Questions_and_Anwers_to_RFP___SOL-663-16-000002.pdf

Questions and Answers to RFP # SOL-663-16-00002 – Feed the Future Ethiopia-Value Chain Activity

1. Question: Can USAID Consider extending the closing date of the RFP?

Answer: On cover letter, the proposal submission date has been changed from March 28, 2016 to April 8, 2016

2. Question: On page 11, section C.3.5, a line of text is missing under Sub-purpose 1. Could USAID kindly update the page for offerors?

Answer: The penultimate line should read "The expected result is increased availability of diverse, safe and quality foods in domestic markets." Please see the amended RFP (page 11-12, last paragraph)..

3. Question: On page 52, section F.8, Key Personnel, the requirements for Chief of Party include seven years of experience as a Chief of Party managing large (at least $20 million), complex agricultural development programs with a private sector/multi-value chain development focus, preferably within Africa. Would USAID consider revising these minimum qualifications to include candidates with extensive chief of party experience, for example more than 20 years of experience with USAID, in lieu of experience managing programs more than the $20 million threshold? By offering extensive experience as a substitute for the size of programs, offerors will be able to consider a larger pool of candidates with the talent, skills, energy, commitment, and availability to effectively serve USAID on this important program.

Answer: USAID concurs. The language for the Chief of Party has been amended in the RFP. It now reads as follows.

• Minimal Qualifications:

o Master’s degree in international development, agriculture, livestock management, economics or related field of study or 7 years of work experience in agricultural development.

o Minimum of 5 years of experience as a senior manager (Chief -of-Party, Deputy Chief-of-Party, Senior Program leaders, Chief of Staff, or Country Director) in managing large (at least $15 million), complex agricultural development programs with a private sector/ multi-value chain development focus, preferably within Africa.

o Experience collaborating across activities and strong communications and interpersonal skills, with ability to productively interact with a wide range and levels of organizations (government, private sector, other projects, and NGOs).

4. Question: Can USAID please provide tables listing the intervention woredas of each of the USAID projects in the FTF portfolio, notably for AMDe, LMD, GRAD and ENGINE?

Answer: USAID confirms that it has provided a table of woredas where AGP I and AGP II, AMDe, LMD, GRAD and ENGINE work or have worked. The ACC clusters are described and explained in the ACC presentation provided by ATA. The information can be found at www.fbo.gov. The exact number of woredas to be included in this activity depends, in part, on the strategy proposed by the offeror. We note that the Ministry of Livestock is not mentioned as a key partner in the RFP. Is this an oversight given important role this Ministry plays for livestock and the desired enabling environment improvements?

5. Question: We note that the Ministry of Livestock is not mentioned as a key partner in the RFP. Is this an oversight given important role this Ministry plays for livestock and the desired enabling environment improvements?

Answer: USAID confirms that the Offeror must work with the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries (MOLF) as a key partner. Section C.3.3.2 (Page 9): USAID has indicated that poultry is subject to a value chain and cost benefit analysis before it will be included in the activity; please confirm that bidders are permitted to develop strategies to support the poultry value chain as part of the broader technical approach?

6. Question: Section C.3.3.2 (Page 9): USAID has indicated that poultry is subject to a value chain and cost benefit analysis before it will be included in the activity;

please confirm that bidders are permitted to develop strategies to support the poultry value chain as part of the broader technical approach?

Answer: USAID confirms that bidders must develop strategies to support the poultry value chain as part of the broader technical approach.

7. Question: Section C.3 Statement of Work: USAID has opted to assign indicators to specific sub-purposes. In our experience, many if not all indicators are the result of many activities, not only those under the specific sub-purposes. To reflect this, for purposes of the proposal and eventual implementation, will USAID consider aggregating all indicators at the end of Section C?

Answer: USAID declines to aggregate the indicators at the back of Section C.

8. Question: Section C.3.5 Results Framework (Page 11): The table of targets for gross-margins specifies targets for maize, coffee, and chickpea on a per-ton basis. Given that FTF guidance specifies that gross margins should be calculated per unit of production, http://www.fbo.gov/ would USAID kindly confirm whether gross-margins targets for these commodities are intended to be on a per-hectare basis?

Answer: Gross margins are to be calculated at the farm gate following the Feed the Future Indicator Handbook. Gross margins for maize, coffee and chickpea are intended calculated on $USD/hectare. Please see ANNEX II: AGP-AMDE-ANNUAL Survey March to July, 2015 for more information on units and baselines for maize, coffee and chickpea. The gross margins for livestock, sheep, and goats were calculated by LMD ($USD/live animal). Please see the amended RFP (Table - Purpose) for the corrections to the units and for the baseline and targets.

9. Question: Sub-purpose 1, Output 1.1 (Page 14): In the paragraph preceding the indicator table, USAID states that “annual targets allow for slow startup and then nearly linear progress”. However, a number of indicators are linear. For example, Output 1.1 “Value of inputs purchased by smallholder farmers” and Output 2.2 “4.5.2-38: Value of new private sector investment” indicator, which are linear or nearly-linear. Are bidders permitted to make adjustments to annual targets in line with their technical approach?

Answer: . The reference to "slow "growth was focused on the first year in which little of any intervention will have significant output or intermediate results. The years 2-5 were set as fairly linear. USAID further understands that offeror strategies are likely to lead to different target achievement patterns. As such, in the proposal, the offeror is encouraged to specify the patterns that it expects its own strategy to produce. Note the variance with the targets provided by USAID but do not try to create a strategy that mimics the annual targets.

10. Question: Sub-purpose 1, Output 1.2 (Page 15): Section C.3.8.2 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) (Page: 34): The first indicator for Output 1.2 has a target of 1.53 million farmers, however Section C.3.8.2 GIS requires bidders to geo-reference activity sites. Is USAID concerned that all individual beneficiaries have GIS data if they are to be counted?

Answer: USAID is moving towards a GIS approach to monitor and evaluate activities.

USAID encourages the offeror to discuss how it might use geo-referencing for its own M&E (even if at geographic scale of a kebeles, woreda, village, cluster, etc.) to provide location specific information about beneficiaries.

11. Question: Sub-factor 1, Output 1.3, Expected Outcomes (Page 17): USAID has proposed baselines and targets for two indicators with targets for the percentage households in the ZOI reporting women and children having a minimally acceptable diet. We would like USAID to confirm whether it intends for the contractor to be responsible for generating this data for all FTF ZOI kebeles and woredas at a statistically representative level on an annual basis, or only the target AGPII woredas where the project is operating?

Answer: USAID confirms that third-parties will be responsible for measuring results oriented indicators for the FTF ZOIs. The Selected Contractor will be responsible for taking measurements that are in the area of its own manageable interest such as the baseline, surveys, and indicators such as yield, gross margin, adoption of new technologies, post-harvest losses, nutrition, policy status, finance, women’s participation in cooperatives.

12. Sub-purpose 2, Output 2.5 (Page 24): USAID has identified the objective “Output 2.5:

Increased Trade in Domestic, Regional and International Markets” and proposes baseline and target figures for “4.5.2-36: Value of exports ($USD millions)”; please confirm how the baseline figures were identified and whether the baseline and targets also include trade in “domestic and regional markets”.

Answer: . Please see the amended RFP for Table Output 2.5. The baseline and target values have been revised. The export baseline data come from FTFMS, which calculates trade data attributable to USAID activities. The volume traded for maize, coffee and chickpea production (metric tons/year) is derived from FTFMS and is attributable to USAID activities. USAID assumes all of that is produced is traded. Livestock and dairy baselines and targets were taken from the AGP Baseline data report (available from ATA. The offeror is encouraged to derive target values based on its own Technical Approach and to briefly discuss in its M&E section how it might measure the indicators to get valid and reliable figures for export and domestic trade.

13. Question: Sub-purpose 3 (Page 24): USAID refers to Ethiopia new Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition and states that “this activity will assist the GoE, particularly ATA, to implement its reform agenda.” Is there a recent (2015) progress report on implementation of the Alliance and of the individual policy commitments identified in the original agreement?

Answer: USAID confirms there is a new draft. It is available on www.fbo.gov

14. Question : Sub-purpose 3, Indicator Tables (Pages 25; 27-30): We note that one indicator (Page 25), “….Number of new standardized methods used by MoA staff of for value chain policy making competing the below steps/stages: 1. ATA Road Map; 2.

Stakeholder consultation; 3. Method approval; 4. Method installation and testing; 5. Full implementation” is identified for all of Sub-Purpose 3, but is then repeated for Outputs 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3, with similar targets identified for each Outcome.

Would USAID consider deleting this indicator under the individual outputs and only include it as a roll-up indicator for all of Sub-Purpose 3?

Can USAID clarify whether the Output-specific targets are cumulative (40) or whether the targets are shared across the entire Sub-purpose (10)?

In the indicator table on Page 25, there is only one set of targets between the standard indicator (4.5.1-21) and the customized indicator in the same table. The full description of the standard indicator, as defined by BFS, does not match the http://www.fbo.gov/ process provided in the table. Could USAID please clarify the process description in this table?

Answer: See the amended RFP, Section C. Sub-Purpose 3 (pages 25, 27-30). The Indicator values for the Outputs 3.1, 3.2. and 3.3 have been rolled up into a single table for Sub-Purpose 3. All of outputs can be addressed by Indicator 4.5.1-24 (see Feed the Future Indicator Handbook, October 2014, pg. 70). USAID agrees that the indicators for Sub-Purpose 3 can and should be rolled up into a single table " Sub-Purpose 3:

Improved Enabling Environment in Support of Agricultural Transformation."

Additional language in the RFP should clarify the relationship between the Sub-Purpose table and the expected results for the outputs.

“The expected result is an improved enabling environment that supports agricultural transformation. Since each of the outputs and the sub-purpose can be treated by an identical standard Feed the Future Indicator, the baseline, life of project target, and annual targets are rolled up into the table for the Sub-Purpose 3. For clarity, the indicator is disaggregated by Outputs 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. The life of project target is 30 reforms, 10 for each output. The pace of reform is identical. Half will be achieved by year 4 and the other half by year 5.”

The indicator definition is (again, pg. 70) "Number of agricultural and nutritional enabling environment policies completing the following processes/steps of development as a result of USG assistance in each case:

Stage 1: Analysis Stage 2: Stakeholder consultation/public debate Stage 3: Drafting or revision Stage 4: Approval (legislative or regulatory) Stage 5: Full and effective implementation"

In order to preserve the distinction between human and institutional capacity development of the GoE (Output 3.1), the general business enabling environment (Output 3.2) and the New Alliance reforms (Output 3.3), the number of reforms will be disaggregated within the same table so that 3 lines of effort will each yield 10 policy reforms by year five, totaling 30 for the indicator. The pace will remain identical. Half of the reforms for each of the lines of effort will occur by year 4 and the remaining will be complete by year 5.

The indicator for Output 3.2 “Events at which MSPs discuss major value chain issues” has been deleted and will not be used. The Offeror should identify the forums and means by which policy dialogue occurs between the stakeholders.

15. Question: Sub-purpose 2, Output 2.1 (Page 19): There are inconsistencies for maize between the Life of project target and the Year 5 target; can USAID please confirm which figure is correct?

Answer: USAID has updated the target values for Maize, Post-Harvest Loss. Please see the amended RFP..

16. Question : Section F.6 Reporting Requirements, 7. Cost Benefit and Value Chain Analysis (Page 47): “USAID did cost benefit analysis (CBA) and value chain analyses for maize, coffee, chickpea, livestock (meat and livestock), and dairy.” Would USAID make these documents available?

Answer: USAID confirms that the documents are made available via www.fbo.gov and/or at https://www.dec.usaid.gov. Section F.8.1 (iii) DCOP Finance and Administration (Page 53): Are additional years of relevant experience managing complex finance and administrative operations for large scale projects acceptable in lieu of completion of a Master’s Degree?

Answer: USAID concurs. The language for the Deputy Chief of Party Finance and Administration has been amended in the RFP. It now reads as follows.

Minimum Qualifications:

o Master’s Degree or 7 years of work experience in business administration, finance, law, compliance or related area of study o Five years of experience in managing complex activities of $15 M, preferably within the context of agricultural value chain development in Africa.

o At least 5 years of accounting, financial management with additional grant administration experience preferred.

o Excellent verbal and written communication skills.

o Experience in computer based information and communications management.

o Good knowledge of the management and coordination of GUCs is preferred.

17. Question: Section L.8 I. Technical Approach (Page 113); Section M.2 (a) (Page 131):

Section L requirements do not explicitly call for an Illustrative Work Plan, however, the technical evaluation criteria states that “The feasibility of the interventions must be evidenced by the integration of the technical discussion, illustrative work plan….”

Would USAID please clarify if they are expecting to see an Illustrative Work Plan in the technical proposal?

If so, would the government consider allowing bidders to put the Illustrative Work Plan in an Annex, excluded from the page count?

Answer: USAID confirms that an Illustrative Work Plan is required. It may be included in an Annex exclusive of the 35 page limit.

18. Question : Section L.8 I. Technical Approach (Pages 113-114): Would USAID confirm that the illustrative M&E Plan must include information on how the specified requirements will be addressed in the project’s M&E plan, rather than the specific requirements themselves, as their inclusion is infeasible at the proposal stage?

https://www.dec.usaid.gov/

Answer: USAID confirms that the illustrative M&E plan must include information on how the specified requirements will be addressed. It does not expect the specific requirements in the proposal. Page 113 of the RFP states that the following annexes are to be included with the technical proposal:

Annex A – Illustrative Monitoring and Evaluation Plan Annex B – Resumes (Personnel) Annex C – Letters of Commitment (Key Personnel) Annex D – Staffing Plan Annex E – Mobilization Plan Annex F – Past Performance Reports Annex G – Branding and Marking Strategy (IAW section D.2)

Question: May offerors include annexes beyond this list? Some examples may be letters of association from partner organizations, or maps supporting the overall technical and management approach.

Answer: USAID confirms that the offerors may include an annex for the illustrative work plan. Offerors may not include letters of associations from partner organizations.

Maps may be included as an annex exclusive of the 35 page limit. Regarding this text on page 13 of the RFP: “The indicator on quantity of nutrient rich value chain foods is a new Feed the Future indicator.” Is a Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) available for this new indicator?

19. Regarding this text on page 13 of the RFP: “The indicator on quantity of nutrient rich value chain foods is a new Feed the Future indicator.” Is a Performance Indicator

Reference Sheets (PIRS) available for this new indicator?

Answer: The indicator is new. The Performance Indicator Reference Sheet is not yet available. For the purpose of the proposal, USAID recommends that the offeror discuss how it might adopt a new indicator in its discussion about monitoring and evaluation.

20. Question: Regarding this text on page 15 of the RFP: “4.5.2-5: Number of farmers and others who have applied new technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance.”

The PIRS for this indicator requires either direct observation during implementation or interviews with farmers to confirm application and whether this application is new or continuing. Given that this indicator targets millions of farmers annually in later years, would USAID be willing to provide guidance on how this indicator has been tracked and verified in the past?

Answer: Please use Feed the Future Indicator 4.5.2 (5), the title of which is "Number of farmers and others who have applied improved technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance." The PIRS is on page 70 of the Feed the Future Indicator Handbook. USAID invites the offeror to discuss how it would approach measuring the indicator as part of its section on monitoring and evaluation.

21. Question: On page 15 of the RFP, USAID states that the target for farmers applying new technologies or management practices, 1.53 million, “reflects the ambitions of AGP II.” Is this figure intended as the target for all five components and 21 value chains of AGP II or for the Value Chain Activity alone?

Answer:. The figure of 1.53 million beneficiaries is ostensibly for all of the value chains of AGP. Since this activity is essential to Component 4 of the AGPII, and there are six value chains which will be addressed over the course of five years, USAID decided to leave that figure as the primary target.

22. Question: Please confirm that the LOP target for maize, on page 18 of the RFP, should be 11.7 and not 10.0. In addition, the LOP for cattle is 1.74 and the Yr. 5 value is 1.73.

Answer: USAID confirms that the correct target value for maize is 11.7. The value for Cattle in Year 5 is 1.74. Please see the amended RFP for Output 2.1. P. 9 Section C.3.3.2.

The final paragraph seems to imply that USAID intends to support ATA’s effort in three additional commodities- wheat, sesame and honey. Could USAID please clarify that “in parallel to investments made through the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity” specifically instructs offerors to include proposed activities for these three activities.

23. Question: P. 9 Section C.3.3.2. The final paragraph seems to imply that USAID intends to support ATA’s effort in three additional commodities- wheat, sesame and honey. Could USAID please clarify that “in parallel to investments made through the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity” specifically instructs offerors to include proposed activities for these three activities.

Answer: USAID confirms that the USG will provide ATA with financial support for wheat, sesame, and honey through contribution to the trust fund. While the Offeror should collaborate with the ATA where possible, it is not responsible for providing technical assistance for the ATA value chains and will focus only on the value chains for which USAID is responsible under this activity. The Offeror should briefly describe how it might support ATA's work on the three value chains. P. 43 Section F.6. There appears to be language missing at the bottom of page 43. The current language states “The Selected Contractor will consult with USAID, MoANR, ATA, and relevant stakeholders, including USAID/Ethiopia Feed the Future implementing partners, other donors’ implementing partners, and national actors in the agricultural sector, both private and public to” Could USAID kindly clarify this sentence?

24. Question: P. 43 Section F.6. There appears to be language missing at the bottom of page 43. The current language states

“The Selected Contractor will consult with USAID, MoANR, ATA, and relevant stakeholders, including USAID/Ethiopia Feed the Future implementing partners, other donors’ implementing partners, and national actors in the agricultural sector, both private and public to”

Could USAID kindly clarify this sentence?

Answer: The sentence should read " The Selected Contractor will consult with USAID, MoANR, ATA, and relevant stakeholders, including USAID/Ethiopia Feed the Future implementing partners, other donors’ implementing partners, and national actors in the agricultural sector, both private and public to develop a detailed draft annual work plan and budget for submission 60 calendar days after the award." Please see the amended

RFP.

25. Question: P. 52. Section F.8. The qualifications of the DCOP Technical include experience managing complex agricultural development programs with a private sector focus. Can USAID clarify if the agricultural development programs referenced need to be donor funded, or rather would USAID also consider agricultural development programs within the Government of Ethiopia, ATA and/or the private sector?

Answer: USAID concurs and has modified the minimum requirements. Please see the amended RFP. It is included here for convenience.

Minimum Qualifications:

o Master’s degree in international development, agriculture, livestock management, nutrition, economics or related field of study or have 7 years of work experience in agricultural development.

o Five years of experience in managing large (at least $8 million), complex agricultural development programs with a private sector/ multi-value chain development focus, preferably within Africa.

o Excellent verbal and written communication skills. Significant experience in policy and institutional development and coordination skills.

26. Question: Could USAID kindly provide the 2015 Annual Reports for AMDe and LMDe that would have been submitted last year?

Answer: USAID confirms that all the most recent reports for AMD and LMD are available at https://www.dec.usaid.gov. RFP. Would USAID provide the Scope of Work, Indicators, Baseline and Performance Targets for the ATA project referenced on page 9 as well as the timing of the project start?

Answer: USAID confirms that has made the updated version of the ATA Project Implementation Manual (PIM) at www.fbo.gov. Thanks to MOA and ATA for making the document available.

27. Question: In areas of Tigray that do not produce maize, chickpea, or coffee, does USAID intend for offerors to engage in additional value chains or other types of activities to engage smallholder farmers, beyond the livestock value chains?

Answer: USAID confirms that it will support the smallholder farmers in the value chains which are relevant to this activity. It will provide technical support for value chains in Tigray to the extent reasonable.

28. Question: Does USAID have a methodology by which to evaluate targets and achievements under extreme circumstances beyond management control such as drought and large fluctuations in global commodity prices?

Answer: USAID monitors drought circumstances using networks like the Famine Early Warning Systems network (FEWS NET). It also monitors the global markets. Targets are re-assessed annually as part of the work plan process.

29. Question: Can USAID provide the source of the information cited on page 11 that states, “Most of the value chains are predominantly managed by women or affect the income and nutritional options of female headed households.”

Answer: This is based on our collected impression at USAID. We are not aware of a strict time allocation study for the allocation of gender across these value chains. No source can be provided.

30. Question: Can USAID clarify what it means by ‘other direct input supply systems’ on page 14 (e.g., would input distribution outlets in a kebele count as a direct input supply system)?

Answer: USAID confirms that other direct input supply systems would include distribution outlets.

31. Question: On page 19, can USAID clarify what is meant by “postharvest loss at the farm gate”?

Answer: USAID confirms that by postharvest loss at the farm gate to mean the percentage of produce the small holder cannot sell due to spoilage or damage.

32. Question: On page 20, can USAID clarify what is meant by “financial access models currently working in East Africa as well”.

Answer: USAID was referring to the growth of branchless Banking and Mobile money

33. Question: Would USAID consider making “Objective 4.5.2-38 Value of new private sector investment in the agriculture sector or food chain leveraged by FTF implementation ($ US millions)” a phased objective (page 20)?

Answer: If the questioner means cumulative, yes. Please see the revised RFP. Should you wish to consider a phased objective as part of your technical approach, please explain how it would work and what the subsequent targets will be.

34. Question: On page 21, does the “Value of Agricultural and Rural Loans ($ US millions)” include loans made through VSLAs, RUSACOs, or suppliers (etc.) or only through formal financial channels?

Answer: USAID confirms that the indicator includes formal financial channels (banks, microfinance firms) as well as Rural Savings and Credit Associations (RUSACOs) and village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs) but it does not include suppliers.

Furthermore, it is constrained to mean financing provided through USG assistance.

35. Question: Do non-financial supporting services count towards the target if such services are offered in value chains other than those specified in the RFP?

Answer: USAID would have to consider the value chain and service once specified.

Please elaborate as part of your technical approach.

36. Question: Under Output 2.3 on page 22, does the “number of private sector advisory service associations” include private sector providers individually or do they have be both in a group and counted as a single collective? Do embedded services count for purposes of this target?

Answer: USAID expects that the private sector advisors will belong to groups that interact to improve value chain operations. Embedded services will count in so far as the groups provide them. It is expected that the individual private sector providers will act independently.

37. Question: Can USAID clarify what it means by ‘measurable’ under “lead firms must…provide measurable material and business support” on page 22?

Answer: Measurable implies physical goods, money, and services, not simply agreements or reports of the provision of services. The support must be auditable.

38. Question: Please share the annual reports listed on page 8 - USAID/Ethiopia’s Feed the Future AGP, Agribusiness and Market Development (AMDe), AGP-Livestock Market Development (LMD), Capacity to Improve Agriculture and Food Security (CIAFS), Ethiopia Sustainable Agribusiness Incubator (ESAI), USAID-ATA Commercial Farm Service Centers, the USAID-DuPont-Pioneer Advanced Maize Seed Adoption Program (AMSAP), the Empowering New Generations with Improved Nutrition and Economic

Opportunity (ENGINE) and its follow-on “Growth through Nutrition”, and Agriculture Knowledge Learning Documentation and Policy (AKLDP) .

Answer: USAID confirms that it has searched for and found these reports at the Development Experience Clearing House - https://www.dec.usaid.gov

39. Question: Can USAID clarify whether it includes other types of production (e.g., kitchen gardens) as ‘nutrient rich production’?

Answer: . Yes, kitchen gardens count as they are part of the householder production and contribute to household nutrition.

40. Question: Would USAID consider including reductions in foreign exchange requirements through import substitution in addition to direct exports as a measure?

Answer: USAID declines to include reductions in foreign exchange requirements through import substitution.

41. Question: Can USAID clarify whether offerors should count activities with married female farmers toward gender objectives and/or as separate farmers, where activities involve both spouses?

Answer: USAID expects that married female farmers to be counted towards the gender objectives even where spouses are included in the activities.

42. Question: On page 17 under Output 1.3, can USAID clarify the age group to be targeted under “Percentage of households in the ZOI reporting that women have a minimally acceptably diverse diet (4 food groups),” i.e., does this include only women of childbearing age?

Answer: USAID confirms that the indicator pertains only to women of childbearing age.

43. Question: If the offeror proposes to layer interventions with Engine/Growth for Nutrition, how should beneficiaries be attributed to each project (or to both projects)?

Answer: USAID confirms that each project will attribute according to its own work objectives. Attribution will be considered as part of the M&E coordination with ATA, USAID, and other donors.

44. Question: Page 7 of the RFP states, “Under AGP II, the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity will contribute to the GoE’s objective to improve agricultural productivity and the commercialization of smallholder farmers”. Can USAID clarify what it means by commercialization? Does this include only farmers who are not currently engaging in significant net selling of the target VCs or does it also include farmers who increase the proportion of their product that is sold?

Answers: USAID confirms that commercialization means the sale of goods for markets.

It includes all of those farmers who may or may not currently sell on a market. The change in commercialization may include an increase in the volume and/or percentage of produce sold in the market.

45. Question: On page 34, USAID states, “The Selected Contractor must incorporate collaborative learning and adaptive management (CLA) as part of its facilitation approach. CLA will coordinate with all relevant Feed the Future activities and complement more rigorous evaluations with a “learning as you go” process, using ongoing evaluative activities that inform learning, understanding adoption processes and subsequent adaptive management based on that learning”. Do such evaluations need to be conducted by third parties?

Answer: USAID confirms that evaluations will be conducted by third parties. USAID also confirms that the offeror may also be asked to provide quick analyses that contribute to learning in those circumstances. These are, however, not to be full scale analyses but rather short reports.

46. Question: Can USAID provide the updated Feed the Future Ethiopia strategy document since the version publicly available expired in 2015?

Answer: USAID has not updated the Feed the Future Strategy. The previous strategy remains in effect.

47. Question: Can USAID make available the CIAFS needs assessment referenced in the

RFP?

Answer: The CIAFS needs assessment for both the private and public sectors can be found at www.dec.usaid.gov

48. Question: Under the requirements for the Crop Value Chain Advisor and the Livestock Value Chain Advisor there is a requirement for each position that begins, “Seven years of experienced related for profit agribusiness or value chain development…..” Can USAID please clarify if these requirements are meant to read “Seven years of experience related to for-profit agribusiness….” or otherwise please clarify this requirement for these positions?

Answer: . Please see the amended RFP for the new language for the minimum requirements for the position. The intent of the requirement is that the individuals have the analytical skills and practical experience related to commercialization as well as food security and agronomy. This activity is trying to achieve both.

Minimum Qualifications:

o Master’s Degree in crop production, agriculture, agribusiness, agricultural economics or related field is required or 7 years work experience.

o Five years of professional work experience in crop production and/or crop protection, or food security, value chain development including facilitation, agribusiness, marketing and financial services, private sector development, and enabling environment policy reforms.

o Excellent verbal and written communication skills.

o Advanced ICT skills.

o Five years of experience with gender mainstreaming.

49. Question: Under C.3.6.8 Disability Inclusion on p.g. 33 of the RFP, would USAID provide more information on the range of disabilities that should be incorporated into program planning and monitoring.

Answer: The offeror should define the range of disabilities it feels should be incorporated as part of its technical approach and personnel. USAID encourages the questioner to review the USAID website on disability https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/democracy-human-rights-and-governance/protecting-human-rights/disability.

50. Question: May offerors submit CVs for non-key personnel?

Answer: USAID confirms that it is not requesting CVs for non-key personnel. Please do NOT include them in the proposal..

51. Question: On page 18, the table titled “Sub purpose 2: Strengthened Inclusive Market Systems and Trade”, the life of project cattle target is listed as 1.74 but the annual target achievements for year 5 is 1.73. Could USAID confirm what the target is?

Answer: USAID confirms the target for year 5 is 1.74. Please see the amended RFP for the new value in Table Sub-Purpose 2..

52. Question: On page 19, the table titled “Sub purpose 2.1 : Strengthened Market Access & Organization of the Market System”, the life of project post-harvest loss coffee target is 13% but the year 1-5 targets are less than this target. Could USAID confirm what the target is?

Answer: The targets for post-harvest loss for coffee have been changed. Please see the amended RFP, Table Output 2.1. .

53. Question: On page 19, the table titled “Sub purpose 2.1 : Strengthened Market Access & Organization of the Market System”, the life of project post-harvest loss chickpea target is 3.2% but the year 3-4 targets are less than this target. Could USAID confirm what the target is?

Answer: The targets for post-harvest loss for chickpea have been changed. Please see the amended RFP, Table Output 2.1..

54. Question: On page 26 under Output 3.1, the RFP references the following documents “the ATA roadmap for support for the Policy and Planning Directorate of the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources must be referenced as well as the CIAFS capacity assessment”. Could USAID provide these documents

Answer: USAID confirms that it provided the ATA roadmap PowerPoint presentation at www.fbo.gov. Thanks to the Government of Ethiopia for allowing USAID to provide it.

55. Question: On page 9 of the RfP, USAID mentions that “this activity includes five value-chains covered in AGP-I and six of the possible AGIP-II value chains.” Would USAID provide a complete list of all eleven value chains that are the focus of this activity?

Answer: USAID confirms that this activity is focused on 1) maize, 2) coffee, 3) chickpea,

4) livestock (cattle, goats, and sheep), 5) dairy, and perhaps 6) poultry. The offeror may make narrower distinctions regarding specific value chains but for the purposes of this activity, USAID counts six value chains

56. Question: On page 20, given the low mobile penetration rates and the limited development of the telecoms industry in Ethiopia, can USAID provide more guidance on expectations regarding the magnitude of “scale-up” expected for existing mobile financial products?

Answer: USAID confirms that ATA intends to scale up its use of Mobil and financial products. USAID cannot provide more explicit guidance. This is a matter which could inform the offeror's strategy. USAID encourages bidders to consult with ATA.

57. On page 47 of the RFP, USAID states that the Selected Contractor is expected to do rigorous baseline survey and revise/set baseline and targets for all indicators within six months of the date of the award. Given that proposals will develop activities using the targets include in this solicitation, can USAID confirm that the Selected Contractors will have the opportunity to revise activities, if necessary, following the revision of indicators?

Answer: USAID confirms that activities will be revisited on an annual basis as part of the normal process of developing the work plan. The baseline analysis will inform the first year's plan. Where there is reason to modify the activities, USAID will consider it in consultation with all of the appropriate stakeholders.

58. In page 47, USAID mentions that cost benefit and value chain analyses for maize, coffee, chickpeas, livestock and dairy have already been completed. Would USAID be willing to share the results of these analyses?

Answer: USAID confirms that it are made available with these questions at www.fbo.gov and/or https://www.dec.usaid.gov. AMDe and LMD released value chain analyses and cost-benefit analyses for the relevant value chains. Dalberg also recently completed several value chain analyses which ATA is allowing to be provided on www.fbo.gov.

59. On page 12, the table titled “Sub purpose 1: Increased Nutrition sensitive productivity of targeted value chains”, how is yield of livestock in metric tons measured? For example is this metric tons sold per farmer per year? Or weight of the herd per year?

Answer: . USAID's current activity measures yield as the total metric tons delivered by beneficiaries to feeding lots per year. Thus, USAID beneficiaries delivered 5.4 thousand metric tons of cattle to feeding lots in 2015 as well as .79 thousand metric tons of sheep and 1.4 thousand metric tons of goats. This measure is biased towards lowland farmers who have 1 hectare of land on average. There are no estimated yields for milk (liters/animal/day for sheep and goats, only cows. The Offeror is encouraged to briefly discuss how it might directly measure yield for small holders in its M&E section. See the amended RFP for the updated units, baseline and targets..

60. Page 14, Clause C 3.5, Results Framework, Sub-purpose 1, Subparagraph 1.2, Output Table 1.1, value of inputs target, Year 4 states, 13. M1.

Question: The Offeror respectfully requests a clarification of that target to be $13.1M?

Answer: The value should read 13.1 M

61. Page 15, Clause C 3.5, Results Framework, Sub-purpose 1, Sub clause 1.2, Improved Use of Technology, Illustrative Activities identifies, several specific activities.

Question: The Offeror respectfully suggests that these appear to be more relevant to Outcome 1.1, Input Supply Systems, than Outcome 1.2. Would USAID/Ethiopia confirm that these are the intended Outcome 1.2 activities?

Answer: As these are illustrative activities, the offeror is encouraged to develop technical approaches that focus on the illustrative activities it feels is most appropriate for each Sub-purpose.

62. Page 20, Clause C 3.5, Results Framework, Sub-purpose 2, Output 2.2, Increased Access to Financial Services, Output 2.2 Table, Targets states, the Value of New Investment overall target is 125M.

Question: The Offeror respectfully notes that the Year Five target of 25M does not match the overall target. Please confirm that the annual targets for the table are to-date totals for the end of each year.

Answer: USAID confirms that the target values are annual totals - not presented as cumulative. USAID has amended the Table in the RFP to make the values cumulative.

USAID also takes this opportunity to restate that the offeror is encouraged to present its technical approach along with a set of targets it feels is both consistent with the approach.

63. Pages 22, Clause C 3.5, Results Framework, Sub-purpose 2, Output 2.3, Increased Access to Non-Financial Services, Output 2.3 Table, provides annual target achievements.

Question: Please confirm that the annual targets for each table are to-date totals for the end of each year. For instance, an additional 52 groups will be reached in Year Five to attain the increase from 140 to 192 cumulative groups.

Answer: The target values are cumulative for Output 2.3 "Number of private sector advisory service associations/groups established in target woredas (disaggregated by value chain).

64. Page 23, Clause C 3.5, Results Framework, Sub-purpose 2, Output 2.4, Strengthened Lead Firms, Output 2.4 Table, provides annual target achievements.

Question: Please confirm that the annual targets for each table are to-date totals for the end of each year. For instance, an additional 150,000 small holder farmers will be reached in Year Five to attain the increase from 150,000 to 300,000 small holder farmers. In light of the anticipated in Year Four (an additional 50), reaching 150,000 new small holder farmers in Year Five seems unrealistic.

Answer: The offeror is encouraged to develop its technical approach and to provide the consequent targets. Please note the difference between RFP target and the proposed target.

65. Page 52, Section F8.1(i), Key Personnel, Crop Value Chain Advisor, requires, “Seven years of experience related for profit agribusiness….”

Question: The Offeror respectfully requests USAID/Ethiopia to provide a bit more clarification of the requirement and to consider requiring only five years of experience for this requirement.

Answer: . Please see the revised RPF for the new language regarding the minimal qualifications of the Crop Value Chain Advisor.

66. Page 52, Section F8.1(i), Key Personnel, Livestock Value Chain Advisor, requires, “Ten years of professional work experience in livestock production and/or protection, food security or relevant or related sector”.

Question: The Offeror respectfully requests that a broader pool of experienced candidates may be achieved for USAID/Ethiopia’s consideration and will allow a consistent level of staff experience in the management team of the project by reducing the experiential requirement to only 5 years of professional work experience.

Answer: USAID concurs and thanks the questioner for both the observation and the recommendation. The minimum requirements for the position now read:

Minimum Qualifications:

o Master’s Degree in livestock management, agriculture, agribusiness, agricultural economics or related field is required or 7 years of work experience.

o Five years of professional work experience in livestock production and/or protection, or food security, value chain development including facilitation, agribusiness, trade, marketing and financial service and private sector development.

o Excellent verbal and written communication skills.

o Advanced ICT skills.

o Five years of experience with gender mainstreaming.

67. Page 113, Section L.8, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, states, “Do not use a font type smaller than 11 pitch”.

Question: The Offeror respectfully requests that a smaller pitch be allowed for diagrams, graphics, tables and text boxes considering that the pitch is still an easily read font size?

Answer: USAID confirms the requirement to use nothing smaller than an 11 pitch.

68. Question : Page 125, Section L.10, Instructions for the Preparation of Branding and Marking Plan Strategy, first paragraph states, “In accordance with Section D of this solicitation, the apparent successful offeror, upon request of the Contracting Officer, will submit and negotiate a Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) and a Marking Plan (MP).”

The second paragraph states, “Offeror(s) should submit a preliminary [Branding Implementation Plan] and [Marking Plan] (not to exceed two pages) as a separate annex to the cost proposal. The BIP and MP will not be part of the technical evaluation.”

Question: Please confirm that no BIP nor MP are required as part of the initial submission of the proposal in either the technical nor the cost volume and only the apparent successful offeror will be required to submit such plans.

Answer: USAID confirms that illustrative Branding and Marking Plan is required as Annex G. A draft will be required only by the apparent successful offeror.

69. Question: P. 113 specifies that “the narrative must motivate an illustrative work plan for year one including mobilization (Annex E) and the branding strategy (Annex G).

Would you please clarify what this instruction means? For example, would USAID like to receive an illustrative work plan for year one as part of the Technical Approach? May we provide this as an additional Annex? If not, is there a page length limit on an illustrative first-year work plan?

70. Question: The instructions specify (p. 114) a number of items that should be provided in Section II Personnel in addition to the key personnel. However, Annex D provides for a staffing plan. May all of the items listed on p. 114 (copied below) be included in the staffing plan annex?

[((2) a list of both local and international STTA personnel and indicate the importance of each for the successful implementation of the activity; (3) a list of other technical and support staff required for the successful implementation of the project and (4) provide an organizational chart and identify their reporting relationships.

The Offeror must describe its proposed staffing plan for implementing the Statement of Work and demonstrate how the entire team will meet the technical requirements stated in Section C of the RFP and the deliverables described in section F.5. As part of the staffing plan, the Offeror must provide a supporting narrative that includes (2) the roles and/or duties of short-term technical staff and their proposed level of effort, (3) the selection process for engaging local Ethiopian entities as sub-contractors and or partners, and (4) the roles and/or potential contributions of short-term technical assistance (STTA) to the effective implementation of the activity.

To the maximum extent feasible, Offerors must strive to hire Ethiopians in key and non-key long term positions who demonstrate familiarity with the country’s private sector development and agricultural sector, have the requisite level of skills, and language and cultural expertise. The use of

Third Country Nationals in long-term positions requires strong justifications. It is the preference of USAID/Ethiopia that, to the extent possible, the Offeror engages short-term technical assistance resources available locally (in the East or Southern Africa Region) and actively promotes technical assistance from one developing country to another to foster diplomatic, business, and cultural cooperation and to minimize travel costs.

The Offeror must explain in the proposal how it will make gender, disability, and small business hires comprise an integral component of its personnel strategy].

Answer: USAID confirms that the offeror may include a list of STTA and LTA, technical and support staff, organizational charts, reporting relationships in Annex D. The Offer must explain the key managerial relationships and staffing of disability, gender, and other hires in the description of the management plan. It must explain in the Technical Approach how it intends to include US small businesses but can re-assert or extend the discussion of the inclusion of US small businesses in the management plan and Annex D.

71. Question: Since USAID’s LMD project still has several years of implementation remaining, can USAID please clarify how it envisions the scope of the two projects being complementary, so as to ensure there is no duplication of effort?

Answer: USAID confirms that LMD is scheduled to end July 31, 2017. Were this activity to commence as intended, it would not conflict with LMD. The new activity will have just finished its first work plan after submitting baseline, gender, environmental assessments, value chain assessments, cost-benefit analyses, and other deliverables.

Regardless, the Offeror is expected to identify means by which it would work with LMD while it is still operating.

72. Question: Can USAID provide a database or list of “graduates” from the GRAD project in order for offerors to think strategically about how best to “pull” these smallholders into the Activity’s various value chains?

Answer: USAID declines the request. The information pertains to individuals whose identities will not be published.

73. Question: The Instructions for the Management Plan (Section L.8, p. 115) state that, among other things, the “Offeror must discuss how management regulates linkages between the prime contractor and subcontractor, partner, joint venture entities as the organization is established and activities commenced.