Attachment_1.pdf

ATTACHMENT 1 – QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Some questions have been rephrased to remove proprietary information or the identity of submitting organizations. Where multiple questions were submitted regarding the same issue only one question is presented. NOTE: Several questions submitted are still in the process of being answered and will be posted with Amendment 02.

1. On Page 79, Section L.10, USAID has stated that: “In the Technical Proposal Body, the Offeror should highlight those aspects of its past performance that it believes is relevant and briefly discuss how its past performance indicates that it has a strong probability of successfully performing. In the Annex, the Offeror must provide an information sheet for contracts, orders or other projects that are similar to the scope of work in this solicitation.” Is the information in L.10(a) &

(b) the information that should be included in the information sheets? Should the full information described in L.10(a) & (b) be included in Annex E and not in the section 6 of the Technical proposal?

Answer: Each information sheet referred to is a summary of each past contract and must come in the specified format provided (Attachment 2) as referred to on page 76 of RFP (Annex E)

2. On Page 80, Section L.10(c), USAID describes requirements for quality awards.

It is unclear where the response to this requirement section should be located - Please clarify.

Answer: These should be provided in Annex E.

3. Section L.6, (p.73 of 92) of the RFP advises offerors that the following are excluded from the page limit for the Technical Proposal: “the Annexes, the cover page, and the executive summary, dividers, and the table of contents.” Would USAID please confirm that offerors may also include a list of acronyms that will not count toward this 30-page limit?

Answer: Pages containing a List of acronyms will not count towards the 30 page limit.

4. Section L.6 (page 73 of 92) also instructs offerors that “The reasonable use of tables and graphs in smaller than 12 point font but no less than 10 point font is permitted.” Our standard font for graphics such as organograms and results frameworks, and Word-created text boxes and tables is Arial 9. Would USAID allow offerors to present this information clearly and legibly in Arial 9?

Answer: No. The RFP states “The reasonable use of tables and graphs in smaller than 12 point font but no less than 10 point font is permitted and will count towards the 30 page limitation.”

5. RFP Reference: L.6.D, Annex B Page Number: 75 “The PMEP should logically link to project management and decision-making processes, and establish baselines and ambitious, but achievable, targets and indicators…” Question:

Because significant data collection is needed to establish accurate baselines, are we correct that baselines will need to be included in the final PMEP submitted as a deliverable during program implementation but that offerors are not required to include baselines as part of the PMEP in Annex B of the proposal?

Answer: A baseline is the value of a performance indicator at the onset of project implementation. A description of what these baselines are and/or how they will be established (e.g. type of data, collection methodology, etc) should be provided in the proposal.

6. RFP Section Reference: L.7.B Page Number: 77 “deliverables that will demonstrate progress towards achieving such results (the ‘benchmarks of success’).” Question: Are we correct that “benchmarks of success” means project milestones?

Answer: Yes.

7. RFP Section Reference: C.1 Page Number: 1 “Mozambique will have separate energy program, so bilateral activities in Mozambique will not be a focus of SAEP. However, regional activities involving Mozambique are expected.” RFP Section Reference: C.6, Outcome 3 Page Number: 13 “National and regional transmission system planning improved in at least four (4) member countries… Capacity of utilities and transmission companies enhanced in at least three (3) countries to engage in cross border electricity trade” Question: Are we correct that SAEP may implement national level activities with Mozambique utilities and other stakeholders as part of achieving Outcome 3 results?

Answer: Activities proposed for Mozambican utilities must have direct correlation with Outcome 3.

8. RFP Section Reference: C.6, Outcome 1 Page Number: 11 “The Contractor will achieve the outcome by providing a combination of technical assistance and transaction support to government institutions, regulators, utilities and other entities” RFP Section Reference: C.6, Outcome 4 Page Number: 15 “At least 1,000 MW of new on-grid and off-grid renewable power generation projects brought to financial close as a result of Contractor assistance. At least 3 Million new connections added in Southern Africa as a result of Contractor assistance.”

Question: Activities from all five SAEP Outcomes will contribute to achievement of the MW and new connections targets. Are we correct that offerors may treat the MW and new connections indicators as impact indicators (i.e., not indicators solely attributable to Outcome 4 activities)?

Answer: Yes. Indicators do not have to be tied to only one particular outcome. It is envisaged that some indicators can be attributable to multiple activities/results/outcomes

9. RFP Section Reference: C.6, Outcome 2 Page Number: 12 “Technical, commercial and/or collection losses in utility and/or other distribution companies reduced in at least three (3) countries” Question: About 40% of distribution business in South Africa is run by municipalities. Are we correct that municipalities involved in distribution are eligible for SAEP assistance?

Answer: Yes

10. RFP Section Reference: C.6, Outcome 4 Page Number: 14 “The Contractor must assist countries in adopting and scaling renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies and practices that are new or still being established in the region.”

Question: Energy efficiency measures are very important in SADC for grid stability and reduced technical losses but do not directly contribute to MW and millions of new connections (hard targets of SAEP). Could USAID clarify how energy efficiency should be attributable to the SAEP goals?

Answer:. Energy efficiency activities also form part of GCC and Power Africa indicators (see Attachment 4 of RFP).

11. RFP Reference: C.10 Page Number: 18 “The contractor must include the required and standard Global Climate Change and Power Africa indicators set forth in the annex.” RFP Reference: F.6.2 Page Number: 17 “using, as appropriate, the USAID required/standard and agreed custom performance indicators and targets” Question: Annex 1: Required Indicators contains 35 indicators, not all of which are within SAEP’s manageable interest, and some of which do not pertain to its technical activities. Furthermore, section F.6.2 states that the PMEP should use “appropriate” required/standard indicators, implying that offerors should use some indicators from Annex 1, not all of them. Are we correct that offerors are required to include some indicators from Annex 1 (not all indicators in Annex 1)?

Answer: All GCC and Power Africa indicators provided in the RFP documentation should be used, in addition to any custom indicators proposed by the contractor

12. General RFP Question Does the Southern Africa Regional Mission have a 2017- 2021 CDCS and/or updated Mission results framework that can be made available, or is the 2011- 2016 CDCS the current framework?

Answer: The 2011-2016 CDCS is the current framework.

13. RFP Section F.6.10 & SOO Section C.7 -RFP page 19; SOO page 16 In F.C.10 (page 19) of the RFP, it is stated that the Catalyzing Local Opportunities Fund “consists of combination of GUC, fixed price sub-contracts and/or other mechanisms” while C.7 (page 16) of Section C- Statement of Objectives defines the Catalyzing Local Opportunities Fund as GUC only and that GUC should “constitute approximately 10% of the overall contract value over the life of the contract.” Please clarify if the Catalyzing Local Opportunities Fund should be used for GUC only, or if the Fund should be used for GUC, fixed price sub-contracts and/or other mechanisms, in which case it will not be subject to GUC ADS 302.3.4.13 and 303 as defined in H.5 of the RFP.

Answer: The Catalyzing Local Opportunities Fund is for Grants under Contract only.

The RFP has been revised to remove subcontracting and other mechanisms.

14. Will a gender plan be required as part of this proposal?

Answer: It does not need to be submitted as a separate plan but must be addressed in the statement of work (see Page 77 of the RFP states that “ The Offeror must also include, to the extent not already discussed, thorough analysis of gender and environmental and climate resiliency issues and how these issues will be incorporated into the Statement of Work”)

15. Will an initial environmental and monitoring plan be required with this proposal?

Answer: An environmental and climate resiliency analysis should form part of the Statement of Work in line with Page 77 of the RFP which states that “ The Offeror must also include, to the extent not already discussed, thorough analysis of gender and environmental and climate resiliency issues and how these issues will be incorporated into the Statement of Work”.

Also, an Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) is due to be submitted 90 days after award.

16. Are proposers required to include a plan for the effective use of the “Catalyzing Local Opportunities Fund” as part of our proposal?

Answer: Yes this should be included in the statement of work.

17. Should the proposal include a plan for coordination with host governments, and donors?

Answer: See first paragraph of page 76 of RFP (Section L.7.A) and page 17 of SOO (Section C.8)

18. Given the complexity of the RFP and the short deadline we request an extension of the deadline by two weeks.

Answer: Yes the RFP closing date has been extended until July 18, 2016 at 5:00pm Local Pretoria Time

19. On Page 12, Section F.5.B, USAID lists the requirement for a “Director of Finance.” Could USAID clarify its intended nature of this position? Is this individual intended to be the director of the project’s finances or is this position more akin to a transaction finance advisor?

Answer: Director of Finance refers to the person primarily responsible for managing the project’s financials.

20. Section L.6 (p 75 of 92) of the RFP states: “The PMEP should… establish baselines and ambitious, but achievable, targets and indicators, including those required by Power Africa, Global Climate Change, as well as custom indicators aligning to the Offeror’s unique approach that provide measurement of the project’s progress towards results.” Does USAID expect that all indicators listed in Attachment 4 “Overview of Indicators” will be included in the proposal indicator table? If so, would USAID consider extending the page limit of 6 pages for the PMEP annex in order to adequately account for all 35 required indicators and additional custom indicators

Answer: YES. Page length has been increased to 12 pages.

21. Given the extent of requirements that offerors must address for each of the elements in Contractor Statement of Work, Management Plan, including key personnel, and Organizational Capacity sections, plus the information from annexes that must be cross-referenced in the technical proposal, would USAID consider either allowing up to 3 additional pages, or at least using size 11 font?

Answer: The SOW is amended to allow for up to 35 pages. Proposals must be written in English and typed on standard 8 1/2" x 11" paper (210mm by 297mm paper) or A4 paper, single-spaced, 12 point Times New Roman font with each page numbered consecutively.

22. Would USAID consider increasing the page limit for key personnel CVs from 2 pages? Many of the candidates have over 15 years of experience that is relevant to this program. Two pages per CV is not enough space to present their relevant qualifications adequately in addition to their references.

Answer: the page limit for key personnel CVs is amended to a limit of 4 pages.

23. Could USAID describe whether they envision PATRP and SAEP providing assistance on the same transaction or is SAEP expected to achieve the target of 1GW in new generation independently of any existing PATRP transaction assistance? Given the performance-based nature of the SAEP contract, lack of clarity on attribution of results could pose a problem for project evaluation and fee collection because SAEP deliverables could be affected by other USAID programs.

Answer: Before the implementation of any agreed activity under SAEP, baselines will necessarily be established against which progress on results/outcomes will be measured.

24. It is our understanding that the base period for PATRP ends in the first half of 2017. If the option year(s) for PATRP are not exercised, can we assume that SAEP would take on incomplete transactions from the PATRP portfolio and count closing those transactions as part of our 1GW goal?

Answer: No. PATRP and SAEP are separate projects. Deliverables/transactions from PATRP are not part of SAEP.

25. In L.10 USAID details the requirements for Past Performance Information that is to be included both in the technical body and Annex E. Can USAID please confirm that Annex E, should contain no more than 5 Contractor Performance Report References per prime offeror and major subcontractor each, and that the technical body should contain a summary of no more than 10 contracts, orders, and projects for the consortium as a whole?

Answer: Page 79 of RFP (L.10) states: “In the Annex, the Offeror must provide an information sheet for contracts, orders or other projects that are similar to the scope of work in this solicitation. The Offeror’s ten (10) most relevant contracts, orders and projects shall be summarized. In addition, the Offeror must provide information sheets for the five contracts or orders with a value over $5 million that have been completed most recently, assuming that such contract or order was not already listed. If the Offeror has not had five contracts or orders over $5 million, it must state and list those contracts that do qualify, if any”

26. On page 16, section C.7 of J.1, USAID states that “funds, nevertheless, may be used to provide seed funding to promote innovative business models or entrepreneurs that will increase electricity access to underserved communities and have the potential to be replicated.” A similar illustrative intervention in the SAEP Draft Statement of Objectives, issued January 12th, 2016, (“Technical assistance and seed funding to pilot and scale promising new technologies or business models”) appears to have been purposefully removed from what is now Outcome 4 in the final RFP. While we realize that the Draft Statement of Objectives has been superseded by the instructions for this RFP, it would be helpful to know whether USAID envisions use of the Catalyzing Local Opportunities Fund for these pilot and scaling activities or whether USAID intended to remove it from the final RFP, as the omission suggests.

Answer: This version of the RFP (and ancillary documentation) supersedes any solicitation attempt that came before it, as far as SAEP is concerned.

27. Page 15 of the RFP states that a Communication Strategy is due 45 calendar days after contract award. However, Page 89, Section M2.1.A notes that the communications and outreach strategy should be submitted as part of the Technical Approach. Please clarify

Answer: the Communications Strategy referred to on page 77 and 89 of RFP (Section L.7.A and M.2.1.A respectively) should form part of the Technical proposal, and should not be confused with the Brand/Marketing Plan referred to on page 76 (para 2) of RFP.

28. Section C/M2.1.A sets out an allocation of 30 points for the technical approach using the following high level criteria:

▪ Realistic approach to achieving the contract objectives

▪ Robust and effective partnerships and alliances with institutions from the region

▪ Sound communications and outreach strategy

▪ Strong analysis of gender issues

▪ Approach is environmentally sustainable and climate resilient

However Section C (page 11-20) of the RFP note other requirements, such as grants under contracts, description of the proposed PMEP, gender action agenda etc. Please clarify how the 30 points allocated to the technical approach will be split per the relevant requirements and outcomes? In other words, can further clarification be given as to the weight of each of these elements within the larger mandate to achieve USAID objectives?

Answer: RFP evaluation criteria have been revised as follows the following:

a) Technical Soundness (15 points): The extent to which the Offeror provides a realistic approach to achieving the contract objectives will be evaluated. The level to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound conceptual framework for achieving results would be important. The logic and technical soundness of the proposed activities and the strength of links to stated short and long-term results, outcomes, and impacts will be considered.

b) Sustainability (5 points): The effectiveness and extensiveness of the Catalysing Local Opportunities Fund plan, and the extent to which it is able to encourage the collaboration of local entities towards achieving the project outcomes will be assessed. The soundness of the plan, and how well the approach promotes innovation, knowledge exchange between relevant institutions and stakeholders to build a resilient foundation for sustained energy access outcomes, will also be considered.

c) Partnerships and Alliances (4 points): The robustness and effectiveness of the partnerships and alliances with national and local institutions proposed will be evaluated.

Credit will also be given to strong partnerships with private sector entities that leverage USAID resources to expand impact and achieve the project’s objectives. The commitment of the partners or alliance members as demonstrated in letters of commitment, memoranda of understanding, teaming arrangements or other agreements will be considered, as well the effectiveness of the coordination of alliances and partnerships.

d) Communications and Outreach Strategy (3 points): The robustness of the communications and outreach strategy for increasing awareness of the project among stakeholders, improving the participation of civil society, and promoting informed planning decision making will be evaluated.

e) Gender and environmental sustainability (3 points):

Evaluation under this subfactor will focus on the strength of the analysis of gender and environmental/climate resiliency issues presented in the technical proposal. On gender, this includes, but is not limited to, whether the proposal has a clearly articulated gender component that is woven through all of the activities and describes how the different activities will address gender issues.

29. F.6.1.a page 16: Item (c) refers to “the four main contract components”.

Was the intention to refer instead to “five components”?

Answer: Yes this has been corrected in the RFP.

30. H.15 page 33: Is this meant to cover all required deliverables and reporting?

Answer: Deliverables and reporting are different requirements from submission requirement for Datasets. There may be some overlap from collection of data for deliverables and reporting. Offerors should read closely definitions and information provided in H.15.

31. H.16.2 page 35: Subsection 2 is followed by Subsection 4(a). Has Subsection 3 been omitted or is renumbering required?

Answer: This was a numbering error and has been corrected on the RFP

32. H.16.7(a) page 36: Can you please provide links to current USAID approved Environmental Review Form (ERF) and Environmental Review (ER) Checklist?

Answer: The following link provides guidance:

http://www.encapafrica.org/meo_course/Course_Materials/Module8-- Writing_IEE_and_Sample_Env_Docs/AFR-EnvReviewForm-17Jan05-with_cover.pdf

33. Section L.10 (d) (page 80): Performance in Using Small Business (SB) Concerns states that if a large entity is submitting bid, a narrative summary of offeror’s use of SBs over the past three years must be completed. Does this apply to only US small businesses or do non-US firms used in the past count?

Answer: This requirement applies to large entities utilizing US Small Businesses. A local organization is not considered a Small Business with regards to this evaluation criteria.

34. Performance in Using Small Business requires “a list of three recent contracts for which offer submitted subcontract reports to eSRS and a copy of any similarly recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS. If the offeror has never prepared such reports to eSRS, are there other alternative documents that can be provided in lieu of these reports?

Answer: Offers who have not reported in eSRS may submit Standard for SF-294. A copy can be found at http://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/116138

35. There are no templates provided in the Request for Proposal documents. Are there specific templates we should use for the Technical and Financial proposals or can offerors use their own?

Answer: No, offerors should use they own templates following the requirements provided in Section L of the RFP.

36. We would like your advice on the best way to engage with your project as we are not prepared to be a prime contractor. We have been asked to be a sub on one proposal, but we think that our services would be of value to USAID regardless of who wins the contract. Does USAID appoint the subcontrators to the Prime?

Answer: No. The prime contractor will select they own sub-contractors. Organizations interested in being subcontractors should contract the prime when selected. Note the organizations selected to implement this project will be posted on www.FBO.gov.

37. On Page 76, “Annex E”, USAID references the contractor performance report template as “Attachment 2.” This was not included. Can USAID please provide Attachment 2?

Answer: Contractors Performance Report Template is now provided as attachment 2 to the RFP.

38. On Page 79, Section L.10, USAID is requesting ten information sheets for past performance. Section L.10 (a) states: “(a) The Offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself and each major subcontractor (one whose proposed cost exceeds 10% of the Offeror’s total proposed cost)…” It is unclear how many past performances are required. Does USAID require ten total information sheets (including the Prime Contractor and Major Subcontractors) or ten for the Prime Contractor as well as each Major Subcontractor?

Answer: Offeror must provide up to 10 past performance information sheets for the Prime and up to 10 for each major subcontractor.

http://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/116138

39. Would USAID consider removing the $5M threshold for the past performance references? The $5M threshold in particular limits the contractor performance reports that can be submitted by small businesses and local partners.

Answer: There is no dollar threshold regarding the ten most relevant projects. If the Offeror has not had five contracts or orders over $5 million, it should state so. As stated in section M.2.4 (e) An offeror’s performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably when: (1) The offeror lacks relevant performance history.

40. On Page 80, Section L.10(d), USAID describes requirements for small business subcontract performance. It is unclear where the response to this requirement should be located. Please clarify if the Subcontracting Plan should be included in Annex E or in the Cost Proposal Part 4 – Subcontracting Plan (L.11.4).

Answer: Subcontracting Plan should be included in Annex E

41. RFP Reference: L.10 Page Number: 79 “In addition, the Offeror must provide information sheets for the five contracts or orders with a value over $5 million that have been completed most recently, assuming that such contract or order was not already listed.” Question: For contracts with a value over $5 million, may offerors list ongoing contracts (in addition to contracts that have been completed) to meet this requirement?

Answer: Only Completed contracts or orders should be submitted.

42. On Page 75, “Annex D”, USAID requests Contract Employee Biographical Data Sheets to “allow for cost analysis.” As Annex D is part of the technical volume, and Employee Biographical Data Sheets include salary and cost information, should contractors put these in the cost volume or submitted separately from either? Please note that the Bio Data Sheets are also required in the cost proposal per instructions in L.11.

Answer: Bio Data Sheets should be provided in the Cost Proposal.

43. On Page 84, Section L.11.3 (Subcontracts), can USAID please confirm that only cost-type subcontracts exceeding $150,000 need to provide the same budget detail as the prime contractor?

Answer: Yes however the Offeror should include a discussion of proposed fixed price contracts in the budget narrative so the Contracting Officer can understand how the Offeror priced the prime contract.

44. On Page 83, Section L.11.3 (Salary and wages), can USAID please confirm that USAID form 1420 is only required for those personnel working under cost-type contracts and not those performing under fixed-price or other commercial-item contracts as defined in FAR Part 2 and FAR part 12?

Answer: That is correct.

45. In order to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison of offerors’ proposals, would USAID provide a required exchange rate for currencies in each country listed in

RFP.

Answer: Offerors should use the following exchange rates for budgeting purposes in their cost proposals. Note costs claimed during implementation will be at the exchange rate at the time costs are incurred.

Countries Exchange Rate to

One US Dollar Angola 150 Botswana 11 Lesotho 13.5 Madagascar 3000 Malawi 650 Mozimbique 55 Namibia 13.5 South Africa 13.5 Swaziland 13.5 Zambia 10 Zimbabwe -

46. Section L.6 (p 76 of 92) also lists an Annex F: Draft Marking and Branding

Implementation Plan but notes that “the Offeror need not provide the draft Marking and Branding Implementation Plan with its initial proposal.” Could USAID please clarify whether offerors need to submit a draft Marking and Branding Implementation Plan in our proposal submission?

Answer: The Offeror need not provide the draft Marking and Branding Implementation Plan with its initial proposal

47. In Section L.10 (p 79 of 92), USAID asks the Offeror to “provide an information sheet for contracts, orders, or other projects that similar to the scope of work in this solicitation.” Could USAID please confirm that one information sheet should be provided for each contract, order or other project?

Answer: Yes one information sheet should be provided for each contract, order or other project.

48. Section L.10(c) (p 80 of 92) states that Quality Awards and Certifications are not included in the page limit and also requests a Performance in Using Small Business (SB) Concerns section. Could USAID please confirm that this information can be provided in Annex E Contractor Performance Reports?

49. Section L does not list an Annex for Environmental Compliance, but Section C requests an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE). Could USAID confirm that offerors are not required to include an IEE?

Answer: An Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) has been completed by USAID with regard to this project and is attached to the RFP as Attachment 3. The Contractor is responsible for ensuring that activities funded under this contract are covered either by a Categorical Exclusion in the approved final IEE, or that the activities fully comply with conditions to the Negative Determination in the approved final IEE.

50. RFP Section Reference: Section H.4 Page Number: 26 “No overtime or premium pay is authorized under this contract.” Question: In order to maximize the value of airfare expenditures of consultants flying to the region, would USAID allow a 6-day workweek for international short-term advisors in the field with no premium pay, as is standard practice on most USAID contracts?

Answer: Yes a six day workweek is authorized for STTA in the field with no premium pay.

51. In the Statement of Objectives, USAID lists numerous institutions such as utilities, NARUC, USEA, NRECA, United States national laboratories, or universities, as well as other local, regional and global partners, with whom the contractor is expected to initiate partnerships as illustrative interventions. Could USAID please confirm that these groups are expected to work with all bidders and should not enter into exclusive relationships with bidders at the proposal stage?

Answer: It is expected those institutions will work with any organizations selected to implement this project. Exclusivity contracts are discouraged so as not to limit the pool of capable partner organizations available to implement this program.

52. Cover letter “estimated cost in the range of $70 -73 million” Question: Please confirm that bidders may not bid below $70 million, the minimum amount stated in the Government’s estimated range.

Answer: Offerors should propose fair and reasonable costs based on their technical approach. The estimated cost range provided is not a floor or ceiling for this project.

Cost proposals below and above that range will not be eliminated based on cost being outside estimated range.

53. Section B.3(f) Page Number: 5 “Offeror to propose fee payment schedule based on PMEP” RFP Section Reference: F.6 Page Number: 14 “Performance Management and Evaluation Plan (PMEP)… Within 90 days after contract award date” Question: Because the PMEP is due after contract award, would USAID confirm that offerors should propose the fee payment schedule based on the indicators and targets proposed in Annex B: Life of Project Results Framework, with the reservation to change the payment schedule as the PMEP is updated during program implementation?

Answer: Yes offerors should propose the fee payment schedule based on the indicators and targets proposed in Annex B: Life of Project Results Framework. RFP has been revised to reflect this change

54. “Section L.11.4 page 85 of 92 States Offerors should also propose a fee schedule based on PMEP See B.4.f”. There is no B.4.f, is it missing?

Answer: RFP has been amended regarding this please see previous question.

55. Is the PMEP to be included with the proposal to be submitted July 6, 2016?

Answer: No within 90 days however offerors must submit with their proposal indicators and targets required in Annex B: Life of Project Results Framework.

56. RFP Reference: L.5 Page Number: 72 “Each email has a limit of up to 10 attachments (5MB limit per email).” Question: Would USAID allow a 10MB limit per email thereby assuring that offerors can submit our Technical Proposal in one file?

Answer: USAID will allow attachments not exceeding 10MB per email.

57. RFP Section Reference: L.11.2 Page Number: 81 “The detailed budget must be provided in one large spreadsheet, with multiple worksheets by year that link to the overall summary budget” Question: Would it be acceptable for offerors to include instead 1) a summary budget worksheet summarizing costs by year for all five years, and 2) a single detailed budget worksheet with detailed costs by year for all five years (i.e., not separate worksheets for each year)? This would serve to decrease redundancy of information and provide USAID a single detailed view for ease of review.

Answer: Yes. A summary budget worksheet summarizing costs by year for all five years and a single detailed budget worksheet with detailed costs by year for all five years ( include all formulation which link to the overall summary budget).

58. RFP Section Reference: L.11.2 Part 2 “Budget Line Item Headings” Question:

May offerors add to the budget line item headings under Indirect Costs (B) to reflect our actual indirect cost structure?

Answer: Yes. The RFP has been revised to reflect this change.

59. RFP Section Reference: L.11.2.2 Page Number: 82 Under the Budget Line Item

Headings, Travel & Allowances includes “Miscellaneous (Visas, Inoculations, etc.)” Section: L.11.3 Page Number: 84 Under the Budget Narrative instructions, Other Direct Costs includes “passport and visa fees, medical exams and inoculations”. Question: Could USAID please clarify whether offerors should include passport and visa fees, medical exams, and inoculations under Travel & Allowances or Other Direct Costs?

Answer: Yes, offerors should include passport and visa fees, medical exams, and inoculations under Other Direct Costs.

60. RFP Section Reference: L.11.3 Page Number: 84 “Consultants… All costs associated with each STTA engagement (Salaries and Wages, Fringe Benefits, Allowances, Travel and Transportation, Equipment or supplies specific to the engagement, etc.) should be included in this cost category…” Question: Could offerors place these costs in the respective budget line items where other similar costs are located based on normal cost categorizations? For example, placing travel costs for consultants under the Travel & Allowances line item with clear reference to the consultants. In the budget narrative, we will distinguish the associated consultant expenses and provide the required explanation.

Answer: Yes

61. General RFP Question Does USAID expect any local subcontractors in any of the possible countries of performance to raise VAT on their charges that would be irrecoverable by the Prime Offeror and therefore USAID?

Answer: USAID anticipates VAT will be able to be recovered in all operating countries.

VAT should not be included in offerors’ budgets.

62. RFP Section I.1 -RFP page 40 Section I.1 includes FAR Clause 52.229-8 Taxes- Foreign Cost Reimbursement Contracts. Please confirm if this RFP and resultant Contract will be exempted from local taxes and duties (for US and local teaming partners and their personnel) in any of the countries of performance?

Answer: USAID anticipates VAT will be able to be recovered in all operating countries.

VAT should not be included in offerors’ budgets.

63. RFP Section L.6 In the instructions for Annex C, USAID indicates that offerors should include a 2 No. Reference Question -RFP page 75 “subcontract management plan that contains a matrix of all significant personnel providing long-term technical assistance or home office support…” Is this matrix intended to include only significant subcontractor staff, or should it also include all significant staff, whether sourced from the prime or subcontractors? Can USAID clarify its definition of “significant” in this context?

Answer: Matrix must include significant personnel for prime and subcontractors. As each organization’s structure varies and relates to its technical approach, “significant” will be relative. The objective is for offerors to demonstrate their clear overall organizational structure and staffing plan to effectively support their technical approach.

See evaluation Factor 2.

64. RFP Section L.6 -RFP May offerors include their full small business utilization narrative under Annex E - Contractor Performance Reports, or is it required to be included in the 30- page Technical Proposal?

Answer: Full small business utilization narrative under Annex E.

65. There seem to be confusion regarding the various attachments can you please provide a definitive list?

Answer: The attachments are as follows:

Attachment 1 – Statement Of Objectives Attachment 2 – Subcontracting Plan Template Attachment 3 – Initial Environmental Examination Attachment 4 – Overview of Indicators Attachment 5 – Local Compensation Plan Guide

66. We cannot identify any information for the inclusion of information on non-key personnel. Are only key personnel to be identified, with appropriate resumes, biodata, and references? If this is the case, for budgeting purposes do we make cost estimates based upon task? If non-key personnel to be included, do we provide resumes and biodata? Do we provide a summary table of non-key without resume and biodata? Or, do we provide a simple senior/junior rate table, and again estimate costs on the basis of task?

Answer: Only Key Personnel are to be identified with resumes, bio data sheets and references. Non-key personnel should be included in the budget, budget notes, organizational structure annex and wherever offeror deems appropriate. Offerors must demonstrate their costs are fair, reasonable and realistic to implement this project. How organizations choose to present that information is up to their discretion within the requirements of the RFP.

67. If we believe that the tasks can be accomplished with less than five key personnel, is that satisfactory?

Answer: Yes. RFP states UP TO 5 key personnel. The number of key personnel proposed should be based on offerors technical approach and organizational structure.

68. Is this a sealed bid?

Answer: This is not a sealed bid.

69. Are Disclosure Statement Required? If so, are they to be submitted with the proposal or upon award?

Answer: Yes see section K.5. The Disclosure Statement must be submitted as a part of the offeror’s proposal under this solicitation unless the offeror has already submitted a Disclosure Statement disclosing the practices used in connection with the pricing of this proposal.

70. Please confirm that contractors registered on SAM are not required to submit a complete Section K?

Answer: Contractors with valid registration and certification in SAM do not need to complete Section K.

71. Regarding Grants Under Contract Section (GUC) the Section C description/Specifications/Statement of Work C.7 (pg 16 of 20) Is the manual referred to in Section C.7 and H.5 one and the same? The contractor is to develop the manual and get approval from USAID? Does USAID have any standards for incorporation?

Answer: Yes they are the same. The contractor is to develop and get approved from USAID. Grants Under Contract manual must comply with USAID requirements for pass-through entities. Guidance can be found at 2 CRF 200.331.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f0f8d46b1b2cba7fa4950ddd9e44258d&mc=true&node=se2.1.200_1331 &rgn=div8

72. Are costs associated with developing the manual, part of the GUC 10% set aside or to be priced separately?

Answer: Costs associated with developing the grants manual are not part of the GUC line item (10% set aside).

73. Are we allowed to apply Fee to the GUC costs?

Answer: Offerors may apply a maximum fee of 2% on the GUC costs.

74. Can you verify that the FSN rates in SAEP Attachment 5 LCP Guides are to be used as guides for CCN labor rates referenced in Section H.17 (b) (pg 37 of 92).

75. If a South African is nominated for a Key position, must he be paid at local compensation rates? Would we be able to request waivers.

Answer: Yes however waivers can be requested.

76. What is the anticipated start date for this program?

Answer: Anticipated award date is November 17, 2016.

77. Section F.6. page 13, table of reports and deliverables. Could USAID please confirm that the due dates for reports and deliverables refer to calendar days throughout this section, where appropriate, e,g., F.16.13, F.6.15, etc.?

Answer: Reports and deliverables refer to calendar days.

78. Will US National and TCN employees be exempt from local taxes? Will the contractor be exempt from income taxes and VAT? Would USAID provide assistance to Offeror in obtaining Tax Exemption Certificate?

Answer: VAT for the project is tax exempt on this USAID project in all operating countries. Local income tax is determined by each host government. In the event individual income tax is not tax exempt, USAID will not provide any assistance regarding Tax Exemptions for personal income.

79. Section H.17 (b). Would USAID consider granting blanket waiver to treat TCNs the same as USNs for payment of salaries in USD and allowances and differentials to enable the contractor to attract high quality technical support from the region required for the success of this program?

Answer: Offerors should request a waiver if they are considering such a policy.

80. E.3 page 11: There is a reference to F.6.b which appears to be a typo. Could you confirm that this is meant to be F.6.2 ?

Answer: Typo corrected. F6.2

81. F.3 page 12: Can the sentence be modified to be “…the Southern Africa region and the Offeror’s home office” to account for data analysis, planning, report generation, preparation, support, etc. work done from home office by the contractor and the subcontractors?

Answer: This modification is not necessary; it is assumed there will be home office support for this contract.

82. F.6 page 14: The description preceding the deliverables table states that “All project outputs and deliverables will be submitted to the COR in both hard copy and electronic format.” Can the hard copy follow later in periodic bundled deliveries, provided the e-copy of each deliverable is submitted by its due date?

This would allow the contractor to ship via pouch at lower cost to the Government than sending by DHL.

Answer: Submission of a proper report in electronic version will be considered submitted on time. Hard copies must be delivered within a reasonable time.

83. H.5 page 26: Per ADS 636.3.6.2, will the contract authorize an LOC with the contractor for making advances to the grantees under GUCs?

Answer: Yes if the Contractor has an LOC with the USG or sets one up, USAID will provide funding for GUC only to the LOC.

84. L.10.c: The sub-paragraph (c) says “(c) Describe any quality awards or certifications that indicate exceptional ability to provide the service or product described in the statement of work. This information is not included in the page limit.” Please clarify if this is meant to be included in the Annex, where there is no page limitation.

Answer: Yes this should be included in Annex E.

85. L.11.2: This states that Offerors must use “standard cost elements organized as specified below.” A “Subcontractors” entry is not included in the list of the standard cost elements. Please confirm that Subcontractors and Subcontractor Handling are both acceptable cost elements.

Answer:Yes please see revised section L of RFP.

86. L.11.3 :Where is B.4.f or is this a typo for B.3.f ?

Answer: This is a Typo. The correct number is B.3.F