RFP_SOL-660-17-000001_amendment_01.pdf

Page 1 of 25 RFP # SOL-660-17-000001 – Questions and Answers

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NUMBER SOL-660-17-000001, “FEED THE

FUTURE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO KIVU VALUE CHAINS”

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. We understand that a non-essential personnel departure of DRC is occurring in the later part of this December. Given the uncertain security context continuing in DRC, we respectfully request guidance from USAID/DRC of whether the post should be considered accompanied or unaccompanied in the proposal. If security conditions deteriorate after the 19th it will become increasingly difficult to ensure the safety and security of on-the-ground proposal teams. While we understand this is difficult to anticipate, it has considerable impact on both recruiting and on pricing, and appreciates your guidance.

Answer: Post Designations are determined by the Department of State. DRC is currently an Accompanied Post and offerors should budget accordingly.

Offerors should include security planning and related cost estimates in their cost proposals.

2. Could USAID please confirm that indirect ceiling rates are required for the prime contractor only? If indirect ceilings are required for subcontractors as well, would USAID please confirm this requirement only applies to major subcontractors?

Answer: Indirect ceiling rates are required for the prime and all major subcontractors.

3. Could USAID please provide DBA waiver forms and/or instructions for waiver requests to Offerors?

Answer: The Mission does not expect to seek DBA waiver. The DBA waiver for DRC and more than 100 other countries has expired and it is not envisioned that a country waiver will be granted in the immediate future. Offerors should budget accordingly including local staff as the US Department of Labor requires that any local equivalency of DBA must be translated and submitted in the English language in order to determine the sufficiency of coverage prior to a waiver being granted.

4. Could USAID please provide the full local Compensation Plan and FSN scale as per

AIDAR 722.170?

Answer: The Mission Local Compensation is a classified document which cannot be provided as it is. However, provided below is a range of salaries for various categories of locally employed professionals for budgetary purpose:

Category FSN

Grade

ANNUAL RATE

Minimum- Maximum

Page 2 of 25 RFP # SOL-660-17-000001 – Questions and Answers

Senior Professional 11 -12 $60,552 - $120,870 Office Manager 09- 10 $35,706 - $67,546 Senior Assistant 07- 08 $24,927 - $39,805 Junior Assistant 05- 06 $20,143 - $31,580 Re-production Clerk/Junior Clerk/Driver 03- 04 $17,080 - $26,500 Attendant/runner/Gardener/Janitor 01- 02 $14,933 - $22,844

This range of salaries includes fringe benefits and allowances applicable to the local embassy employees.

5. Could USAID please provide VAT exemption application materials at this time in order to assist Offerors in their calculations of the cost impact of waiting for reimbursement before the exemption is obtained?

Answer: USAID has an agreement with GDRC for VAT exemption covering all activities funded by USAID. The successful offeror may request these forms during the mobilization stage.

6. Are contractors required to send expatriate staff and their over-18 dependents to the

“Foreign Affairs Counter Threat” (FACT) course (OT-611) training (ADS Chapter 458)?

Answer: NO

7. To enhance consistency among bids, could USAID please provide a standard USD- CDF exchange rate for bidders to use in their proposals?

Answer: The US$ is widely accepted in business transactions in the DRC and the US Embassy and most USAID partners pay staff salaries in US$. Bidders are required to use USD as monetary unit for cost proposal

8. Please verify a list of acronyms can be included in the proposal and is outside of the page count.

Answer: yes – but not to be counted toward 30 page limitation

9. The Initial Environmental Assessment on p.129 references Component 7: Support

Clean Energy for Agriculture. Can USAID confirm if there are any targets or indicators related to clean energy investments for the Kivu Value Chain activity?

Answer: Clean energy activities were removed from the Kivu Value Chain activity and there are no targets or indicators related to clean energy investments in this activity.

10. Sub Indicator 2.5 on pg. 14 (improved governmental services, regulation, and taxation for agricultural inputs and trade in targeted value chains) is tagged only to “B,” Kivu Value Chain activity. Can USAID confirm if Kivu Value Chain Activity will be solely responsible for this sub-IR?

Page 3 of 25 RFP # SOL-660-17-000001 – Questions and Answers

Answer: The shared results framework was included primarily to illustrate the collaborative and interlinked nature of USAID FFP, Health and Feed the Future investments of eastern Congo.

Please refer to page 18 of the attached revised RFP. Citation is: In particular, USAID intends to launch a new Integrated Governance Activity (IGA) that will, among other objectives, enhance local government accountability to citizens for service delivery in exchange for rationalized local taxation. The activity will also tackle local corruption, development planning, and budgetary management. These areas of focus are clearly complementary to Kivu VC as they can directly influence the business environment for investment. The Contractor must engage with the governance activity implementer to identify topics and issues of shared interest, avoid duplication, and implement complementary interventions.

Please see the link for more information about IGA:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a6f27095c4d7bc7c90a2df 30918f3071&tab=core&_cview=1

11. Would USAID please confirm that grants under contracts will be allowable under the Feed the Future Democratic Republic of the Congo Kivu Value Chains Activity? And If so please amend the solicitation accordingly

Answer: Grants under contract are not authorized under this activity.

12. Can Offerors submit cooperative agreements in addition to contracts for past performance information?

Answer: Yes

13. Can USAID please provide offerors with a copy of Transition Objective 3 of the mission Performance Management Plan?

Answer: See attachment with this amendment entitled “Performance Monitoring”.

14. In order to ensure collaboration with USAID and DFAP, health, and WASH activity implementers and the designated third-party population-level baseline survey firm, would USAID consider extending the deadline for submission of the draft AMEP for review and approval to within 90 days of contract award or upon approval of the first year work plan?

Answer: Yes.

15. Please confirm that offerors may submit the technical proposal in Adobe Acrobat PDF.

Answer: The technical proposal must be submitted in both MS Word and Adobe Acrobat PDF.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a6f27095c4d7bc7c90a2df30918f3071&tab=core&_cview=1 https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a6f27095c4d7bc7c90a2df30918f3071&tab=core&_cview=1

Page 4 of 25 RFP # SOL-660-17-000001 – Questions and Answers

16. Please confirm that offerors may provide a list of acronyms that does not count against the technical proposal page limit.

Answer: Yes – please refer to question #8

17. Would USAID consider 20 years of relevant experience in lieu of a post-graduate degree for proposed key personnel?

Answer: No.

18. Would USAID kindly offer an exchange rate for budgeting purposes?

Answer: please refer to question #7

19. Has a contractor performed similar work to this for the government in the past? If available, please provide the incumbent contract number. If you are unable to provide a contract number, is it safe to assume this is a new requirement for the government?

Answer: This is Mission’s new activity.

20. The RFP references grants under contract on page 129. Would USAID please provide a dollar amount for grants under contract?

Answer: Please refer to question #11 and reference is deleted.

21. Would USAID kindly provide the grants under contract authorizing language as per

ADS 302.3.4.13?

Answer: please refer to question #11 and 20.

22. For USAID’s convenience, may we include a list of acronyms that will not count against the page limit?

Answer: please refer to question #8

23. Could USAID identify the 3rd party data collector that will be preforming the baseline survey for this project?

Answer: This action is currently in procurement. USAID will be able to identify the data collector performing the baseline once the procurement is finalized.

24. Does USAID intend to allow the DRC Kivu Value Chain contractor to have access to the DFAP beneficiary data for all regions? If so, what is the anticipated timeline to receive this data?

Answer: The Kivu Value Chain contractor should have access to beneficiary data for the two DFAPs operating in the zone (South Kivu and South Kivu/Tanganika programs). Beneficiary data should be available by August/September 2017.

Page 5 of 25 RFP # SOL-660-17-000001 – Questions and Answers

25. We respectfully request the removal of clause FAR 52.237-8, RESTRICTION ON SEVERANCE PAYMENTS TO FOREIGN NATIONALS (AUG 2003), listed in Section I.2 on page 65, and replacement with FAR 52.237-9, Waiver of Limitation on Severance Payments to Foreign Nationals, to allow for severance payments to foreign nationals.

Answer: Removed FAR 52.237-8

26. Page 10, Section B.6, Advance Understandings on Ceiling Indirect Cost Rates, incorporates a requirement for the provision of an indirect cost rate ceiling. FAR 42.703-1 “Policy” specifically states the Negotiated Rate agreement “shall be binding on all agencies and their contracting offices, unless otherwise specifically prohibited by statute.” Furthermore, the circumstances under which a limitation on a negotiated NICRA could be effected are stated at FAR 42.707(b) “Cost-sharing rates and limitations on indirect cost rates” and do not apply to a solicitation process. Lastly, USAID’s “Best Practices Guide for Indirect Costing” confirms that only in exceptional circumstances should a cost reimbursement type USAID contract incorporate a rate that deviates from the US government-wide approved indirect rate.

Question: We respectfully request the removal of the requirement to identify a ceiling indirect cost rate.

Answer: FAR citation does not prohibit asking Advance Understanding on Ceiling

Indirect Cost Rates. This is USAID general practice to ask for Advance Understanding on Ceiling. In fact, it seeks to enhance competitive position.

27. RFP Section B.8 (page 11) states, “Pursuant to FAR 16.306(d), the fixed fee payable under this contract will be tied to the completion of the reports and deliverables and attainment of targets specified in Section F.6 of this contract and in accordance with the final approved Fee Schedule.” However, Section F.6 is related to Key Personnel.

Would USAID please confirm that the language should reference Section F.8, Fee Schedule, which begins on page 34?

Answer: Yes – F8 is the correct reference

28. Page 14 – Section C.1, Purpose and Scope, Paragraph 4, states: “The Kivu VC activity will largely target value chain actors that geographically overlap with health zones identified by the USAID/DRC Health Office, and communities targeted by the FFP DFAP.” On Page 14, the solicitation states “In addition to working in the same communities, Kivu VC and the FFP activity will achieve programmatic integration….”

Question: We respectfully request that USAID/DRC clarify the criteria by which offerors USAID/DRC should prioritize additional communities outside those targeted by the FFP and Health Office zones of influence.

Answer: FFP and Health activities represent significantly larger investments and will cover an extensive geographic area. The Mission anticipates that the contractor will focus its community-level efforts in areas of geographic overlap with these programs. The development hypothesis outlined in the

Page 6 of 25 RFP # SOL-660-17-000001 – Questions and Answers

RFP requires a collaborative approach, which, in this context, prioritizes geographic co-location.

29. Page 14, Section C.2, Rationale and Approach, states that FFP investments will be focused on the agricultural production of these crops and on enhanced capacity at the household level to participate in markets, while the Kivu VC activity will enhance the efficiency and inclusiveness of the upstream portions of these value chains and will increase provision of supportive market services, such as those for agricultural inputs, transportation, energy, and finance. Additionally, Page 129, Activity Description, mentions support clean energy for agriculture.

Question: The offeror notes that energy is mentioned frequently with the Kivu Value Chains Project. We respectfully request that USAID/DRC confirm whether energy remains a focus in this activity given that it was emphasized as a component in the RFI, but does not appear so in the RFP?

Answer: Energy activities have been removed from Kivu Value Chains and this is no longer a focus for the activity.

30. Page 15, Section C.2, Rationale and Approach, Paragraph 2, indicates “Kivu VC will also into invest in export crops, with a particular focus on specialty coffee.” The KBYK project suggestion “that specialty coffee can be an engine of inclusive growth and poverty reduction in the Kivus” (page 15), as well as result #5 listed on page 21:

“There are year-on-year increases in specialty coffee exports sourced from small-holder farmers, with at least 50 containers of specialty coffee exported in the final year” indicates that the Kivu VC activity will focus on Arabica VC strengthening.

However, the Walungu region is primarily a Robusta producing region, which cannot become a specialty coffee.

Question: We respectfully request that USAID/DRC clarify whether the Kivu VC activity will work with both Arabica and Robusta, or only Arabica coffee for the coffee VC strengthening activities.

Answer: The contractor should focus on the specialty coffee value chain. As pointed out, this would entail a primary focus on Arabica coffee.

31. Page 16, Section C.2, Rationale and Approach Kivu Agriculture and Nutrition Shared Results Framework, includes Sub IR 3.2: Increased awareness of and commitment to essential nutrition promoting practices.

Question: The word “promoting” used in this context is unclear. We respectfully request that USAID/DRC clarify the types of activities envisioned and intended outcomes of those activities related to “Increased awareness of and commitment to essential nutrition promoting practices.”

Answer: The shared results framework was included primarily to illustrate the collaborative and interlinked nature of USAID FFP, Health and Feed the Future investments of eastern Congo. Section C.3 Statement of Work and Expected Results indicate the key tasks of the Kivu Value Chains activity.

Offerors should review information available on FFP DFAPs and the Integrated Health Program and identify opportunities, as applicable, to complement their current and future nutrition efforts with the Kivu Value Chains.

Page 7 of 25 RFP # SOL-660-17-000001 – Questions and Answers

32. Page 16, Section C.2, Rationale and Approach Kivu Agriculture and Nutrition Shared essential nutrition promoting practices.

Question: We respectfully request that USAID/DRC clarify the targeted recipients for IR 3 and Sub IR 3.2, distinguishing between individuals and household members for each IR respectively? Further does IR3 target the individual behavior and sub IR 3.2 target value chain actor?

Answer: The shared results framework was included primarily to illustrate the collaborative and interlinked nature of USAID FFP, Health and Feed the Future investments of eastern Congo. Section C.3 Statement of Work and Expected Results indicate the key tasks of the Kivu Value Chains activity.

Offerors should review information available on FFP DFAPs and the Integrated Health Program and identify opportunities, as applicable, to complement their current and future nutrition efforts with Kivu Value Chains.

33. Page 16, Section C.2, Rationale and Approach Kivu Agriculture and Nutrition Shared essential nutrition promoting practices. The offeror notes that the term “nutritional behaviors” used in IR 3, while the lower results sub IR 3.2 uses the term “nutrition promoting practices.”

Question: We respectfully request that USAID/DRC confirm if the concept of “nutritional behaviors” differs from “nutrition promoting practices” in this framework?

Answer: The shared results framework was included primarily to illustrate the collaborative and interlinked nature of USAID FFP, Health and Feed the Future investments of eastern Congo. Section C.3 Statement of Work and Expected Results indicate the key tasks of the Kivu Value Chains activity.

Offerors should review information available on FFP DFAPs and the Integrated Health Program and identify opportunities, as applicable, to complement their current and future nutrition efforts with Kivu Value Chains.

34. Page 16, Section C.2, Rationale and Approach Kivu Agriculture and Nutrition Shared

Results Framework, includes Sub IR 2.5: Improved governmental services, regulation, and taxation for agricultural inputs and trade in targeted value chains.

Question: Under Sub IR 2.5, is it envisioned that this IR will overlap with the Integrated Governance Activities? We respectfully request that USAID/DRC detail further what is envisioned to be the role of IGA and the role of KVC for Sub IR 2.5?

Answer: As noted in Section C, the contractor must engage with the Integrated

Governance Activity implementer to identify topics and issues of shared interest, avoid duplication, and implement complementary interventions.

Please see the link for more information about IGA:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a6f27095c4d7bc 7c90a2df30918f3071&tab=core&_cview=1 https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a6f27095c4d7bc7c90a2df30918f3071&tab=core&_cview=1 https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a6f27095c4d7bc7c90a2df30918f3071&tab=core&_cview=1

Page 8 of 25 RFP # SOL-660-17-000001 – Questions and Answers

35. Page 16, Section C.2, Rationale and Approach, includes Sub IR 2.2: which implies that the contractor is expected to improve post-harvest storage and processing across the three value chains. Section C.3 requires the contractor to improve vertical actors and relationships within the targeted value chains. In order to improve crops for export markets, agricultural firms will need to make infrastructure improvements to their post-harvest and processing capacity.

Question: We respectfully request that USAID/DRC clarify if financing for infrastructure improvements is expected to be addressed under the Kivu VC activity, under one of the collaborators, or both.

Answer: The shared results framework was included primarily to illustrate the collaborative and interlinked nature of USAID FFP, Health and Feed the Future investments of eastern Congo. Section C.3 Statement of Work and Expected Results indicate the key results expected of the Kivu Value Chains activity. The contractor should determine the best approach to achieving the results.

36. Page 18, TO 3 collaborative implementation mechanism, states that Kivu VC activity, the FFP DFAP, and the health activity will each have its own indicators, targets, and expected results in their respective Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plans.

Question: For nutrition practices, we respectfully request that USAID/DRC confirm how the respective M&E of each project will capture “identical indicators” and speak to each other at the USAID/DRC level?

Answer: Mission investments in the Transition Objective 3 area are guided and measured by a common framework, the TO3 Performance Management Plan.

The Mission expects the contractor to coordinate with Health and FFP partners to harmonize indicators and avoid duplication of effort in the field.

37. Page 20, Section C.3., Statement of Work, Build capacity of vertical and horizontal actors in targeted value chains, Under this component the Contractor must provide assistance to increase the competitiveness of key actors in vertical and horizontal value chains to create greater demand for, and facilitate production, processing and sale of, crops targeted by this activity. In addition, assistance under this component will enhance coordination within value chains, including access to market information, and build coalitions to support market reforms.

Question: we respectfully request that USAID/DRC clarify in the RFP the reference to “building coalitions to support market reforms” and to what extent this activity will overlap with the Integrated Governance Activity and if any governance-related activities are expected under the Kivu VC Activity.

Answer: Please refer to page 18 of the attached revised RFP. Citation is: In particular, USAID intends to launch a new Integrated Governance Activity (IGA) that will, among other objectives, enhance local government accountability to citizens for service delivery in exchange for rationalized local taxation. The activity will also tackle local corruption, development planning, and budgetary management. These areas of focus are clearly complementary to Kivu VC as they can directly influence the business environment for investment. The Contractor must engage with the

Page 9 of 25 RFP # SOL-660-17-000001 – Questions and Answers governance activity implementer to identify topics and issues of shared interest, avoid duplication, and implement complementary interventions.

Please see the link for more information about IGA:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a6f27095c4d7bc 7c90a2df30918f3071&tab=core&_cview=1

Finding from AgClir report of 2010: Second, with the exception of the FEC, the AgCLIR assessment found very little grassroots advocacy capacity, either within agriculture or outside that sector. There is an ongoing need to determine the requirements of both agricultural and in this instance especially off-farm businesses. This can only be met by developing the advocacy capacity of farmers and rural business people through support to representative associations and their collaborative for a (such as chambers of commerce). These require strengthening if they are to effectively articulate their members’ needs to government and donors.

For further information, offerors can consult the following link for a copy of the Commercial Legal and Institutional Reform Diagnostic that was conducted for DRC:

http://easterncongo.s3.amazonaws.com/79/da/e/215/USAID_Commercial_Le gal__Inst_Reform_Diagnostic_-_DRC_Oct101.pdf

38. Page 21, Section C.3., Statement of Work, Enhance access to commercial finance, states, “The Contractor will partner with financial institutions operating in the project area to facilitate access to finance by value chain actors.” USAID is negotiating DCA loan guarantees with financial institutions that operate in the Kivu VC targeted geographies.

Question: We respectfully request that USAID/DRC clarify the current status of the DCA negotiations and whether the DCA has already developed any loan guarantees with local financial institutions in the DRC, and if loan guarantees have been developed, with which institution(s)?

Answer: The mission currently has a five year DCA, loan portfolio guarantee agreement with two local banks with the goal to leverage about $9 million in financing for Micro, small, and medium-sized (MSME) enterprises in Eastern Congo. This agreement is in partnership with the Swedish Agency for International Development (Sida). The targeted sectors include Agriculture, Health, Education, Clean Energy, and Trade. This agreement was signed in late September, but no loans have been issued which have been covered under this agreement as of this writing.

39. Page 21, Section C.3, Statement of Work, Develop and implement public private partnerships, states, “The Contractor will implement in public private partnerships with enterprises operating in North and/or South Kivu.”

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a6f27095c4d7bc7c90a2df30918f3071&tab=core&_cview=1 https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a6f27095c4d7bc7c90a2df30918f3071&tab=core&_cview=1 http://easterncongo.s3.amazonaws.com/79/da/e/215/USAID_Commercial_Legal__Inst_Reform_Diagnostic_-_DRC_Oct101.pdf http://easterncongo.s3.amazonaws.com/79/da/e/215/USAID_Commercial_Legal__Inst_Reform_Diagnostic_-_DRC_Oct101.pdf

Page 10 of 25 RFP # SOL-660-17-000001 – Questions and Answers

Question: We respectfully request that USAID/DRC clarify if the contractor is expected to explore new public private partnerships, or just to build on those that USAID/DRC has already negotiated?

Answer: The contractor is expected to develop and implement public private partnerships. The contractor would explore new public private partnerships.

40. Page 21, Section C.3., Statement of Work, Expected Results, states: “At least 15,000 households realize a minimum of a 30% increase in agricultural productivity of export crops.”

Question: We respectfully request that USAID/DRC confirm that the increase in agricultural productivity refers to coffee yields per household?

Answer: Export crops primarily refers to coffee. The contractor should aim for a minimum of a 30% increase in productivity across at least 15,000 households.

41. Page 21, Section C.3. Statement of Work, Expected Results, states “At least 15,000 households have sustained increases of at least $125 in annual income from agricultural export commodities.”

Question: We respectfully request that USAID/DRC clarify that “sustained increases in annual income” refers to an overall increase of annual income of $125 by the end of the Activity?

Answer: It refers to an overall increase of annual income of at least $125 by the end of the activity but the gains should have either been maintained over a period of more than one year or have the strong likelihood of continuing into the future.

42. Page 22, Section C.3., Statement of Work, Expected Results, states: “Self-sustaining market information system established.”

Question: We respectfully request that USAID/DRC provide further clarification of what is meant by a “self-sustaining market information system”? Is this meant to be a digital solution?

Answer: The LEO Report referenced in the Annex contains suggestions for market-information systems based on their research. By self-sustaining, USAID intends that the system continue on after the life of the activity. This could be digital or another solution, considering the context.

43. Section C.2, Geographic Scope, states on page 17, “USAID may direct the contractor to work in other parts of the TO 3 region, which includes South Kivu, North Kivu, Maniema, Tanganika, and Ituri.” Would USAID please provide additional information regarding the extent of potential expansion into these areas?

Answer: The Mission reserves the right to direct the contractor to work in other parts of the TO3 region, given the dynamic context in eastern DRC. At this time, the Mission expects the contractor to focus on the three territories identified in South Kivu (Kabare, Kalehe and Walungu). With one of the DFAPs operating in Tanganika, there may be opportunities for collaboration in this province.

Page 11 of 25 RFP # SOL-660-17-000001 – Questions and Answers

44. The list of expected results in Section C.3 (page 21) includes: “At least 60,000 households have access to improved agricultural inputs and market systems.” In Section F.8, the Fee Schedule and Fee Payment table that starts on page 34 states, “By year 5, at least 65,000 households have access to improved agricultural inputs and market systems.” Would USAID please clarify this target?

Answer: The target is 60,000. The Fee Schedule and Fee Payment table will be corrected.

45. Page 21, Section C.3 states that “USAID has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Banro to jointly fund a variety of activities”. Could USAID please outline the anticipated activities to be jointly funded?

Answer: The BANRO MOU was signed in 2013 and the proposed joint activities of most relevance to the Kivu Value Chains activity are the promotion of alternative livelihoods and economic development investment on or near Banro exploration and productions projects and support for improved economic governance through strengthening the business investment climate through tax and regulatory reform.

46. Page 21, Section C.3 under Enhance Access to Commercial Finance, states that

USAID is negotiating DCA loan guarantees with financial institutions operating in the Kivus. Could USAID please identify the financial institutions that have expressed interest in the DCA?

Answer: Procredit and FINCA are the current DCA partners. The agreement, which is a partnership between Sida and USAID, was signed in late September 2016.

47. Page 21, Section C.3, Expected Results, could USAID please define the term “seasonal workers”?

Answer: A seasonal worker is one who works only during a specific time period during the year for an employer. For example, many workers in the agriculture industry are seasonal, assisting the employer only for certain periods, such as planting or harvest.

48. Section C, pg. 21, indicates that expected results include: “At least 60,000 households have access to improved agricultural inputs and market systems. Of these, at least 45,000 must also be receiving assistance from Food for Peace DFAP activities.” Given the reduced geographic scope of both DFAP and Kivu Value Chain, would USAID consider reducing these targets?

Answer: Based on current estimates, particularly from the two DFAPs that are now active in the target areas, USAID considers the targets of 60,000, including 45,000 from FFP DFAPs, to be realistic and achievable.

Page 12 of 25 RFP # SOL-660-17-000001 – Questions and Answers

49. Section C.2 of the RFP (page 18) states, “To the extent practicable and appropriate to the respective activities, USAID expects contractors and partners to measure progress with identical indicators.” Can USAID please provide offerors with FFP DFAP’s illustrative indicators to ensure alignment with draft Activity M&E Plans for the Kivu VCs proposal?

Answer: The FFP team has selected the following indicators for reporting purposes in the annual Mission Performance Plan and Report. These indicators would be a subset of the indicators that each DFAP would report on. DFAP AMEP plans would be completed by September 2017, once information from the baseline is analyzed and once the DFAPs near the end of the first year refining their implementation approach.

EG.3-1: Number of households benefiting directly from USG assistance under Feed the Future

EG.3.2-1: Number of individuals who have received USG-supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training EG.3.2-4: Number of for-profit private enterprises, producers organizations, water users associations, women's groups trade and business associations and community-based organizations (CBOs) receiving USG food security related organizational development assistance EG.3.2-17: Number of farmers and others who have applied improved technologies or management practices with USG assistance EG.3.2-18: Number of hectares of land under improved technologies or management practices with USG assistance

50. Please confirm that contractors are to carry out a baseline survey for proposed indicators in addition to the third-party baseline survey USAID will commission for shared areas of geographic focus (across the Kivu Value Chains, DFAP, and health activities; Section C.2, RFP page 18).

Answer: USAID will contract for a third-party quantitative baseline survey through Food for Peace, which should capture key baseline data for Kivu Value Chain. The Kivu VC contractor may, however, need to collect additional baseline data prior to implementation.

As noted, the baseline will be carried out by a third party contracted by Food for Peace, though there may be a need for the contractor to supplement the data to better address value chain information needs. The contractor should plan for its own evaluation needs, as they deem necessary for the project success.

51. Page 27, Section F.2, Period of Performance, states that the period of performance is for five years from the date of award.

Question: In light of the validity period of 180 days, the offeror respectfully requests that USAID/DRC confirm that the Activity start date for pricing purposes is July 2017.

Answer: OAA follows the standard procurement action lead times identified in ADS

300. The contract will be effective as soon it is executed.

Page 13 of 25 RFP # SOL-660-17-000001 – Questions and Answers

52. Page 29, Section F.5.2., Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, states: that the baseline survey will be managed by a third party.

Question: We respectfully request USAID/DRC also clarify if the Mid-Term and Final Evaluations will also be carried out by a third party, or should the contractor be responsible for covering the costs of these evaluations for the specific Kivu VC Activity?

Answer: As noted on p. 29, USAID will also commission independent third party mid-term and final evaluations of the shared approach in TO3 to agriculture and food security, with a component of each evaluation explicitly focused on the role of this contract in contributing to the shared results.

53. Page 33, Section F.6., Key Personnel, Chief of Party, requires: a post-graduate degree in relevant field such as international development, economics, business, and agricultural or rural development. Many candidates in market systems development come from the field of M4P, and many qualified candidates practicing the M4P approach do not have advanced degrees.

Question: We respectfully request that USAID/DRC consider allowing additional years of professional experience in lieu of a post-graduate degree.

54. Page 34, Section F.6., Key Personnel, Value Chain Manager, requires: that candidates must have “Five years of international experience with value chain development projects in the technical area of management responsibility.”

Question: In consideration of the deep pool of experienced local technical professionals, we respectfully request that experience working with a relevant facilitation approach with an international company within DRC qualifies as “international” experience.

55. Page 34, Section F.6, Key Personnel, Value Chain Manager, states: “Demonstrated success using facilitation in at least one of the following: the USAID value chain approach, M4P, or Market Systems Development approach, which led to greater competitiveness and inclusiveness in markets.” We believe considering additional approaches may expand the pool of candidates to include the private sector, while retaining experience and understanding of the local DRC context to qualify for this position.

Question: We respectfully request that USAID/DRC consider changing this qualification to say “Demonstrated success using facilitation in at least one of the following: the USAID value chain approach, M4P, Market Systems Development, or a similar approach, which led to greater competitiveness and inclusiveness in markets.”

Answer: Agreed – please see revised RFP attached.

56. Page 34, Section F.8, Fee Schedule, requires the proposal of a deliverable based-fee payment schedule. The contract type is identified as a cost-plus-fixed-fee completion contract. This contract type incorporates the payment of fixed fee in fixed increments

Page 14 of 25 RFP # SOL-660-17-000001 – Questions and Answers in ratio to the costs incurred and being invoiced. Suggesting that fee be tied to more than 30 deliverable payments is burdensome for both USG and the contractor.

Question: The offeror respectfully requests that USAID/DRC remove the requirement for a deliverable based fee payment schedule.

Answer: The requirement remains unchanged.

57. Page 36, Section F.9 states that “…USAID intends to commission a third-party population-level baseline survey for the geographic areas of shared implementation.”

Could USAID please inform Offerors what the anticipated timeline for completion of the baseline survey will be?

Answer: The results of the baseline survey will be published by September 2017.

58. Page 35, Section F.8 lists one deliverable as “By year 5, at least 65,000 households have access to improved agricultural inputs and market systems (including at least 45,000 beneficiaries of FFP DFAP)” in the fee schedule. However, under Expected Results on page 21, the deliverable is sited at “up to 60,000 households.” Could USAID please confirm that the requirement is 60,000 households?

Answer: The requirement is 60,000 households and the fee schedule will be corrected accordingly.

59. Could USAID please specify if Offerors are required to propose percentages in the fee schedule found on page 34 in Section F.8?

Answer: Yes – and may be negotiated at award stage.

60. Could USAID please confirm that no premium pay will be provided per section F.4 (d)?

Answer: confirmed – premium pay is not authorized.

61. Reference: F.5.2, p28/29 Question: On page 28, the RFP states offerors must submit an AMEP that includes full baseline information. On page 29, the RFP states that at third-party baseline survey will be commissioned by USAID. Should offerors assume that that third-party baseline survey will be completed by the time of award and that offerors should use that as the basis of their AMEP indicators and results targets?

Answer: The results of the baseline survey will be published by September 2017.

USAID is amenable to extending the deadline for a final AMEP plan to better incorporate results of the baseline survey.

62. In Section F.6 on p. 33, would USAID consider changing “At least 10 years of demonstrated senior management experience in managing value chain or agri-business projects, with experience in economic growth, trade, or value chain development, Page 15 of 25 RFP # SOL-660-17-000001 – Questions and Answers competitiveness, or agricultural development programs is required” to read: “At least 10 years of demonstrated senior management experience in managing value chain, agri-business, or economic development projects, with experience in economic growth, trade, or value chain development, competitiveness, public private partnerships or agricultural development programs is required

63. Section F.6 of the RFP (page 33) states that offerors shall propose no more than three key personnel (Chief of Party, Deputy Chief of Party, and Value Chain Manager).

Depending on their proposed staffing structures and approaches, may offerors propose an alternative to the Value Chain Manager key personnel position?

Answer: A value chain manager is critical to the success of the activity and that is why this has been identified as key personnel.

64. Page 46, Section H.6(e), Annual Salary Increases, states: “Salary increase for US and TCN personnel must not exceed 3%, up to the maximum rate set for the position and/or the maximum rate in the approved budget.” This limitation conflicts with the reliance on the contractor’s compensation policy allowed in the regulations and restricts the potential for promotional/performance increases.

Question: The offeror respectfully requests that USAID/DRC allow a reliance on the contractor’s compensation scale and performance evaluation policy in the development of the budget, without a predefined limitation.

Answer: The offeror may use its policy but proposed annual salary increases beyond

5% will not be allowed without prior Contracting Officer approval.

65. Page 45, Clause H.6.(e), Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation, states:

that automatic salary increases to the maximum salary rate for those approved at the current maximum salary rate http://www.opm.gov/policy-dataoversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2014/ES.pdf (currently $167,000 per year), are not authorized without prior written approval by the Contracting Officer.

Question: We respectfully request USAID/DRC to confirm that the offeror should follow the current Rates of Basic Pay for Members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) effective January 2016 which is currently $170,400 per year.

Answer: The correct rate is $170,400. Please refer to the following website for the correct maximum salary rate is provided in the link site below https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2016/ES.pdf

66. Page 46, Clause H.6.(g), Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation, Initial Salaries, states: Salaries and wages may not exceed the Contractor's established policy and practice, including the Contractor's established pay scale for equivalent classifications of employees, which must be certified to by the Contractor.

Question: We respectfully request that USAID/DRC approve the certified pay scale for use in initial salary approvals for TBD US payroll employees under the award in lieu of Employee Biographical Data forms.

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2016/ES.pdf https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2016/ES.pdf

Page 16 of 25 RFP # SOL-660-17-000001 – Questions and Answers

Answer: TBD positions once identified will require an initial salary approval by the Contracting Officer in order to control costs and prevent excessive increases.

Recent experience has shown home office staff and other positions being proposed with 30-50% salary increases and the justification being “in accordance with our policies, procedures and pay scales.”

67. Page 46, Clause H.6.(g)(3), Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation, Initial Salaries, Non-overseas Salaries, states: the initial salaries must be established upon submission of a Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet.

Question: We respectfully request that USAID/DRC allow a certified pay statement for use in initial salary approvals for named non-overseas US payroll employees in lieu of Employee Biographical Data forms.

Answer: please refer to question #67. In cases where salaries for US based staff are established a certified pay statement per individual is acceptable.

68. Page 52, Section H.13, Authorized Geographic Code, states: The authorized geographic code is 937.

Question: In consideration of the emphasis of the scope of work on European exports on specialty crops, the Offeror respectfully requests authorization of geographic code 935.

Answer: Geographic code 937 will remain in the revised RFP attached

69. Page 53, Section H.16, Consent to Subcontract, provides: approval for subcontracting and does not address the authority for Grants under Contract (GUC). In the RFI, Grants under Contract was one out of seven components of the project.

Question: We respectfully request that USAID/DRC clarify if they will authorize the use of grants under this contract Activity or not.

Answer: Grants under contracts are not authorized under this activity. Please refer to refer to Question #11

70. Page 53, Section H.18, Nonexpendable Property, defines non-expendable property as “property which is complete in itself, does not lose its identity or become a component part of another article when put into use; is durable, with an expected service life of two years or more; and which has a unit cost of $500 or more.

Question: The Offer respectfully requests that USAID/DRC allows the appropriate Cost Principles for a non-profit contractor to establish the approval threshold for assets should the awardee be a non-profit organization. This definition is a unit cost of $5,000 and a shelf life of one year.

Answer: The nature of this award is contractual, therefore, the unit cost for the purpose of non-expendable property remains $500.

71. Section H.6(e) states on page 46, “Salary increase for US and TCN personnel must not exceed 3%, up to the maximum rate set for the position and/or the maximum rate in the approved budget or range approved for this category but not to exceed the CST level, whichever is less.” This restriction may preclude offerors from complying with AIDAR 752.7007, incorporated by reference in RFP Section H.5, which states, “Direct

Page 17 of 25 RFP # SOL-660-17-000001 – Questions and Answers compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract.” Specifying the annual salary increase that offerors can provide their staff may result in offerors deviating from AIDAR 752.7007. We respectfully request that USAID revise the annual salary increase percentage to “to be determined,” thereby allowing offerors to submit cost proposals in accordance with their established policies, procedures, and practices.

Answer: refer to question # 64; CO approval will be required for proposed increases above these threshholds.

72. On page 46, Section H.6(g) states, “Contractor shall compensate non-US personnel in accordance with its approved salary scale, staffing plan and compensation package.”

This restriction may preclude offerors from complying with AIDAR 752.7007, incorporated by reference in RFP Section H.5, quoted in the previous question.

Requiring offerors to compensate non-US personnel in accordance with a salary scale may result in offerors deviating from AIDAR 752.7007. We respectfully request that USAID remove this requirement, thereby allowing offerors to submit cost proposals in accordance with their established policies, procedures, and practices.

Answer: The distinction here is that Congolese Nationals (FSNs/CCNs) must be compensated not to exceed the LCP. Including TCNs in an offeror’s proposal will require similar supporting documentation (biodata sheets) and in the DRC context the Contracting Officer has been delegated the authority to approve salary payment in US$, and the payment of differentials and allowances for non-US expatriate staff. Non- US personnel specifically identified in the proposal of the successful offeror will be considered approved unless discussions are needed.

73. Page 45 section H.6-(a) states that “…no individual salary or wage, without approval from the contracting officer, may exceed the employee’s current annual salary or highest salary in the last 3 years.” Seeing that Offerors would like to attract competitive candidates for these positions, would USAID consider setting new hire rate increases at up to 3% without seeking CO approval?

Answer: please refer to question#64

74. Page 45 section H.6-(e) states that salary increases for CCN personnel may not exceed “TBD”, up to the maximum rate for the position. Could USAID please provide the “TBD” rate?

Answer: For budgeting purposes 5%. The salary increase will be looked from reasonableness point of view.

75. Page 45, section H.6.(e) provides the following invalid website link (http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2014/ES.pdf) that leads to a “page not found” screen. Can USAID please confirm that the USAID max salary rate is $170,400 per year or provide a valid link to this information?

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2014/ES.pdf http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2014/ES.pdf

Page 18 of 25 RFP # SOL-660-17-000001 – Questions and Answers

Answer: refer to question # 65

76. Will USAID consider removing the requirement for CO approval for consultants as referenced on page 46, section H.6 (f)?

Answer: CO approval will remain as it is. The exceptions to the requirement are sufficient to allow adequate flexibility for a contractor.

77. Reference: H.6(e), p45 Question: Can USAID confirm that salary maximums are the current 2016 approved ES-6 level of $170,400 and not $167,000?

Answer: please refer to question # 65

78. Reference: H.22, p55: “VAT and customs duties are excluded from the cost of this contract. The COR will provide the application materials and support letter from USAID but the Contractor is responsible for applying and obtaining this exemption and refund of VAT from the host country Government.”

Question: It is our understanding that the laws of the Democratic Republic of Congo require all for-profits to pay taxes on local and expatriate salaries. Does the US Government have any agreement in place with the Government of the DRC that would exempt USAID contractors from these salary tax requirements?

Answer: Local staff salaries are taxable and the successful offeror would be expected to set salaries within the LCP and with-hold local applicable taxes from FSN salaries and remit them to the Government of the DRC. Salaries of Expatriate staff are generally not taxable within the country, but this is subject to decisions unilaterally made by the Government of the DRC.

79. Section H.13. Of the solicitation (page 52) states that fluent English and French is required for the Contractor’s long and short-term expatriate professionals. Would USAID please confirm this language requirement does not apply to short-term expatriate professionals providing non- technical/operational support (i.e., home office management, financial analysis, IT set-up and support, etc.)?

Answer: Confirmed. The language requirement does not apply to short-term non-technical/operational support.

80. Section H.6(e) of the solicitation (page 45) states that Automatic salary increases to the maximum salary rate for those approved at the current maximum salary rate http://www.opm.gov/policy-dataoversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2014/ES.pdf (currently $167,000 per year), are not authorized without prior written approval by the Contracting Officer. Would USAID please confirm that $167,000 per year was the maximum salary rate for 2014, and that the current maximum salary rate of $170,400 per year is applicable to this solicitation?

http://www.opm.gov/policy-dataoversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-http://www.opm.gov/policy-dataoversight/pay…