Amendment_1_Questions_and_Clarifications_for_RFP___SOL-674-15-000028.pdf

RFP # SOL-674-15-000028

ATTACHMENT 1 – QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1) Reference: RFP Section C.4, page 14

The final paragraph of this section states, “Grants Under Contract of approximately $1.5 million over the life of the project will be made available to strengthen the capacity and encourage innovation and the application of new technologies among regional seed release institutions, seed trade associations and seed research institutions with the goal of improving the availability to high quality improved seed in the region.”

Question: Could USAID please clarify the exact amount to be budgeted and if there is flexibility to add more to that amount?

ANSWER: The $1.5 million is an estimate. As outlined in the RFP, Offerors should include a technical approach to using grants under contract (GUC) at/or about the level suggested in the RFP. Depending upon funds available and the strength of the technical approach of the application of GUC proposed by the Offeror to achieve the overall objectives, the exact amount of financial resources allocated to GUC could change during the implementation of the project.

Offerors’ proposals for developing and using GUC will be evaluated as part of the overall technical approach and other applicable evaluation factors.

2) Reference: RFP Section L.8.b, page 84

Budget line item A.3.c. is said to include “Training, Assessments, Analyses and other Direct Program Implementation Costs (not including internal labor costs or internal travel costs)”.

Question: Can USAID please confirm that all subcontracts to implementing partners should be included under this line item and not under a separate “Subcontracts” line item as referenced below in the Budget Line Item Definitions?

ANSWER: The total amount for proposed subcontracts should appear as a separate line item under "Other Direct Costs" in the Offeror’s master budget.

Question: Could USAID please confirm that grants under contract should also be included under line item A.3.c. and not under their own line item?

ANSWER: See above.

3) Reference: RFP Section L.8.b, page 84

The required budget line item headings include “Overhead” under both section “A. Direct Costs” and under section “B. Indirect Costs”.

Question: Could USAID please specify where indirect overhead costs should be included in the proposal budget?

ANSWER: General and Administrative (G&A) expenses and Overhead expenses are indirect costs. Place the result of the direct labor times and the overhead fringe rates under Direct Costs.

4) Reference: RFP Section L.8.b, page 84

The budget line item definition for fringe benefits states: FAR 31.205-6 provides for allowances and services provided by the Contractor to its employees as compensation in addition to regular wages and salaries.

Question: Could USAID please clarify whether fringe benefits for local staff be included under this line item under “1. Labor Costs” or as a separate line item under “3. Other Direct Costs”?

ANSWER: Fringe benefits for local staff are to be included under Labor Costs. Detailed breakdown is to be provided of percentage and/or amounts for fringe benefits and allowances listed separately for expatriates and local staff.

Question: Will USAID please provide the local compensation plans for Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Malawi?

ANSWER: Available local compensations pay ranges will be posted with Amendment 1 and the remaining will be posted as they are made available.

5) Reference: RFP Section L.8.b, page 84

The budget line item definition for Equipment and Supplies states that “costs should be broken down by types and units, and include an analysis that it is more advantageous to purchase than lease”.

Question: Could USAID please specify for which types of equipment and supplies this is necessary? It is the Offeror’s experience that certain types of equipment may not be possible to lease in the target countries.

ANSWER: It refers to commodities that can be leased; agricultural commodities and vehicles are examples.

6) Reference: RFP Section L.8.b, page 86

Section 6. Supporting Documents states that the Cost Proposal should include: “A certified version of the Contractor’s written personnel policies, including established pay scale for equivalent job classifications of employees”.

Question: The Offeror does not currently operate in all of the target countries and therefore does not have a local personnel policy for each of the countries. Could USAID please specify what information is being requested regarding local, expatriate or home office personnel policies?

ANSWER: Pay scales should be in accordance with Offeror’s regular practices and policies which are consistently applied to all donors/programs. In addition, local personnel policies will need to adhere to local employment laws.

Question: The Offeror typically establishes local salaries based on market rate and salary history. Given the variation of salary scales between countries, could USAID please specify what information is being required?

ANSWER: The market value of the position is the basis along with the employees certified salary history.

7) Reference: RFP Section L.8.b, page 86

Section 6. Supporting Documents states that the Cost Proposal should include: “written travel policies” and “procurement policies”.

Question: Could USAID please specify the level of detail that is being requested for each policy?

ANSWER: A copy of the Offeror’s policy and procedures manual pertaining to travel and procurement is required.

Question: Is USAID requesting that the Offeror include the full length of each policy as part of its proposal or can the Offeror submit certain sections pertaining to the information being requested by USAID?

ANSWER: See 7 above.

8) Page 9 of the RFP states: “The contractor must achieve the results (under 1.1 Improved Agricultural Productivity) indicated in the results framework in Figure 1.”

Question: Can USAID clarify which results and sub-results within the figure is the responsibility of the contractor? Although sub-result 1.1.1 ‘Increased Availability of Improved Seeds’ is clearly a mandate of HSR, the discussion in this section is not clear regarding 1.1.2 and 1.1.3.

ANSWER: Pages 10 – 12 Tables 1 and 2 provide more detail regarding the expected results and sub-results for 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 (figure 1. Page10). While 1.1.3 is not included in the tables, Harmonized Seed Regulations is a regional policy and full implementation will likely be facilitated by strengthened institutional capacity and evidence-based policy planning. To the extent this institutional capacity supports the implementation of the Regional Harmonized Seed Regulations, it should be included in Offerors’ technical proposals.

9) Question: In order to ensure personnel receive salaries that are equivalent to their grade level and for their country, will you please provide a LCP for each country?

ANSWER: See 4 above.

10) Page 83 of the RFP states, it is indicated that “The detailed budget must be provided in one large spreadsheet, with multiple worksheets by year that link to the overall summary budget, with unprotected and unlocked formulas.”

Question: To make it easier for the reviewers to read is it acceptable to submit a detailed budget with all 5 years on one worksheet?

ANSWER: One spreadsheet reflecting five years is permitted. However, please note zipped files are not acceptable. Please submit in as many emails as necessary to avoid exceeding the size limitation.

11) Page 15 of the RFP states that a mandatory FTF indicator is 4.5.2(11), “Number of food security private enterprise (for profit), producers organizations, water user associations, women’s groups, trade and business associations, and community –based organizations (CBOs) receiving USG assistance.” On the same page, the RFP states that a mandatory standard indicator is 4.5.2(27), “Number of producer organizations and community based organizations receiving USG assistance.”

Question: As these indicators are duplicative, would USAID consider removing indicator 4.5.2(27)?

ANSWER: In the question above, 4.5.2 (27) is misquoted. 4.5.2 (11) tracks the number of entities while 4.5.2 (27) tracks the number of producer association “members” [Number of members of producer organizations and community-based organizations receiving USG assistance]. Both indicators are required.

12) Page 15 of the RFP states that a mandatory custom indicator is 1, “Sustainable business model for regional seed release and certification operational.”

Question: “Can USAID please provide its desired or required indicators and measures for sustainability of the model?”

ANSWER: Please refer to section C.2 Scope, items 2 and 3 on page 8. A sustainable business model is expected to be self-financing by the end of the project.

2. Design and develop a sustainable business model in consultation with the regional key stakeholders for implementing and administering the SADC HSR. The administrative model is expected to be self - financing by the end of the project;

3. Provide technical assistance for the implementation and management of the administrative model adopted by the regional seed sector stakeholders for Seed Variety Testing, Registration and Release and Seed Certification and Quality Assurance

13) On page 16, the RFP states that a mandatory custom indicator is 8, “Number of new technologies or management practices made available for a transfer as a result of USG assistance.”

Question: Can USAID please provide its desired or required indicators and measures for sustainability of the model?

ANSWER: Please see custom indicator 2, page 15. 2. Percent of regional HSR administrative system costs covered by revenues generated – for example application fees, certification fees, maintaining varieties on regional catalogue, etc. This indicator addresses the financial sustainability of the Harmonized Seed Regulation administration. Offerors are free to propose additional indicators regarding the sustainable business model to administer the HSRs.

14) On page 40, the RFP states that, “An Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) has been approved for the activity funding this RFP.”

Question: Can USAID please make this IEE available?

ANSWER: The IEE is attached to Amendment 1.

15) Section L.6, Page 76 indicates that proposals must remain available for acceptance by USAID for the period specified in block 12 of standard form 33. However, block 12 is left blank.

Question: Can USAID kindly clarify the requested validity period of this proposal?

ANSWER: Sixty calendar days unless a different period is inserted by the Offeror, as per block 12.

16) Section H.16, Page 40 states that the IEE is approved.

Question: Can USAID clarify the IEE conditions relevant to this activity and confirm that an EMPP is required to address these?

ANSWER: Please see the IEE, attached to Amendment 1.

17) Question: If an EMPP is required, could USAID clarify if an EMMP is required for each country or is one EMMP for the entire region sufficient?

ANSWER: EMMPs are developed by activity. Each Implementing Partner (IP) whose activities are subject to one or more conditions set out in section 3 of the attached IEE shall develop and provide for C/AOR review and approval an Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) documenting how their project will implement and verify all IEE conditions that apply to their activities. These EMMPs shall identify how the IP shall assure that IEE conditions that apply to activities supported under subcontracts and subgrant are implemented. (In the case of large subgrants or subcontracts, the IP may elect to require the subgrantee/subcontractor to develop their own EMMP.) See the IEE attached to Amendment 1, for further guidance.

18) Section H. 16 seems to have some missing provisions since the numbering of the paragraphs is not sequential.

Question: Can USAID please clarify that none of the missing provisions apply to this contract?

ANSWER: There are no missing provisions. The numbering is dependent upon the environmental recommendations from the IEE.

19) Question: Can USAID/Southern Africa clarify the support currently provided to SADC Seed Center? Will this support continue and if not, what provision should be considered for direct support to SADC Seed Center?

ANSWER: USAID has not provided direct support to the SADC Seed Centre. USAID has provided a grant to the International Water Management Institute through the CGIAR system to support the strengthening of evidence-based agricultural policy analysis, research networks and the advancement of the CAADP agenda in the region. As part of that grant, IWMI supported interim, technical, management capacity for SADC Seed Centre functions as well as support for consultative processes necessary to advance the implementation of the Harmonized Seed Regulations in the region. The USAID support for these activities will end September 30, 2015.

Through this request for proposals (RFP) USAID is seeking technical approaches by Offerors to provide support for the Harmonized Seed Regulations to become fully implemented in the region. SADC has developed a charter for the formal establishment of the Seed Centre to become the administrative entity to implement the HSR. The charter is expected to be considered for approval this year by the Council of Ministers. If the charter is approved, the SADC Seed Centre would become the designated entity to administer and implement the SADC HSR. It is expected that the Seed Centre will require broad capacity development, including the development of a sustainable business model as well as key technical human resources to fulfill its mandate. See section C.2 page 8 for a more detailed discussion.

20) Section I.4 page 47 we note that provision 52.247-67 Submission of Transportation Documents for Audit (February 2006) was included in this section of the RFP. The statement of work does not appear to require shipment as part of the results. As the provision is spelled out in full, instead of simply incorporated by reference, we believe that there was an intention to flag this provision as something more important than the cargo preference provisions that are incorporated by reference: 52.247-63 and 52.247-64. In our experience, it appears that in many cases provisions 52.247-63 and 52.247-64 are included in a contract, but 52.247-67 is not.

Question: Would you please explain the rationale behind the inclusion and complete citation of this provision, 52.247-67 Submission of Transportation Documents for Audit (February 2006)?”

ANSWER: This clause has been deleted.

21) Section L.7, page 79 requires Offerors to present a maximum of 3 pages of narrative on the proposed approach for performance management and M&E system(s). Section M M.2/4, on page 92 suggests that evaluators expect to see described a PMEP. Additionally the list of required annexes on page 77 does not include an illustrative/draft PMEP.

Question: Could USAID please clarify or confirm that it is/is not seeking submission of a draft PMEP as part of this proposal, whether in the main body or annexes?

ANSWER: The final draft Performance Management and Evaluation Plan (PMEP) is expected to be provided to the COR within 90 days of contract award date. For purposes of the RFP, the Offeror’s proposed approach to performance management will be evaluated based upon the degree to which it:

4.1 Describes a Performance Management and Evaluation Plan (PMEP) that logically links to project management and decision-making processes; establishes baselines and ambitious, but achievable, targets and indicators (FTF required and custom) that provide measurement of the project’s progress towards results;

4.2 Details strong and sound M&E, including appropriate personnel, data collection and data quality assurance methods and a learning framework, that demonstrates understanding of the FTF program; and

4.3 Integrates gender in the PMEP with clear performance gender-disaggregated indicators that demonstrate progress in minimizing gender-based constraints and highlights how to address gender disparities in regional seed value chains.

Offerors will determine how they will present their approach to describing the PMEP in the offer, following the expected details in 4.2 and 4.3.

22) Section L.8.

Question: Can USAID kindly indicate the anticipated start date of this contract?

ANSWER: Anticipated performance date will be October 1, 2015

23) Section L.8 pages 83/84 indicates how cost elements should be organized. There is no guideline on where subcontractor costs should appear.

Question: Could USAID provide guidelines on how subcontractor costs should appear given the budget line item heading?

ANSWER: Subcontracts line item is to be categorized as a separate total in the budget.

24) Question: Could USAID please make available any gender assessments funded by USAID in Southern Africa that are relevant to this opportunity?

ANSWER: The gender analyses are attached in Amendment 1.

25) Question: For the purposes of the proposal, would USAID please designate an acronym for the project, such as the HSRP (Harmonized Seed Regulations project)?

ANSWER: Offerors may propose alternative names to this activity.

26) Coordination with Host Country, Other Projects and Other Donors (p. 14) includes a Grants Under Contract figure of $1.5 million. However, in Section L.8.b, Part 2 - Proposed Costs/Prices, Grants are not included as a cost element.

Question: Can USAID please revise the budget structure accordingly?

ANSWER: The RFP has been amended to include a GUC line item.

27) Table 3, Custom Indicators (p. 15) refers to seed “types” that will be subject to seed certification and quality assurance processes.

Question: Could USAID please define what it means by “type,” and indicate if the meaning of ‘seed type’ is synonymous with the ‘seed classes’ of the Harmonized Seed Regulations?

ANSWER: Type is synonymous with “seed class” of the Harmonized Seed Regulations.

28) D.3 “Positioning” (p. 18) states “The purpose of this contract is to provide assistance that will increase global competitiveness and intra-regional trade, and improve food security in Southern Africa. The contractor must pay particular attention to advancing regional trade and investment and supporting a regional integration agenda…to realize advantages of greater regional and global trade linkages and export-oriented business development and in so doing, create opportunities for SADC member states to export to the US under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).” This description does not seem to match the scope of the Harmonized Seed Regulation project as presented in Section C of the RFP.

Question: Would USAID please provide an updated positioning of the project to be included in Offerors’ branding and marking plans?

ANSWER: While the technical purpose of this contract is to provide technical assistance to implement the Harmonized Seed Regulations (HSR) in the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), the HSR are part of a package of regional policy coherence to improve agricultural productivity and food and nutrition security. The HSR will allow seed trade across the region, integrating smaller and isolated national seed markets into one larger SADC market for seeds. This will increase availability of new improved varieties and high-quality seeds of targeted crops in Feed the Future focus countries. In terms of positioning, these outcomes will support broader USAID goals and USG policy objectives for increased global competitiveness, intra-regional trade and food security in Southern Africa.

29) H.4 (p. 32) states “On certain occasions, a six-day workweek must be authorized only on a case-by-case basis with prior approval from the COR.”

Question: Would USAID confirm that consultants may be authorized and budgeted to work on a six-day work week basis?

ANSWER: Consultants may work a six-day work week on a case-by-case basis with prior approval from the COR.

30) H.16.2 Environmental Compliance (p. 40) states “an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) has been approved for the activity funding this RFP”

Question: Would USAID please provide a copy of the IEE, or direct Offerors to this document?

ANSWER: See 14 above.

31) L.7(b) (p. 77) states “Offerors must number pages consecutively.” However the counting one-page Executive Summary is organized between the non-counting sections of the Cover Letter, Table of Contents, and Acronym List.

Question: To allow for consecutive page numbering, would USAID allow Offerors to reorganize the technical proposal as follows:

1. Cover Letter (Maximum 1 page) (not included in page limit)

2. Table of Contents (not included in page limit)

3. Acronym list (not included in page limit)

4. Executive Summary (Maximum 1 page)

5. Technical Approach (Page Limit 10 pages)

ANSWER: L.7 of the RFA has been amended to reflect this.

32) Section 1.2 (p. 78) states The Technical Approach section of the proposal includes “the narrative of Year 1 Work Plan”

Question: Given that the Year 1 Work Plan is an Annex to the Technical Proposal, would USAID allow Offerors to include this narrative as part of the Annex?

ANSWER: The narrative of the Work Plan is included as an Annex and not subject to the page limit.

33) L.7 Section 1.5 (p.79) states “the Offeror must integrate into the PMEP performance gender-disaggregated indicators that will track contractor progress in minimizing gender-based constraints in regional seed value chains,” however a draft PMEP is not included as an Annex to the Technical Proposal/ Would USAID consider adding an additional Annex, not to exceed four pages (as with the Mobilization and Year One Work Plan annexes), to accommodate a draft

PMEP?

ANSWER: An illustrative PMEP is required as an Annex G of the technical proposal.

34) L.7 Section 2, Annex E (p. 80) states that Offerors must “provide for each of the contracts listed above a list of contact names, job titles, mailing addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses.”

Question: Would USAID confirm two contacts are sufficient for each contract?

ANSWER: Two contacts are sufficient.

35) L.7 (p. 83) states the “Technical/Cost Proposals must be clearly marked on the email as follows: “Technical Proposal: SOL-674-15-00028 – HSR in SADC.”

Question: Would USAID confirm the solicitation number should read “SOL-674-15-000028”?

ANSWER: The solicitation number should read SOL-674-15-000028.

36) Question: In order to ensure an equitable comparison of CCN staff compensation across various bids, will USAID please provide a Zambian Kwacha to USD exchange rate?

ANSWER: The Offeror must propose a fixed exchange rate of Zambian Kwacha/USD.

37) Section L.7 (page 77) sets a three page limit for the Performance Management Approach.

Section C.7, page 14 of the RFP, also outlines the requirements for inclusion of indicators and targets. Considering that the RFP requires 22 indicators, along with the possible addition of custom indicators, this may make it difficult for Offerors to include both a comprehensive, detailed Performance Management Approach and also include an indicator table.

Question: May Offerors include a PMEP indicator table and targets as an additional annex, not to be included in the 3 page limit for the Performance Management Approach?

ANSWER: See 33 above.

38) Section L.7 (page 79) instructs Offerors to include detailed key personnel position descriptions in the Management and Staffing Plan. Given the 3 page section limits, OOfferors might not be able to include sufficient detail on each key position description and also meet the rest of the section requirements.

Question: Would USAID allow Offerors to include a one-page key personnel position description in Annex C instead?

ANSWER: Solicitation will be amended to revise this requirement to have one-page key personnel position description included in Annex C.

39) Section L.7 (page 80) notes that CVs are limited to two pages and that “the Offeror should provide at least 2 references on the CV.”

Question: In order to adequately detail the experience and qualifications of key personnel, may we place the references on a separate page, not to be included in the two page CV limit?

ANSWER: References may be included on a separate page not to be included in the two page CV limit.

40) Section L.8 (page 84) states that biodata sheets are required for any individuals specifically identified in the cost or technical proposal.

Question: Would USAID please confirm that biodata sheets are required for all proposed key personnel, non-key professional and support personnel, and illustrative short-term technical consultants explicitly named in either the technical or cost proposal?

ANSWER: Bio-data sheets are to be submitted for each key personnel position only.

41) Section K.14 includes FAR 52.237-8 Restrictions on Severance Payments to Foreign Nationals. Consistent with the guidance in FAR 37.113-1, and considering that the anticipated contract will be performed entirely overseas, we respectfully request that USAID include FAR 52.237-9, Waiver of Limitation on Severance Payments to Foreign Nationals, to prevent conflict with applicable local employment laws.

ANSWER: FAR 52-237-9 is not applicable.

42) The RFP cover page lists the closing time for applications as 10:00 AM Pretoria Local Time.

Block 9 of Standard Form 33 indicates that offers will be received until 1400 LT.

Question: Would USAID please confirm that closing time for proposals is 1400 LT?

ANSWER: The closing time for the submission of proposals is 10:00 AM Local Pretoria Time.

The solicitation is amended to reflect the correct time.