Questions_for_SATIH_RFP.pdf

Questions and Answers to RFP SOL-674-15-000033

SOUTHERN AFRICA TRADE AND INVESTMENT HUB

General

1. The RFP cover page lists the closing time for applications as 1:00 PM Local Pretoria

Time. Block 9 of Standard Form 33 indicates that offers will be received until 1500 LT. Would USAID please confirm that closing time for proposals is 1500 LT?

Response 1: Corrected. The closing time for proposals is 1:00 PM or 1300 LT.

2. May the offeror include an acronym list that does not count against the page limit?

Response 2: Yes.

3. May the offeror include a cover letter as a page that does not count against the page limit?

Response 3: Yes.

4. Would USAID please confirm the proper spelling of SADC is the ‘Southern African Development Community’?

Response 4: Yes.

5. Is there an Attachment 1 included with the RFP? If so, can USAID provide this attachment?

Response 5: Attachment 1 was included on FBO.gov. It is titled: Attachment 1 – Minimum Indicators.

6. What is the anticipated start date? The RFP states, “it is expected that the contract will run until September 2020.” Therefore, if the project will be 5 years, should we assume the start date will be September 1, 2015?

Response 6: The start date is on/about October.

7. Is this a follow-on requirement? If so, could you please provide the incumbent contract number for this opportunity? If not, is this a new requirement?

Response 7: Yes, the current contract is AID-674-C-00-10-00075.

8. Please confirm the due time for proposal submissions since within the solicitation it states at the top of the cover page “Closing Time: 1.00PM Local Pretoria Time” and in Section 9 of page 1 of the solicitation it states that proposals are due “1500 LT” or 3:00 PM LT.

Response 8: See Response 1.

9. Page 18, Section F.2, The Period of Performance states “the period of performance is five years from the effective date of this contract,” and Page 3 Section B.2, Contract Type and Services states “it is expected that the contract will run until September 2020.” Please confirm that Offerors should assume a start date of September 2015.

Response 9: See Response 6

10. On Page 28, Section H.4: The RFP states that no overtime pay is authorized under this contract. Can USAID please confirm that a 6-day work week is authorized for Short Term Technical Assistance with no premium pay?

Response 10: Short Term Technical Assistance employees may work in accordance with offerors’ policies. USAID will not pay overtime and will not pay premium pay.

11. Section H.4 (p. 28) states, “no overtime or premium pay is authorized under this contract.”

Would USAID please confirm that a 6-day workweek is allowable for independent consultants?

Response 11: See Response 10.

12. Section H.4; p. 28: Will USAID authorize a six-day workweek for short term technical assistance?

Response 12: See Response 10.

13. Section H.20 (p. 39) states that, “An Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) has been approved for the activity funding this RFP.” Would USAID please make this IEE available?

Response 13: Yes, it is attached to the amendment.

14. Will any property, such as furniture, equipment or vehicles be made available from another project?

Response 14: No.

15. Is there a tax treaty in force between the Government of Botswana and the United States so that projects and project staff receive tax exemption status as do other bilateral projects in countries where USAID has bilateral projects?

Response 15: Yes.

16. USAID has recently launched the Africa Private Capital Group (APCG) initiative, which has a representative in the Southern Africa regional office, with a broad mandate to stimulate investment regionwide. What does USAID expect to be the division of labor between SATIH and APCG? How does it expect SATIH and APCG to interface and coordinate so as to avoid conflict, duplication or competition?

Response 16: The expectation is that offerors must have an understanding of all the major donor activities/projects related to promoting international trade and competitiveness in the region. This will eliminate any duplication of activities and foster complementarity in the approaches. The same applies for USAID/SA activities in the region, including APCG.

APCG has an Africa wide focus, while the SATIH will focus on the defined Southern African countries. Should the contractor’s proposed interventions fall in a similar space as APCG, we expect the contractor to work together with APCG in a symbiotic manner that achieves the prescribed development objectives.

Section C

17. In Section C.4 (p. 10), USAID states that if a new activity, for which no baseline data exists, is proposed, then “the baselines and targets will be based on either the Trade Hub Management Council’s Harmonized PMEP or on relevant baselines collected by the Mission or initiated by the contractor.” We are aware that the Harmonized PMEP is under development. For work planning and start-up planning purposes, would USAID please provide an anticipated finalization/completion date?

Response 17: We expect these to be available at award of the contract.

18. Section C.4, p.10. USAID provided the FY14 annual report for the SATH Project which is very useful, although it reflects work implemented over a year ago. In order to address the scope (p. 9) that offerors build on "work completed and in progress under the existing Southern Africa trade hub contract" could USAID kindly provide quarterly reports over the last year. Unfortunately, we have been unable to locate these on the DEC.

Response 18: Yes, they are attached with this amendment.

19. Section C.4., p.9-11: The activities listed in bullet format in Section C.4 under Sub-Results 1.2.1.1, 1.2.1.2, and 1.2.2.2 (pages 9-11) provide a robust and comprehensive set of illustrative interventions that will lead to achievement of results 1.2.1 and 1.2.2. Would USAID like offerors to propose additional activities and innovations beyond those that are already listed to help achieve these results?

Response 21: Yes. Please note that the activities listed there are illustrative and are not required.

20. Section C.4, Sub-result 1.2.1.1, Intra-regional trade in seeds, other agricultural inputs, and stable foods increased, p.11: The third bullet under sub-result 1.2.1.1 refers to activities related to increased regional seed trade and taking advantage of the SADC Harmonized Seeds Regulations agreement, in addition to providing support to the development of a regional seed trade protocol (page 10). We are aware that USAID/Southern Africa has recently designed and bid out a regional seeds project (harmonized Seed Regulations in the Southern Africa Development Community, RFP No. SOL-674-15-000028). In light of this, could USAID please clarify how activities under the two awards should be delineated so as to avoid overlap and maximize cost-effectiveness?

Response 22: The expectation is that offerors must have an understanding of all the major donor activities/projects related to promoting international trade and competitiveness, and ensuring food security in the region. This will eliminate any duplication of activities and foster complementarity in the approaches. The same applies for USAID/SA activities in the region, including the harmonized seed program. Should the contractor’s proposed interventions fall in the space of the harmonized seed program, we expect the contractor to work together with the seed program in a symbiotic manner that achieves the prescribed development objectives.

21. Section C.4, Sub-result 1.2.1.2. Global export competitiveness strengthened, p.11: The first bullet under Sub-result 1.2.1.2 is stated as “increased trade in agricultural, textile, apparel, and other light manufacturing through the promotion of intra-regional trade, exports under AGOA, and other global trade.” In relation to this bullet, please provide clarification on the following:

1) Does “other light manufacturing” include all AGOA-eligible manufacturing sectors (e.g. auto parts)?

2) Are there AGOA-eligible sectors that are excluded from this objective?

Response 23: 1) Yes, provided that these sectors are labor intensive. 2) In principle no, provided that the selected products are not in contravention of USAID guidelines and regulations. It is the onus of the contractor to determine if the chosen sector or product is eligible for support.

22. Section C.5 (p. 12) states, “In addition, USAID/Washington will provide strategic coordination to USAID Project Managers in the field to achieve greater synergies....” Who is USAID including under the term USAID Project Managers in the field? Does it include the

SATIH COR?

Response 24: Yes, this refers to the COR.

23. Section C.6 (p. 12-13): All of the key personnel positions with the exception of the Director of Strategic Communications prefer a Master’s degree in a relevant field, but allow for substituting additional years of experience in lieu of an advanced degree. In our experience, it is not uncommon for exceptionally strong experts in strategic communications, public relations, and journalism to have a Bachelor’s degree as their highest level of educational attainment. Will USAID amend the required qualifications of the Director of Strategic Communications to read, “A graduate degree in a relevant discipline such as public relations, mass communications, public policy or journalism; or a Bachelor’s degree with an additional 5 years of experience”?

Response 25: No.

24. Section C.6, p. 12: C.6.b: “Deputy Chief of Party (DCOP): For the duration of the contract the COP must be based in South Africa.” Can USAID confirm that the reference to the COP within the description of the DCOP should be referring here to the DCOP?

Response 26: Yes.

Section F

25. On Page 23, last bullet under F.6.d Quarterly Financial Report and Accruals, the RFP states that the contractor must provide breakdown of expenditures by funding types. Can USAID please clarify what is meant by tracking by funding types? As the budget does not call for a breakdown by CLIN or Component, the contractor would not be tracking funding against anything but the obligation.

Response 27: The future obligation will have different types of funding.

26. Section F.5, Key Personnel, p.18-19: Section F.5 indicates that offerors are permitted to propose additional key personnel beyond the four specified in on pp.18-19. However, the instructions for Annex D. CVs of Key Personnel (p.70) limit CVs to a maximum of 4, at a limit of 2 pages each. If offerors wish to identify additional key personnel, may we provide an additional two-page CV for each such individual?

Response 28: Yes.

Section I

27. Section I.I 52.229-8 Taxes-Foreign Cost-Reimbursement Contracts: Please confirm if this RFP and resultant contract will be subject to Local Taxes and duties exemptions.

Response 29: Yes.

28. Page 47, Section I.7, AIDAR 752.245-70 Government Property – USAID Reporting Requirements incorporates a definition of Non-Expandable property as property “with an expected service life of two year or more; and which has a unit cost of more than $500.”

Furthermore, under 2CFR200, the threshold for prior approval of equipment falls under the cost principle for equipment in Subpart D and the definition of Equipment in 200.33. The definitions apply to all awards per the table in 200.101 Applicability and are set for a non-profit at $5,000 per unit. Please confirm that the A-122 Cost Principles regarding the asset definitions of property will apply to a successful non-profit organization for reporting purposes. This definition is a unit cost of $5,000 and a shelf life of one year.

Response 30: A-122 has been relocated to 2 CFR 230 which applies to Non-Profit Organizations.

Section K

29. Does USAID require inclusion of Disclosure of Lobbying Activities for the Offeror and Major Subcontractors as part of the Cost Proposal?

Response 31: The Disclosure of Lobbying Activities form is not required if the offeror’s representations and certifications are current in SAM (in accordance with FAR 52.204-8(d)).

Section L

30. Section 1 technical proposal, 40 Performance Management Approach (p.69): This section requires that offerors describe an illustrative management and evaluation plan in Annex C and “the additional or tailored indicators as well as the targets proposed in the Technical Approach must be integrated into the discussion of the M&E system in this section.” Does “this section” refer to the Performance Management Approach or to Annex C?

Response 30: The Performance Management Approach.

31. Annex C Draft M&E Plan (page 70): This Annex requires a causal model discussion that includes indicators and “for each indicator, the draft PMEP must clearly identify data sources, frequency of data collection, collection methods, and the party responsible for data collection”.

1) This section does not include a requirement for baselines or targets. Are these to be discussed elsewhere (i.e. under each of our activities in 2) Technical Approach; under 4) Performance Management Approach)?

2) Annex C is limited to 3 pages. Depending on the answer to question1, will USAID increase the page limit for this section: the indicator table in the 2014 SATH annual report is 9+ pages long and has fewer indicators than listed in Attachment 1, the list of required and custom indicators is already 1 ½ pages, and additional narrative is called for in this section.

Response 31: 1) The Performance Management Approach. 2) Offerors are to submit a Performance Management Approach section with a limit of seven pages and an Annex C Draft PMEP with a limit of five pages.

32. Section L.7.3 (p. 76) states that “to the extent possible, the Budget Narrative should provide a breakdown of the subcontracts by the PWS Components to enable analysis of costs per component.” Would USAID please confirm the specific PWS Components?

Response 32: This has been deleted.

33. Please confirm that position descriptions for Component Leads should not be included in the detailed key personnel position descriptions required in the Management and Staffing Plan and Key Personnel.

Response 33: Yes, this has been revised to delete Component Leads as USAID did not prescribe components.

34. Page 72, Section L.6, Annex G Branding and Marking Plan requires the Offeror to submit a Branding and Marking Plan. Please confirm that the Offeror may submit such a plan after identification of competitive range, or immediately prior to the award of the contract.

Response 34: No, as instructed in Section L.6, the Branding Implementation Plan is to be included as Annex G of the technical proposal. This has been revised to say the Draft Branding and Marking Plan must be submitted.

35. Page 72, Section L.7, Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal, first paragraph second sentence seems to be incomplete. Please provide the end of the sentence.

Response 35: Biographical Data Sheets may be submitted in PD format, be duly signed by both the employee and the contractor and must be put in alphabetical order.

36. Page 73, Section L.7.2.2, Part 2 – Proposed Costs/Prices – Budget Line Item Headings, specifies types of costs and flow down of those costs. Please confirm that Offerors may propose Budget Line Items in accordance with their internal cost structures.

Response 36: Yes.

37. Page 73 Section L.7.2 Part 2- Proposed costs/Prices, 1. Detailed Budget Preparation Guidance states “the detailed budget must be provided “in one large spreadsheet, with multiple worksheets by year.” Please confirm that the summary budget may be linked one five-year worksheet for each organization. Each worksheet will include one column of costs for each of five years.

Response 37: Submit a detailed budget by year for all 5 years on one worksheet for each organization and link the overall summary worksheet for each year for all 5 years.

38. Section L.7.2.1 (p. 73) states 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.” To make it easier for the reviewers to read is it acceptable to submit a detailed budget with all 5 years on one worksheet?

Response 38: Yes.

39. Section L.7.2 (p. 73) indicates the option Grants program should be budgeted as an ODC cost. May Offerors propose Grants as a separate line item, in order to reflect the appropriate costing of the Grants program?

Response 39: Yes.

40. Section L.7.2, Proposed Costs/Prices, p.73; and Section L.7.3, Budget Narrative (p.74):

How does USAID treat regional TCNs? Does the LCP for the country in which they will be posted apply or their country of origin, notwithstanding their country of posting?

Response 40: USAID treats regional TCNs in accordance with AIDAR 722.170, therefore the country to which they are posted in applies and not their country of origin.

41. Section L.7.2.2, Budget Line Item Headings, Item 3.d, Grants Program, p.73: Will USAID please provide a plug figure for the grant fund, so as to allow for comparability among competing offers by bidders?

Response 41: As this is a performance based contract, USAID does not prescribe how much should be allocated to a grants program should offerors chose to propose one.

42. Section L.7 – First Paragraph – Page 72 of 84: The RFP Section in first paragraph last sentence states “Contractor Biographical Data Sheets must be submitted in PDF format, duly signed by both the employee and the contractor and must be put in” Please clarify/complete the sentence after “must be put in…”

Response 42: See Response 35.

43. Section L.7.3, Part 3 – Salaries and Wages – Page 74 of 84: The RFP Section indicates that the proposed daily rates for CCN must be within the Local Compensation Plan. We request USAID to provide the Local Compensation Plan for all regions covered in the RFP (Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe etc.)

Response 43: They are attached to Amendment 1.

44. Section L.7.2, p. 73 Budget Line Item Headings lists “overhead” under both Labor and Indirect Costs. Can USAID please confirm that overhead should only be listed under Labor?

Response 44: Yes, overhead should be listed under Labor as it is a direct cost.

45. Section L.7.2 (p. 73-74) indicates how cost elements should be organized. There is no guideline on where subcontractor costs should appear. Could USAID provide guidelines on how subcontractor costs should appear given the budget line item headings?

Response 45: Total subcontracts should be one line item with each subcontractor (over 10% of the total cost) as a line item under subcontracts.

46. Section L.7.2 (p. 73-74) provides budget line item headings. Overhead costs are listed under labor costs and indirect costs. Can USAID clarify the appropriate section for Overhead costs to be included in the budget?

Response 47: See Response 44.

47. In Section L.7.3 (p. 74) the RFP indicates “proposed daily rates for CCNs must be within the local compensation plan.” Can USAID please provide a copy of the Local Compensation Plan for South Africa?

Response 48: See Response 43.

48. In Section L.7.3 (p. 74) the RFP indicates “proposed daily rates for CCNs must be within the local compensation plan.” Can USAID please provide a copy of the Local Compensation Plans for all SADC member states available?

Response 49: See Response 43.

49. Page 74, Section L.7.3 Part 3 - Budget Narrative, Salary and Wages states that “Proposed daily rates for CCNs must be within the local compensation plan.” Will the donor provide a copy of the most recent LCP for each of the SADC member countries listed on page 5 of the

RFP?

Response 50: See Response 43.

50. Page 77, Section L.7.7 Part 7 – Evidence of Responsibility requires “evidence of adequate financial resources or ability to obtain them….” Please confirm the type of backup documentation required if a signed Evidence of Responsibility is not sufficient, for example, should the Offeror submit a reference letter from its primary bank?

Response 50: Audited financial records may be submitted.

51. Section L.5 says “The offeror must submit the proposal electronically, as follows:

Electronically – internet email with attachments compatible with MS Word, Excel, Adobe Acrobat in MS Windows environment.” Can USAID please confirm that the offeror may send the technical proposal as a pdf?

Response 51: Yes.

52. Can USAID provide Offerors with a budget template?

Response 52: USAID does not have a budget template for cost proposals.

53. On Page 75 and 76, Section L.7.3 Part 3 Budget Narrative, the RFP states under Consultants “To the extent possible, the Budget Narrative should provide a breakdown of the consultants by the PWS Components in order to enable analysis of the consultant costs per component” and states under Subcontractors “To the extent possible, the Budget Narrative should provide a breakdown of the subcontracts by the PWS Components to enable analysis of costs per component.” As the RFP does not provide components for the budget, would USAID consider removing language about components from the Cost proposal instructions or providing Offerors Components (or CLINS) to align the budget against?

Response 53: These references have been deleted as this is a performance based contract and offerors are to propose their own interventions, USAID does not provide components for offerors to propose against in the budget.

54. On page 75, Equipment and Supplies, the RFP sates “…For example, costs should be broken down by types and units, and include an analysis that it is more advantageous to purchase than lease” Can USAID verify that this analysis is only for vehicles and not all procurement items?

Response 54: The analysis is for vehicles, printers, laptops, computers, and shredders.

55. On Page 76, Grants Under Contract: To ensure parity across all Offerors can USAID provide a plug figure to be used for Grants under Contract?

Response 55: See Response 41.

56. On page 76, under Indirect Costs (Overhead, G&A), the RFP states “Please provide a copy of latest NICRA for prime and proposed sub awardees. If the offeror or any major subcontractor(s) does not have a cognizant Government Audit Agency, audited balance sheets and profit and loss statements […]”These two sentences are inconsistent, can USAID confirm if indirect rate costs and bases descriptions are needed for all subcontractors and not just major subcontractors.

Response 56: Revised to say all subcontractors.

57. We kindly request an exchange rate to be used for the Cost Proposal to ensure parity among

Offerors.

Response 57: Offerors should use their own standard exchange rates that are aligned with their policies.

58. Can USAID confirm if Part 8 – Information Concerning Work-Day, Work-Week, and Paid Absences is only to be provided by offeror and major subcontracts, not all subcontractors?

Response 58: This is applicable to offerors and major subcontracts.

59. Can USAID confirm if Part 9 – Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors is to be provided by offeror and all subcontractors, not only offeror and major subcontractor?

Response 59: Applicable to offeror and major subcontractors.

60. Can USAID please confirm that Letters of Commitment should be included for proposed key personnel in Annex D, in addition to CVs? (Annex D - CVs of Key Personnel).

Response 60: Yes, they should be included in addition to CVs.

61. Section L.5 (p. 66) states that “Pages requiring manual signatures should be scanned and emailed as an attachment.” Considering that “it is preferred that [offerors] consolidate the various parts of the technical and cost proposal into a single document” (p. 66), please confirm that it is acceptable for bidders to consolidate pages requiring manual signatures into the technical and cost volumes’ single PDF document rather than a requirement to attach all pages requiring manual signatures as individual scanned attachments.

Response 61: A single PDF is preferred.

62. Section L.6 (page 67) defines a major subcontractor as “an organization that anticipates receiving 20 percent (20%) of the award from the prime contractor,” while page 70 of Section L.6 defines a major subcontractor as “one whose proposed cost exceeds 10% of the Offeror’s total proposed cost.” Could USAID please clarify that a major subcontractor will be defined as one whose proposed cost exceeds 10% of the Offeror’s total proposed cost?

Response 62: L.6 has been corrected, a major subcontractor will be defined as one whose proposed costs exceeds 10% of the offeror’s total proposed costs.

63. Section L.6 (p. 67) states “Items such as cover pages, dividers, table of contents, and attachments are not included in the 25-page limitation.” Would USAID please clarify what attachments are?

Response 63: Revised to say annexes.

64. Section L.6, p. 67. Can offerors use less than 12 point font for text boxes, graphics and charts?

Response 64: Yes.

65. Section L.6, Instructions, p.67, and Section L.6.2, Annexes, p.70: Section L.6, p.67) states that a major subcontractor is an organization that anticipates receiving 20% of the award from the prime. Section L.6.2, Contractor Performance Information, item (a) (p.70) defines major subcontractors as those receiving 10% of the offeror’s total proposed cost. Please clarify the definition of major subcontractor.

Response 65: See Response 62.

66. Section L.6; p. 67 and p. 70. The Cover page refers to “a major subcontractor is an organization that anticipates receiving 20 percent (20%) of the award…”. However, page 70, Annex F, (a) refers to “each major subcontractor (one whose proposed costs exceeds 10% of the Offeror’s total proposed cost)”. Given the emphasis on the use of small business, could USAID please confirm that a major subcontractor is one whose costs exceeds 10%.

Response 66: See Response 62.

67. Section L.6 (page 68) instructs Offerors to include “brief position descriptions, a rationale for positions proposed” in the Management and Staffing Plan and Key Personnel section. To facilitate greater and sufficient detail in the articulation of these position descriptions, would USAID allow Offerors to include a three-page personnel position descriptions section as part of Annex E Organizational Chart instead of within the Management and Staffing Plan and Key Personnel section?

Response 67: Yes.

68. Page 67, Section L.6, states “Proposal text must be written in English and typed on standard 8 ½” x 11” paper size, single sized, one-inch margins, with 12 point Times New Roman font.” The Offeror respectfully requests that textboxes are allowed to be 9 point Arial Narrow font.

Response 68: USAID does not have a font requirement for text boxes, however, they should not be smaller than 9 point font so that they are able to be easily read.

69. Page 67, Section L.6, Cover Page states that “Items such as cover pages, dividers, table of contents and attachments are not included in the 25-page limitation.” The Offeror respectfully requests that the acronyms list, images and text boxes also be excluded from the 25 page limitation.

Response 67: Agreed, acronyms list, images, and text boxes are excluded from the page limit. This was not an exhaustive list.

70. Page 67, Section L.6, 6) Past Performance Narrative states “the Offeror must provide a summary narrative of its overall Past Performance including use of small business concerns in accordance with the instructions detailed for Annex E below.” Please confirm that the Past Performance Narrative should follow instructions outlined for Annex F.

Response 70: Corrected, it should read Annex F.

71. Section L.6 (page 68) instructs offerors to include a staffing plan including “brief position descriptions, a rationale for positions proposed,” and integrating subcontractors. Given the information requested, would USAID please add the Staffing Plan, not exceeding 4 pages as an Annex to the technical proposal?

Response 71: The page number limit for the Management and Staffing Plan has been revised to seven pages.

72. Section L.6, (p. 68-69), provides a list of technical experience that the “contractor’s management staff (this includes Key Personnel and component leaders)” must have. As bidders are not allowed to submit CVs beyond those for the key personnel candidates, can USAID please clarify how they will evaluate whether offerors have met this requirement?

Response 72: The reference to component leads has been removed.

73. Section L.6.1.3, Management and Staffing Plan and Key Personnel, p.68-69; and Sector M.2.2, Evaluation Factor 2, p.81: In Section L.6.1.3, Management and Staffing Plan and

Key Personnel (pp.68-69), USAID provides a list of technical qualifications for the contractor’s management staff, which it defines as both key personnel and component leaders. These instructions seem to indicate that USAID would like to see the qualifications of both Key personnel and component leads in the Management Plan. The evaluation criteria in Section M.2.2 (p.81), however, do not include the qualifications of component leads as an evaluation factor.

Response 73: See Response 72.

74. Can USAID please clarify whether offerors should include the qualifications of component leaders in the Management and Staffing Plan and Key Personnel sections of their technical proposals? If yes, then would USAID please specify in Section M whether component leads are an evaluation factor (and to what extent they will be ranked in importance relative to other factors?

Response 74: See Response 72.

75. If component leads are to be an evaluation factor, given that USAID does not require CVs from component leaders nor allocate pages for their CVs in the current instructions, would USAID allow for an additional 2 pages in the Management and Staffing Plan and Key Personnel section (for a total of 6 pages rather than 4) where offerors may present a matrix of component leaders’ qualifications?

Response 75: Yes.

76. Section L.6 (page 68) states “Where USAID has required Offeror input to complete the PWS (i.e., tailoring of USAID illustrative indicators, creating additional custom indicators, identification of targets, etc.), the Offeror must address these items in this section.” Could USAID please confirm that Offerors’ proposals will be evaluated on the extent to which they address proposed program indicators and targets in the Performance Management Approach and Annex C Draft Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan as opposed to in the Technical Approach?

Response 76: Yes.

77. Section L.6 (pages 69 and 70) instruct Offerors to prepare a Performance Management Approach with a limit of two pages and an Annex C Draft Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (PMEP) with a limit of three pages. In order to accommodate the minimum required indicators denoted in Attachment 1 as well as to provide greater detail, would USAID allow Offerors to submit a Performance Management Approach section with a limit of three pages and an Annex C Draft PMEP with a limit of five pages?

Response 77: Yes.

78. Section L.6 (p. 69) instructs Offerors to provide a summary narrative of its overall Past Performance including use of small business concerns in accordance with the instructions detailed for Annex E below. Please confirm that USAID is referring to instructions detailed for Annex F – Contractor Performance Information and not Annex E – Organizational Chart.

Response 78: See Response 70.

79. Section L.6.1., Item 6, Past Performance Narrative, p.69: Section L.6.1, Item 6, Past Performance Narrative references Annex E; would USAID please confirm that this item should instead reference Annex F, Contractor Performance Information?

Response 79: See Response 70.

80. Section L.6.2, Annexes, p.69-72: No page limit is specified for Annexes F (Contractor Performance Information) and G (Branding and Marking Plan). Would USAID please indicate where there is a maximum number of pages permitted for Annexes F and G? If there is a maximum number of pages for Annex F, would USAID consider permitting additional pages for offerors to include past performance information for major subcontractors?

Response 80: There is not a page limitation for these two annexes.

81. Section L.6, p. 70. Annex E. Would USAID consider allowing offerors to include more than one organizational chart?

Response 81: Yes.

82. Section L.6, p. 70. Annex E. Requests that offerors “use prescribed matrix”. Please confirm that the matrix refers to Attachment 4.

Response 82: This reference has been removed and Attachment 4 has been deleted.

83. Section L.6, p. 70. Annex E. Can USAID kindly clarify if there are page limitations on the matrix? Is it the intention of USAID that PPR narrative describing projects also go into this matrix.

Response 83: See Response 82.

84. Section L. 6 p. 70, Annex F: “…USAID defines relevant as projects of similar size and scope in the southern Africa region in the first paragraph, but in Annex F (a) 1. bullet one, the requirement is “implement trade, investment and agricultural development in sub- Saharan Africa.….” If held to the first definition of relevant, USAID would be vastly limiting the pool of Past Performance References given how few projects of this size and scope have taken place in Southern Africa, especially regional trade projects that are extremely relevant. Would USAID consider eliminating the reference to “southern Africa “ and replace it with a reference for Sub-Saharan Africa?

Response 84: Yes, corrected to say sub-Saharan Africa in the first paragraph.

85. Section L. 6 p. 70, Annex F” “offeror must identify recent and relevant past performance of the organization, key personnel, subcontractors.” Can USAID confirm if the inclusion of “key personnel” under this category was an error? If not, can USAID further clarify how offerors should use PPRs to assess key personnel performance?

Response 85: This was an error and has been deleted.

86. Section L.6.2, Annexes, p.72: The instructions for Annex F. Contractor Performance Information (p.72), require offerors who are not small business concerns to provide information pertaining to use of small business concerns over the past three years (i.e.

Paragraph 3, items A, B, and C). Is this information also required for major subcontractors, or only for prime offerors?

Response 86: Contractor Performance information required from prime offerors.

87. Section L.6 (page 70) notes that CVs are limited to two pages and that “the Offeror should provide references on the CV.” 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?

Response 87: Yes.

88. Section L.6 (p. 70) notes that CVs are limited to two pages and that “the Offeror should provide references on the CV”. 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?

Response 88: See Response 87.

89. In Section L.6 (p. 70) referring to Annex F – Contractor Performance Information, USAID “defines relevant as projects of similar size and scope, in the southern Africa region.” We are concerned that this definition of “relevance” limits competition significantly. Will USAID consider expanding the definition of “relevant” to include “projects of similar size and scope, in the Sub-Saharan Africa region”?

Response 89: See Response 84.

90. In Section L.6 (p. 70) referring to Annex F – Contractor Performance Information, offerors are requested to provide “performance information for itself and each major subcontractor” and to “list up to three of the most recent and relevant contracts for similar projects.” Please confirm that offerors may submit up to three performance references each for the prime contractor and any/all major subcontractors respectively.

Response 90: Yes.

91. Section L.6 (page 70) instructs Offerors to “use prescribed matrix” when completing Annex F Contractor Performance Information. However, for ease of reviewing, would USAID allow Offerors to use its standard Past Performance Reference short forms in lieu of the prescribed matrix?

Response 91: The matrix has been deleted. Offerors should submit their own short form in the annex.

92. Section L.6 (p. 71), referring to Annex F – Contractor Performance Information, 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”. Would USAID confirm that two contacts are sufficient for each contract?

Response 92: Preferably three contacts.

93. Section L.6, p. 72. Annex E (3). Please confirm that offerors should include sections A, B, C under point (3) on use of small business in narrative form, outside of the “prescribed matrix”.

Response 93: Yes.

94. Section L.7 (p. 72) states, “Contractor Biographical Data Sheets must be submitted in PDF format, duly signed by both the employee and the contractor and must be put in…” For ease of compiling the technical and cost proposals, would USAID please confirm that it is acceptable for offerors to submit an integrated PDF document including the cost volume in its entirety?

Response 94: Yes, an offeror can submit a PDF document as an annex to both technical and cost proposals respectively.

Section M

95. Page 81, Section M.2 Factor 2: Management and Staffing Plan and Key Personnel states that “Appropriate and meaningful programmatic use of local staff with plans for shifting increasing amounts of responsibility to local staff over life of project.” Please clarify that local staff is defined as a SADC national.

Response 95: Yes.

96. Section M.2 (page 81) notes that Offerors’ Management and Staffing Plan and Key Personnel sections will be evaluated based on “the degree to which the proposed subcontracting plan (technical narrative) proposes meaningful opportunities for small business participation during performance of the contract.” Section L.7.5 (page 77) also instructs Offerors to include a Subcontracting Plan with the cost proposal. Would USAID clarify that it would like both a Subcontracting Plan in the cost proposal as well as a narrative of intended small business utilization in the Management and Staffing Plan and Key Personnel section of the technical proposal?

Response 96: Yes.

97. In Section M.2 (p. 81), the RFP indicates that one of the evaluation factors for the management and staffing plan will be the “appropriate and meaningful use of local staff”.

Can USAID please clarify how they will define local staff in the context of a regional project?

Response 97: Yes.

98. Section M.2, Factor 5, Contractor Performance Information, p.82-83: How will USAID evaluate Contractor Performance Information submitted in Annex F for offerors that do not have prime contracts in the NIH CPAR system (i.e. for which the offeror is a subcontractor, for which the offeror is a prime contractor but CPARs have not been completed; for donors other than USAID; or for Cooperative Agreements)?

Response 98: Offerors must provide references so that USAID can solicit past performance information that has not been entered into CPARS.

Attachments

99. Attachment #1 – Minimum Indicators: Solicitations for other Trade Hubs (e.g., West Africa Trade Hub, East Africa Trade and Investment Hub) have provided targets for high-level indicators related to regional trade and investment. Would USAID also be willing to provide targets for SATIH for high-level indicators related to regional trade, investment and agricultural and non-agricultural exports found in Attachment 1 (e.g., 1.3-14, Value of international and intraregional traded goods, including agricultural products facilitated by the USG assistance; 4.5.2 (35), Percent change in value of intra-regional trade in targeted agricultural commodities; 4.5.2(38), Value of new private sector investment in the agriculture sector or food chain leveraged by FTF implementation; Custom: Percent change in value of trade in targeted non-agricultural and ag commodities; Custom: Value of new private sector investment in the agricultural sector or food chain leveraged by FTF implementation;

Custom: Value of new private sector investment in the non-agriculture sector, leveraged by USAID implementation; Custom: Percent change in value of intra-regional trade in targeted agricultural and non-agricultural commodities)? High-level targets such as these will have implications for offerors’ proposal budgets and approach/methodology for SATIH.

Providing target results will facilitate comparability of competing offers.

Response 99: This is a Performance-Based Statement of Work. Unlike similar RFPs, we did not specify activities, but rather objectives. We would like the offerors to propose to us what they think they can accomplish, with the resources availed to them. The contractor with then be held accountable for achieving that target.

100. Attachment #1: HPMP F4.2010 refers to “Foreign Trade Index (X+M) as a percentage of GDP”. How does USAID intend this indicator to be reported on for SATIH as a regional project?

Response 100: Per country.

101. Attachment #1: HPMP Custom indicator “Trading Across Borders rank”. This World Bank ranking does not identify a subgroup for Southern Africa, only for Sub-Saharan Africa, and of course, individual countries. How does USAID intend this indicator to be reported on for SATIH as a regional project?

Response 101: Per country.

102. Attachment # 2 – Branding and Marking Template, Section 2.3 states, “The secondary audience for materials and documents produced by the Southern Africa Trade and Investment Hub includes USAID/Washington, local Southern Africa NGOs, and private sector partners.”

Would USAID please confirm the secondary audience also includes the national governments and regional bodies comprised in the Southern African Development Community?

Response 102: Yes.

103. Attachment #3 (Questions and Comments), comment 20: Comment 29 states that “The referenced section (now C.5) does not stipulate that baselines should be included as part of the proposal. Rather, the baselines will depend on the proposed interventions. The winning proposal will be provided with all relevant information.” Does this statement as to not requiring baselines in the proposal still stand?

Response 103: Yes. Baselines will depend on the proposed interventions and this comment still stands.

104. Attachment #3, answers to question #18: We are not clear as to the answer provided here to the question, as the answer refers back to Question #16, which is about the COP, not the FM&O position. In our experience, someone with 15 years of experience of this nature does not need a degree at this level, or could have a degree but fewer years of experience. Could USAID kindly please clarify and consider modifying the requirements for the FM&O position?

Response 104: No.

105. Attachment #3, answers to question #17: We are not clear as to the answer provided here to the question, as the answer refers back to Question #16, which is about the COP, not the Director of Strategic Communication. Could USAID kindly please clarify and consider modifying the requirements for the Director of Strategic Communication position and allowing additional years of experience to replace a Master’s degree?

Response 105: No.

106. Attachment #4 – Past Performance Matrix: Can USAID please clarify how offerors should complete the matrix provided for Past Performance Evaluation? The template provided has a column labeled “relevance” but it is blank in the sample provided and does not appear to apply. May offerors instead provide a statement of relevance (not to exceed one page) for each project featured in the matrix?

Response 106: See Response 91.

107. Attachment #4 (PPR matrix). Can USAID kindly clarify what offerors should include in “other areas” and “overall comments.”

Response 107: See Response 91.

108. Attachment #4 (PPR matrix). Can USAID provide guidance on whether offerors are required to fill in the column labeled “Rating Assigned” or whether USAID will fill out this column?

Response 108: See Response 91.

109. Attachment #4 (PPR matrix). For circumstances where a project does not have updated CPARs, would USAID prefer that the offeror contact the client for a rating?

Response 109: See Response 91.