

Response: Please note that the link to the indicator handbook provided under footnote

12 on page 14 of the RFP was modified following the release of the RFP. The current indicator handbook can be found at:

https://feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/Feed_the_Future_Indicator_H andbook_Sept2016.pdf. Offeror’s are only required to include implementing mechanism indicators which are only required as applicable based on the technical approach proposed.

24. Section F.8, p. 24. The list of deliverables includes “six two-page value chain summaries C.3.1.B).” Section C.5.1 lists eight value chains that should be analyzed.

Can USAID please confirm that the list of deliverables in Section F should include all eight target value chains?

Response: USAID confirms that the list of deliverables in Section F includes 8 two-page summaries and the RFP is amended to correct this error. As noted in section C.3 of the RFP on page 8, “Investments in the cashew value chain are currently managed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and can be added to FTF VC in the future if the USDA stops support of the industry.” The offeror will be required to provide a value chain analysis and two-page summary for cashew but will not begin working in the cashew industry unless the USDA withdraws.

25. Section L.2, p. 45. The second and third portions of the technical approach require a value chain work plan and PMP for one selected value chain, including targets. Can

USAID confirm that offerors should not propose targets for the project as a whole, but only for the value chain analyzed in the proposal?

Response: USAID confirms that the offeror should propose targets for the value chain analyzed for the proposal.

https://feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/Feed_the_Future_Indicator_Handbook_Sept2016.pdf https://feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/Feed_the_Future_Indicator_Handbook_Sept2016.pdf

II. Cost, Contractual, and Other Questions

26. Section L.2 on Page 44 of the RFP states “The proposal must be organized according to the evaluation factors in Section M (i.e. the proposal shall have four main sections).”

Section L.2 then goes on to describe four sections: a Technical Approach, a Key

Personnel Section, a Staffing and Management Plan, and a Past Performance Section.

a. Section M.2 outlines only 3 technical evaluation factors – Technical Approach, Staffing and Management Plan, and Past Performance. Would USAID please confirm that Key Personnel is a technical evaluation factor, and should be included as a section in the proposal?

Response: USAID confirms that Key Personnel is an evaluation factor. The RFP is modified to include Key Personnel following the Technical Approach and before the Staffing and Management Plan as an evaluation factor in Section M.2 on pages 55-56 of the RFP. The Key Personnel will be evaluated on “The quality and appropriateness of the proposed key personnel.”

b. Section L.2 on page 45 of the RFP sets page limitations for each section but does not include a page allocation for the Past Performance section within the

25 pages. Would USAID please consider allowing 2 pages for the Past

Performance in the body of the technical proposal, above the 25 pages allocated to the other sections (for a total of 27)?

Response: The RFP is amended to include Past Performance Information Sheets in the list on page 44 of section L.2 of the RFP of items that do not count against the page limit.

27. Section M.2, p. 55. The technical evaluation criteria contains no information about how the key personnel section will be evaluated or its level of importance; would USAID please include?

The RFP is modified to include Key Personnel following the Technical Approach and before the Staffing and Management Plan as an evaluation factor in Section M.2 on pages 55-56 of the RFP. The Key Personnel will be evaluated on “The quality and appropriateness of the proposed key personnel.”

28. Page 55, Section M.2 “Technical Evaluation Criteria” does not provide evaluation criteria for Key Personnel. Question: Please provide the evaluation criteria for the Key

Personnel section.

29. Sections L.2 and M.2 are inconsistent on USAID’s desired inputs for the Key Personnel section. Section L assigns pages and instructions to Key Personnel, but Key Personnel is not included as an evaluated section of the Technical Proposal. Would USAID confirm that Key Personnel is, in fact, a scored element of the Technical Proposal? If

Key Personnel is scored, would USAID please provide the evaluation criteria for this section and its relative weight in the Technical Evaluation.

30. Given the evaluation criteria for Past Performance, the instructions for preparing the

Past Performance section in Section L, and the absence of an explicit page allocation, it appears that USAID is requesting for Offerors to provide Past Performance Information

Sheets as its evidence of relevant past performance. Would USAID confirm that it does not expect offerors to provide a Past Performance chapter/narrative in the counting pages of the technical proposal? If so, would USAID confirm that the proposal shall have three main sections, as a correction to the bolded, underlined portion at the bottom of page 44 of the solicitation?

Response: USAID confirms that offerors are not expected to provide a narrative in the pages counted in the technical application. The RFP is amended to include Past

Performance Information Sheets in the list on page 44 of section L.2 of the RFP of items that do not count against the page limit. The proposal will still have 4 main sections as noted in section L.2 of the RFP on pages 44-45.

31. Section L.2, p. 46. The technical proposal instructions allow each offeror to submit up to three Past Performance Information Sheets, and also states that “offerors must submit past performance information on awards above $10,000,000 with a period of performance falling within the last three years that involve value chain development.”

Offerors may have more than three projects meeting this description. Should offerors select only three of these projects or submit past performance information on all awards meeting the description?

Response: Section L.2, page 46 of the RFP also states, “All offerors must submit the

“Past Performance Information Sheet” (PPIS) for up to three awards, and if applicable, for up to two awards for major subcontractors.” In addition, Section L.2 page 46 states, “For prime offerors, if none of the three relevant PPISs include the utilization of small business concerns, you must include no more than two additional PPISs demonstrating the utilization of small business concerns, if applicable.”

32. Page 5, Section B.2 Contract Type, identifies the anticipated award as a cost plus fixed fee term contract. Page 14 Section C.5.1.C. Component 3 Feedback/Learning requires an adaptive learning management structure that enables the feedback loop to inform revisions to work plans and program activities to account for contextual shifts in program activity results. Question: The offeror respectfully suggests that the innovative approach reflected in the CLA feedback/learning management structure is contractually better suited to a completion type contract since level of effort definitions will be revised throughout period of performance.

Response: The contract type remains as stated in the RFP.

33. Section B.2 specifies a CPFF Term contract. In accordance with FAR 16.306 (d)(2), the term form describes the scope of work in general terms and obligates the contractor to devote a specified level of effort for a stated period of time. FTF VC RFP describes the scope in details and includes a detailed Deliverables Schedule with specific milestones for each deliverable (Section F.8). As such, it seems that a CPFF Completion type is more appropriate in this case. This is further emphasized in FAR 16.306 (C)(3):

“because of the differences in obligation assumed by the contractor, the completion form is preferred over the term form whenever the work, or specific milestones for the work, can be defined well enough to permit development of estimates within which the contractor can be expected to complete the work.” As such, would USAID consider changing the contract type from Term to Completion?

Response: The contract type remains as stated in the RFP.

34. Page 9, Section C.5 Scope of work, FTF VC must include the following three components:

1. Analysis – Analysis of constraints, opportunities, leverage points, and development of value chain intervention work plans for each FTF focus value chains (approximately

10% of total effort).

2. Implementation – All activities with the private sector, government, or civil society based on the analysis component (approximately 80% of total effort).

3. Learning/Feedback – Including the baseline survey, performance monitoring and evaluation system, and collaborating, learning, and adapting (CLA) activities

(approximately 10% of total effort).

Question: Please confirm that “Total Effort” refers to technical Level of Effort and not to Total Budget.

Response: USAID confirms that “Total Effort” refers to technical Level of Effort and not to Total Budget.

35. Page 10, Section C.5.1.B. Component Two: Implementation, as part of a facilitation approach to project implementation, it is often important to incentivize partners using a grants under contract mechanism as a risk mitigation strategy rather than through contract deliverables. Contracts require firms to meet certain project deliverable requirements, but do not necessarily provide capital for innovation. Question: Offeror requests that USAID consider requesting authority to include a Grants Under Contract authorization under the contract.

Response: USAID does not anticipate the need for Grants Under Contract in FTF VC.

36. Section C.5.1.B, p.12. Component Two states “Some examples of targeted, strategic market interventions…include matching grants and promotional activity grants.” Can

USAID please confirm that the awardee will have Grants Under Contract (GUC) authority as part of this contract?

Response: USAID does not anticipate the need for Grants Under Contract in FTF VC.

37. Page 14, Section C.5.1.B, Deliverables, c) Value Chain Summaries, requires that value chain summaries must be submitted within 150 days within contract award, and after approval of the value chain work plans by USAID which are required no later than

120 days after contract. Question: The offeror respectively request that USAID consider establishing the deliverable due date as “30 calendar days after approval of value chain work plans” to provide a full 30 days should a VC work plan approval occur after the required 120 days.

Response: The due dates remain as stated in the RFP.

38. Page 21, Section F.2 Period of Performance, does not include an effective start date, while the SF33 requires a 9-month period of validity Question: Please confirm that the offeror should use a 1 July 2017 estimated effective start date for purposes of pricing.

Response: The estimated start date is on or about July 2017.

39. Would USAID share the anticipated start date of FTF VC?

40. Section F.2, p. 21. To allow offerors to properly budget for the project, would USAID provide an estimated date of award?

41. Page 23, Section F.7 Professional Level Of Effort, (a) The contractor must devote the appropriate level of effort of professional technical employee, consultant, and subcontractor labor for the period specified in the clause Period of Performance, above.” Question: The Offeror respectfully requests that the estimate of the total professional technical labor be provided.

Response: The appropriate level of effort is determined by technical approach provided in the offerors’ proposals.

42. Page 24, Section F.7c. Professional Level Of Effort, (c) The level of effort by labor category is set forth in Attachment [_] [note that this table will be incorporated based on the successful offeror’s submission. Question: The Offeror respectfully requests a format that is needed for submission.

Response: USAID will complete this table at the award stage using the approved award budget of the successful offeror.

43. Page 29, Section G.3 Invoices, states that the Contractor may be requested to disaggregate activities by funding streams. Question: Please confirm that additional requirements related to different funding streams will be implemented prior to the activities commencing.

Response: Disaggregation of activities by funding stream will not be necessary. RFP has been revised to reflect this change. Please refer to Page 30.

44. Page 44, Section L.2 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, lists various items that are excluded from the page limitation. Question: The offeror respectfully requests that a cover page also be excluded from the page limitation.

Response: The RFP is amended to include a cover page that is limited to one page that does not count against the page limit. Please see page 44 of the revised RFP.

45. Section L.2, p. 44. Will USAID allow a cover page for the proposal in addition to a cover letter?

Response: The RFP is amended to include a cover page that is limited to one page that does not count against the page limit. Please see page 44 of the revised RFP.

46. Page 44, Section L.2 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, says that proposals shall be written using Times New Roman font and that “charts and graphs must not have type smaller than 9-point font size.” Question: The offeror requests that fonts other than Times New Roman be allowed for charts, text boxes, and graphics provided they are legible and are no smaller than 9-point size.

Response: The instructions regarding font style remain unchanged in the RFP.

47. Section L.2, p. 44. Can USAID confirm that text boxes may use 9-point font along with charts and graphs?

Response: Times New Roman, 9 point font may be used for text boxes. Please see page

44 of revised RFP.

48. Page 45, Section L.2 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, Subparagraph 3, Technical Approach Feedback/Learning, requires a five page illustrative PMP, including a logical framework. Question: The offeror respectfully requests the PMP be allowed as an Annex F.

Response: No changes are made to the RFP in response to this question.

49. Page 45, Section L.2 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, Staffing and Management Plan, requires an organigram, not counted against page count. Question: The offeror respectfully requests the organigram be allowed as an

Annex G.

50. Page 46, Section L.2 Annexes, states that Annex A should contain the CVs of Key

Personnel. Question: May offerors include the CVs of other non-key personnel within

Annex A?

51. Page 46, Section L.2 Annexes, states that an Annex containing a Security Plan, not to exceed 10 pages, is required. Question: The offeror requests that USAID provide guidance regarding the desired contents of the requested Security Plan.

Response: Please refer to ADS 303SAE:

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/303sae.pdf . Page 47 of the revised RFP includes this link.

52. Page 50, Section L.3.b.4.a) Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost Proposal, Indirect Costs, requires audited financial statements in lieu of a government indirect rate agreement. Question: The offeror notes that the Small Business Administration now accepts reviewed financials rather than formally audited financial statements.

Please confirm that these will be acceptable for this submission.

53. Page 50, Section L.3.b.6 Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost Proposal, Supporting Documents, requires several sets of corporate policies, including travel, personnel, and procurement. Question: Please confirm that an offeror who has been awarded previous USAID contracts is exempt from submitting these policies.

Response: All offerors, regardless of whether they have received a USAID award previously, must submit the corporate policies specified in Section L.3.b.6.

54. Page 52, Section L.3.i Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost Proposal, Part 9

– Information Concerning Work-Day, Work-Week, and Paid Absences, requires this information from each proposed implementing partner. Question: Please confirm that the definition of an implementing partner is a major subcontractor of 20% of the total estimated cost.

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/303sae.pdf

Response: For this RFP, the definition of an implementing partner is a major subcontractor with 20% of the total estimated cost of the prime award.

55. Page 57, Section M.3 Evaluation System, identifies an adjectival scoring system for the technical evaluation. Question: The offeror respectfully requests USAID consider a more common point evaluation system for the technical criteria which could provide greater detail and objectivity.

Response: The Evaluation System remains as stated in the RFP.

56. Given the high degree of coordination required between this project and USAID’s

Leader with Associates awards, would USAID share the scopes of work for those programs as appendices to the RFP so that Offerors can properly coordinate their proposed responses?

Response: Coordination of activities will be managed by USAID during implementation.

57. Section C.5, p. 10. The scope of work states that “the contractor must implement FTF

VC in close coordination with other USAID and donor-supported projects, such as Feed the Future Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) activities.” Can USAID please provide further details of these activities or, if they are not yet awarded, the Program

Description section of the Request for Applications (RFA) for those activities.

Response: Coordination of activities will be managed by USAID during implementation.

58. Section K states that "Representations and Certifications will be required at a later date from the apparently successful offeror" while section L.3(c) states that "the offeror and each proposed subcontractor must complete Section K, Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offeror, and sign and date on the last page in the space provided". Would USAID please confirm that Representations and Certifications and other Statements are required from offerors as well as subcontractors? If so, could

USAID please provide its desired templates for Representations, Certifications and other Statements to Offerors?

Response: Representations and Certifications and other Statements will be required from all offerors and their major subcontractors via the System for Award Management

(SAM), www.sam.gov. Please see Sections K and L.3 c. of the revised RFP.

59. Section K (page 43) – “Representations and certifications will be required at a later date from the apparently successful offeror.” Section L.3.C (page 51) – “The Offeror and each proposed subcontractor must complete Section K, "Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offeror," and sign and date on the last page in the space provided.” Question: These two sections seem to contradict one another; will USAID provide clarification?

60. Section L.3 on page 51, Part 3 – Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offeror, states the offeror and each subcontractor must complete Section K. Page 43 of the RFP states that “Representations and certification will be required at a later date from the apparently successful offeror.” Would USAID please confirm that Section K will only be required for the apparently successful offeror?

61. Section L.3.c, p. 51. Part 3 of the cost proposal states that offerors and subcontractors must all complete section K; however, section K is not included in this RFP. Can

USAID confirm that section K will only be required from the apparently successful offeror and that offerors and subcontractors are not required to complete it at the proposal stage?

62. Section F.10 Authorized Work Day/Week: Would USAID please consider approving six-day work-weeks for international short term technical assistance given the resulting cost efficiencies of reduced international per diem for travelers?

Response: Yes, please refer to page 28 of the revised RFP.

63. Section F.10, p. 28. The authorized work-week is five days; will USAID permit a six-day work-week for short-term consultants?

64. Section F.10 on page 28 states “The Contract is authorized up to a 5-day workweek in the field with no premium pay.” Would USAID please consider a 6-day workweek for international short term technical assistance?

65. Section L.2 (page 46) – “Annexes must be presented in the order outlined below.”

Question: Will USAID allow an additional annex with letters of support from local partners who are not proposed as subcontractors?

66. Section D.2 (page 17) “Contractor must prepare a Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) and Marking Plan (MP) to address the Branding Strategy described below.”

Question: Will USAID please confirm that the Branding and Marking plan is an authorized annex?

Response: The Branding and Marking Plan is an authorized annex and the RFP is modified on page 47 in Section L.2 to include the Branding and Marking Plan as Annex

F.

67. Section D.2 on page 17 of the RFP states “Contractor must prepare a Branding

Implementation Plan (BIP) and Marking Plan to address the Branding Strategy described below.” Would USAID please confirm that the BIP and Marking Plan will be required post-award?

Response: The Branding and Marking Plan is required for the proposal and will be submitted as Annex F. The RFP is modified on page 47 in Section L.2 to include the

Branding and Marking Plan as Annex F.

68. Section H.11.b, p. 35-36. The RFP states “Compensation…paid to TCNs and CCNs may not…exceed the prevailing compensation paid to personnel performing comparable work in the cooperating country as determined by the USAID Mission.”

Can USAID please share the Local Employee Compensation Plan or other relevant pay scale documentation with bidders?

Response: Yes, please see Attachment 17. Please see page 42 of the revised RFP.

69. Would USAID please consider sharing the Mission’s Local Compensation Plan for

Mozambique?

Response: Yes, please see Attachment 17. Please see page 42 of the revised RFP

70. Section L.3.b.1 (page 47) – “The detailed budget must be provided in one large spreadsheet, with multiple worksheets by year that link to the overall summary budget, with unprotected and unlocked formulas.” Question: The RFP asks for multiple worksheets by year that link to the overall summary budget. Please advise whether

USAID will accept a comprehensive five-year presentation of the overall cost budget on one sheet (rather than five separate sheets) which will then link to the overall summary budget?

Response: Yes, please see RFP revision on page 47.

71. Page 47, Section L.3.b. Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost Proposal, Part

2 – Proposed Costs/Prices, requires three budget formats, the third of which is described as a Detailed Budget Worksheet. Question: Please confirm that the third budget may be a detailed spreadsheet including all five years in one tab.

Response: Yes, please see RFP revision on page 47.

72. Section L.3.b.1, p. 47. The cost instructions include both “detailed budget worksheets” and “detailed budget worksheets by year” in addition to the summary budget for which

USAID has provided a template. Is this meant to require a separate spreadsheet tab for each program year, or simply that each program year’s costs must be clearly stated in the detailed budget (even if in a single tab)?

Response: Please see RFP revision on page 47.

73. Section L.3.b.2, p. 47-48. The list of approved standard cost elements for the budget excludes allowances and grants. Where should these be included in the budget? Are offerors permitted to include additional line items not mentioned in this list?

Response: Yes.

74. Section L.3.b, p. 48 & 50. In the budget line item definitions, “salary and wages” states that “biodata sheets are required for any individual specifically identified in the cost or technical proposal.” Later, the supporting documents section states that “Employee

Biographical Data Sheets must be submitted for each key personnel position.” Can

USAID please clarify?

Response: Employee Biographical Data Sheets must be submitted for each key personnel position only. Please refer to page 48 of the revised RFP.

75. Section L.3.b.4, p. 49-50. The RFP requires all subcontractors to submit either an approved NICRA rate or multiple years of audited financial statements. In order to better allow the use of qualified local subcontractors who may not have this documentation, would USAID consider revising the requirement to apply only to major subcontractors?

Response: This requirement only applies to major subcontractors. Please see RFP revision on pages 49-50.

76. Section L.3.b.6, p. 50. Supporting documents for the cost proposal include “a certified version of the contractor’s written personnel policies, including established pay scale for equivalent job classifications of employees” and “personnel policies.” Can USAID confirm that personnel policies should only be included once? Additionally, can USAID clarify who should be certifying offerors’ personnel policies?

Response: Yes, personnel policies should only be included once. Each offeror should self-certify the personnel policies submitted with the proposal.

77. Section L.4, p. 53. The delivery instructions state that the proposal should be emailed

“with up to 6 attachments (2MB limit per attachment).” Can USAID confirm that the

2MB limit is per attachment (and therefore 12MB per email) rather than per email?

Response: The size limitation per e-mail is 12MB.

78. Section L.4, p. 53. Can USAID confirm that technical and cost proposals may be submitted in either MS Word or Adobe Acrobat, but are not required to be submitted in both formats?

Response: The technical and cost proposals must be submitted in both MS Word and

PDF format.