Amendment_No.1_to_SOL-685-13-000005.pdf

5. PROJECT NO.

CODE

7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED

BPA NO. 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODE CODE

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended, X

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning __________ copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR AC-

KNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV. 10-83)

is required to sign this document and return ___________ copies to the issuing office. is not, A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

15 C. DATES SIGNED

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES

SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER

BY

Contractor x

16C. DATE SIGNED

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

N/A

STANDARD FORM 30 STANDARD FORM 30

(Type or print) (Type or print)

(Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

(No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

(If other than Item 6)

(Specify type of modification and authority)

(such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)

(If required)

(If applicable)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

1 35

One SEE BLOCK 16C

USAID/SENEGAL

REGIONAL ACQUISITION AND ASSISTANCE OFFICE

AMERICAN EMBASSY

B.P. 49

DAKAR, SENEGAL

Same as Block 6

ALL Potential Offerors

SOL-685-13-000005 Dated March 15, 2013

The purpose of this amendment is to provide: (1) additional information in Section L.6(a)(3) - Collaboration and

Coordination Plan,ato Section L.7(b) – Proposed Costs/Prices; and (2) answers to questions from potential offerors.

(See continuation pages)

Beatrice M. Condé

Regional Contracting Officer

RFP SOL-685-13-000005 REGIS-AG Questions and Answers – Amendment 01

1. What is the anticipated start date for REGIS-AG?

A: July 2014

2. On the cover page, the closing time for submission of proposals in response to this RFP is listed as 08:00 Dakar local time on Monday, April 29, 2013. Q: What time will USAID’s office in Dakar open on Monday, April 29, in the event that offerors need to request oral confirmation of receipt of proposals on that date?

A: Only electronic confirmation of receipt of proposals will be provided to those offerors that submit their complete electronic submission prior to the closing date and time specified on the cover letter of the solicitation. Phone calls are not authorized nor encouraged.

3. SOL cover letter, paragraph 4, page 2 and SOL Section L.3, paragraph (e), page 126, both state a requirement for a Word document and Excel for the cost proposal. Given that the cost proposal requires signed documents and other large files, would USAID consider allowing Contractors to submit the cost proposal in PDF format in addition to the Excel spreadsheet with workable calculations, and eliminate the requirement for a Word

Document for the cost proposal?

A: The Technical Proposal shall be submitted in MS Word or Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format. For the Cost Proposal – the budget shall be in MS Excel to show calculations, however the budget narrative can be in either MS Word or PDF format. The apparent winner will be asked to submit the negotiated Statement of Work (SOW) in MS Word format.

4. As there is a limited number of key local organizations that operate in the proposed project zone, would USAID consider discouraging, or barring completely, the establishment of exclusive teaming arrangements between international organizations and local organizations, to ensure that all teams have the advantage of collaborating with local organizations?

A: Local organizations will be able to partner with as many international organizations as they deem necessary in offerors’ proposals.

5. SOL Section B.4, page 8: The RFP states that “Indirect costs shall not be allowed for local organizations. All costs for local organizations shall be budgeted and billed as direct costs.”

Would USAID consider a deviation from this requirement on a case-by-case basis when each of the following conditions is met?

An indigenous organization can provide evidence that it has an accounting system capable of administering a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) or Time and Materials

(T&M) type subcontract;

An indigenous organization has audited financial statements for at least the past two years and is committed to annual audits of its indirect cost rates in accordance with the cost principles of FAR Part 31;

An indigenous organization has established indirect cost rates and the use of indirect cost rates is an integral part of their cost accounting standards; and

The prime contractor has the appropriate subcontract management systems in place to ensure a CPFF or T&M subcontract with an indigenous organization is administered properly.

a. We would appreciate USAID providing Offerors the flexibility of entering into CPFF or T&M type subcontracts with indigenous organizations that have the financial and administrative capacity to administer these types of subcontracts. With strong prime contractor oversight and the requirement that indigenous organizations undergo annual audits, these mechanisms would help indigenous organizations acquire the financial and administrative experience to apply for

NICRAs.

b. Further, managing direct cost allocation subcontracts typically results in a higher financial and administrative burden for prime contractors and reduces overall cost control, because monthly costs vary significantly depending on the services that the subcontractor provides.

Indirect cost rate ceilings (under CPFF subcontracts) and fixed multipliers (under T&M subcontracts) reduce the government’s cost risk of potential indirect cost rate increases and allow the prime contractor to provide higher levels of cost control and financial and administrative oversight.

A: It is expected that unless the proposed local subcontractors have multiple donor funding sources, that all proposed budget expenditures be charged as “Direct Cost”.

6. RFP Section B.6., page 8: Is the RFP requesting ceilings on indirect rates?

A: Section B.6 has been deleted in its entirety.

7. Page 8, Clause B.6, Ceiling on Indirect Cost Rates, is intended to establish ceilings on the indirect cost rates.

Question: We request that this section be deleted in its entirety based on the following authorities: a) FAR 42.703-1 “Policy” , FAR 42.707(b) “Cost-sharing rates and limitations on indirect cost rates”, and USAID’s “Best Practices Guide for Indirect Costing”.

A: Section B.6 has been deleted in its entirety.

8. Section C.2, Figure 1, on page 16, IR 2.1 under Objective 1, “Increased access to water

(productive use)”, is mentioned on the same hierarchy as value chains strengthened and climate smart Ag practices expanded and all are receiving the highest level of new investment, yet water seems to be mentioned only in passing under cross-cutting issues (C.5.1, paragraph 3, page 21) for REGIS-AG, while value chains and climate smart agricultural practices are addressed more directly. Water does seem to be integrated more directly in the description of component 1 of

REGIS-ER (Section J.6., 1.2, page 92-94). Given this and the “Centrality of Water” mentioned in J.3, Box 2, page 76, could USAID please clarify how the issue of water should be addressed by REGIS-AG?

A: As this set of questions only addresses the REGIS-AG RFP, the issue of water should be addressed only insofar as it supports the focus value chains of this contract, which are cowpea, small ruminants, and poultry (see page 15).

9. Section C.2, Figure 1, on page 16, onion, millet, and sorghum, are mentioned as a key value chains (under IR 2.2), yet they seems to be missing from the REGIS roles and responsibilities on page 74. It seems from the shading indicating depth of new investment (on page 16) that no new investment will be made in these subsectors. Does this mean these sectors are already addressed by currently operating projects?

A: While onion, millet, and sorghum were identified as value chains, they were not selected as focus value chains. The focus value chains of this contract are cowpea, small ruminants, and poultry (see page 15). A revised Figure 1 (page 16) is incorporated to this RFP

Amendment 01 to add poultry which is mistakenly missing from the figure on page 16.

10. Page 17, Clause C.2, states that REGIS-AG “will serve as a model (and partner) for

REGIS-ER for non-targeted value chains. Question: Could USAID elaborate further on the expectations for REGIS-AG’s involvement in non-targeted VCs?

A: USAID expects close collaboration between REGIS-AG and REGIS-ER. USAID expects

REGIS-AG, through Objective 1, IR 1.1. in the results framework, to play a supporting role in developing non-targeted value chains under the REGIS-ER cooperative agreement.

11. Section C.4 Objectives, paragraph 3, page 17: Would USAID please confirm that the 270,000 direct beneficiaries cited as a target in Section C.4 include household members of participants in project activities? That is, for example, if a household with six members benefits from the increased income that accrues to a trader due to participation in project activities, then this would count as six direct beneficiaries of the project?

A: Yes, USAID confirms that the 270,000 direct beneficiaries cited in the RFP includes household members.

12. On page 17, in section C.4. Objectives, USAID defines a target of reach 270,000 direct beneficiaries. On page 25, in section C.6. Place of Performance, USAID defines the place of performance as Tillabéry, Maradi, and Zinder in Niger, and Séno, Yagha, Komondjari, Ghagna, Namentenga, Sanmatenga, Bam, and Loroum in Burkina Faso. Given that REGIS-AG will be working to strengthen actors along the value chain, including those that may not be directly located in the target areas, will USAID kindly clarify whether the 270,000 direct beneficiaries must be located in the targeted areas, or must only be working in value chains affecting actors in the targeted areas?

A: USAID confirms that the project will target and work in only the most vulnerable areas outlined in the RFP. Please also note that this project will also build on existing Food For

Peace (FFP) development programs in common programmatic and geographic focus areas

(see page 131.) These FFP programs are in a subset of the focus regions.

13. Page 17, Clause C.4, Objectives, states “Income from sheep, goats, poultry and cowpeas increased by 50% among target households, which will, in turn, contribute to reducing the depth of poverty (among the poor) by 20%.” Question: Are these targets for the entire

Sahel portfolio or specific to the REGIS AG objectives?

A: USAID confirms that these targets are specific to the REGIS-AG objectives.

14. Section C.4.4, paragraphs 1-2, pages 19-20: USAID refers to subcontracts “designed to co-invest with private-sector actors in activities that will catalyze change (upgrading) in the target value chains.” SOL Section J.4, Component 1, paragraph 4, page 81: USAID mentions

“matching grants” and “promotional activity grants.” SOL Section L.6(b), paragraph 6, page

134: USAID refers to the existence of an “Innovation and Investment Fund.” Are grants-under-contract contemplated under this award, and can/should Offerors propose a grants fund?

A: Grants Under Contracts (GUCs) are not contemplated under this award, however sub-awards will be considered and are encouraged. Any reference to “promotional activity grants” and “innovation fund” are deleted from the RFP. The meaning of “matching grants” is: The offeror is encouraged to seek ways to partner with private sector entities in order to leverage USAID funds.

15. Section C.4.4, paragraph 3, page 20, the RFA mentions the design of an approach for sub-contracting with the private sector for the need for scaling up investments in technology. What sorts of technologies is USAID seeking to scale up? Could the sub-contracting be done to any entity capable of scaling up investments in technology, regardless of legal status (i.e. could this be done by an NGO with a facilitation and market systems approach, rather than just the private sector)?

A: USAID is seeking to scale up any appropriate technology which will improve the overall performance and inclusiveness of three product value chains (cowpea, small ruminants, and poultry).

16. Section C.5, paragraph 3, page 21, the RFP states “there is no hard line between “domestic” and “productive” water sources, yet they seem to be addressed separately in the description of component 1 of REGIS-ER (Section J.6., 1.2, page 92-94)and the results framework, where IR

2.1 (page 16) mentions productive use and IR 1.3.2.1 (page 73) potable water. Could USAID please clarify the differentiation between IR 2.1 and IR 1.3.2.1 when conceptualizing community-based multiple use water systems?

A: Objective 1 (Increased and Sustainable Economic Well Being), IR 2.1. refers to increased access to water (productive use), while Objective 3 (Improved Health and Nutrition Status)

IR 1.3.2.1 refers to increased availability of potable water. The application should clearly demonstrate how water for productive use will be increased and how availability of potable water will be increased through proposed project interventions.

17. Section C.5.5, Results: The RFP lists expected results by Component. Could USAID clarify whether the Offeror can assign expected results from a component to another based on the

Offeror's technical design?

A: USAID confirms that the offeror can assign expected results from a component to another based on the offeror’s technical design.

18. Page 25, Clause C.6 Place of Performance, refers to “Security conditions” Question: Please clarify the U.S. Embassy guidelines to non-governmental organizations on security protocols in Niger and Burkina Faso and what are allowable costs for security staff and procedures? For instance, given current security concerns in Niger, does Embassy policy advise use of armed escorts of NGO staff to project sites outside Niamey?

A: The U.S. follows the Government of Niger (GON) and Government of Burkina Faso

(GoBF) policy for security protocols in Niger. Currently, the GON requires armed escorts outside of Niamey. Offerors should be aware of the current operating environment in Niger.

As the security situation is fluid, offerors should be willing and able to adjust to shifting

GON policies regarding security protocols.

19. Section F.4, paragraph 1, page 31: The RFP states that “the Contractor shall provide the following key personnel at 100% Level of Effort (LOE) for the performance of the REGIS-

AG contract.”

(a) Could USAID confirm that this means that Key Personnel must spend 100% of their time on the project?

A: It is expected that the proposed Key Personnel will dedicate 100% Level of Effort in their respective positions as identified in the proposal.

(b) Could USAID confirm that applicants may budget for an individual (such as an expatriate or TCN) in a Key Personnel position to phase out of the position, provided that he/she is replaced by another candidate who is approved by USAID?

A: USAID expects that all key personnel positions be filled as indicated in the proposal. If the offeror proposes an expatriate or TCN for a period of time (not the entire award) who is expected to phase out and be replaced through award completion, a replacement candidate shall be proposed for approval. It is however expected that any replacements will not pose additional costs burden to the program.

20. Given heightened security concerns in several target districts and regions of REGIS-AG, particularly in Niger, (Q: a) can USAID provide further guidance and information around these region’s heightened security profiles and Mission plans to mitigate security risks?

(Q:b)To what extent are Offerors required to include security planning in their proposed technical approach, management plan, and budget?

A: As the security situation is fluid in the targeted zones outlined in the RFP, USAID will meet with partners in-country regularly to ensure security information is widely shared in a timely manner. A good understanding of the security environment and required security costs will strengthen offerors’ proposals significantly.

21. Section F.4, Key Personnel, paragraph 1, page 31: Could USAID clarify the definition of

"local-hire or Sahelian" personnel?

A: Local-hire refers to an individual from that country (i.e. Burkinabe for Burkina Faso and

Nigerien for Niger); Sahelians refer to the region.

Could USAID clarify whether residents of Mali or Chad, for example, be considered TCNs or CCNs for evaluation and cost purposes?

A: In the context of Sahelian, individuals from Mali, Chad and other West African countries are considered as CCN or the equivalent to a Local-hire TCN.

22. Page 31, Clause F.4, Key Personnel, states that the Chief of Party is located in Niger while the DCOP is located in Burkina Faso. Question: Considering the current security environment and its impact on both recruitment and on management flexibility, is it allowable for the COP to switch formal post location to Burkina Faso in the implementation of the project? The DCOP likewise would locate in Niger, understanding that both personnel will travel from Niger to Burkina Faso as necessary.

A: Approximately two thirds of the REGIS program’s budget will be devoted to Niger, while one third will be devoted to Burkina Faso. It is not allowable for the COP to switch formal post location to Burkina Faso. It is not allowable for the DCOP to switch formal post location to Niger. As stated in the RFP, the COP is to be stationed in Niger, while the DCOP is to be stationed in Burkina Faso.

23. Page 31, Clause F.4, Key Personnel, states that each of the four key positions may substitute an additional seven years’ of experience in lieu of a Master’s degree. Question: The addition of seven years seems excessive for what is commonly a 2 year degree and for which USAID solicitations most commonly require only an additional 4 years of experience.

A: USAID confirms the terms laid out in the RFP, namely that each of the four key positions may substitute an additional seven years of experience in lieu of a Master’s degree.

24. Page 32, Clause F.4, Key Personnel, identifies the Finance and Operations Manager as a

Key Personnel position. Question: Is the use of a slightly different title acceptable, understanding that the requirements and the key nature of the position remain the same.

A: USAID confirms that a slightly different title is acceptable for the position of Finance and

Operations Manager.

25. Page 32, Clause F.4, Key Personnel, states that the Finance and Operations Manager must have “experience managing sub-grants”. Section H does not include a Grants Under

Contract authorization for this program.

Question: Please confirm that GUC authorization will be incorporated into the awarded contract. No GUCS are anticipated in this award. The Finance and Operations Manager must have experience managing sub-awards.

A: Section F.4, Page 32, Key Personnel has been changed to delete,“sub-grants and sub-contracts” and is replaced with “Sub-awards”.

26. Page 36, Clause F.6.A(6), Reports and Deliverables, Financial Report, states that

“Financial reports must contain sufficient information on a budget sub-line items basis to review vouchers for approval.”

Question: Please provide some illustrative examples of “sub-line item” financial data since the line items of Clause B.4 include only Direct, Indirect and Fixed Fee?

A: Financial reporting is required by Country, Earmarks, CLIN, and component (C.4). This information shall be transmitted with the: SF425 (Federal Financial Report) - filed

Quarterly; and with the SF1034 (Public voucher for Purchase and Services other than

Personal)” submitted for each payment request.

27. Page 36, Clause F.6.A(6), Reports and Deliverables, Financial Report, states that

“USAID will require that activities related to earmarks for Global Climate Change, Global

Health Initiative, Feed the Future, Environment, Water and Humanitarian Assistance activities be tracked.” It further requires “…a budget tracking table by earmark…”

Question: Please confirm that the various earmarks anticipated in this clause will not require the sub-line item financial data, rather will require only cumulative financial data of total costs to date incurred in the activities of the earmark.

A: USAID confirms that the earmarks anticipated in this clause will not require the sub-line item financial data, but will require cumulative financial data of total costs to date incurred in the activities of the earmark. Also see answer to question 26 above.

28. Page 36, Clause F.6.A(6), Reports and Deliverables, Financial Report, states that “The

Contractor must ensure that they attach a budget tracking table by earmark and the associated required indicators located in Attachment J-5 to their financial report on a quarterly basis.” Question: Please confirm that the information in J-5 does not include financial data nor is USAID expecting the Contractor to provide financial reporting at the indicator level.

A: USAID confirms that the information in J-5 does not include financial data nor is USAID expecting the Contractor to provide financial reporting at the indicator level.

29. Page 36, Clause F.6.D., Reports and Deliverables, Close-out Plan, states that “The close-out plan shall also include a financial report which reflects expenditures to date by program element and projected funds to be de-obligated.” This Plan shall be submitted six months prior to the end of the contract.

Question: Please define what a program element is, since other financial tracking requires reporting by CLIN (Direct, Indirect, Fixed Fee) or by sub-line item of those B.4 items and the definition of an element is not provided. Please note that a six months lead-time increases a high level of uncertainty in projection de-obligation estimates.

A: The program elements are the same as program components (C.4). The six month lead time for phasing-out of activities/staff of a 5 year award is not a long period of time since 4

½ years of program activities would have been performed. The phasing out should already reflect and be addressed in the offeror’s technical & cost proposals.

30. Section F.6.B, EMMP, page 40, an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) is mentioned. Has

USAID carried out an IIE for this project/region? If so, will USAID please release the IEE?

A: The IEE is available for the public on the following website:

http://senegal.usaid.gov/resilience. The document is titled: “Sahel JPC REGIS ETC + IEE

[881.5 KB PDF]”.

31. Page 47, Clause G.4(2), AIDAR 752.7003 Documentation for Payment, states that “The

SF-1034 shall be supported with the attached spreadsheet indicating contractor’s expenditures broken down by countries and budget categories in accordance with the contract budget. The report shall be supported with the detailed cost breakdown of program expenses, including seminars, grants, roundtables, etc.” This clause is one of several throughout the RFP that require various levels of financial reporting, some of which seem to conflict with one another and may require extensive financial analysis and reporting.

Question: Please clarify what financial reporting is required, Earmarks? Country?

CLIN? Sub-line item? Elements? Program Expenses?

A: See answer to question 26

32. SOL Section H.2, page 49: The RFP states that “the authorized geographic code for procurement of goods and services under this award is 937.”

http://senegal.usaid.gov/resilience

(a) Given the importance of francophone skills within the REGIS-AG implementing team, and the extensive relevant experience of francophone organizations in the targeted countries, would USAID change the geo code from 937 to 935 to allow their inclusions?

(b) Given the importance of francophone experts within the REGIS-AG implementing team, and the extensive relevant experience of francophone organizations in the targeted countries, would USAID recommend that an organization that wishes to include a non-

US and non-developing-country partner within its consortium request a waiver with its application?

A: The geographic code for this solicitation is 937.

33. Page 52, Clause H.4. Non-Expendable Property Purchases and Information

Technology Resources, incorporates the approval for non-expendable property in the awarded contract.

Question: Please confirm that the definition of Non-expendable Property will be established by the relevant cost principles of the awardee.

A: Please see FAR 52.245-1 for definition of Non-expendable property. The proposal addressing this must be in line with Section H.26 “Title to Property” which includes

48CFR 752.245-70 and 48CFR 752.245-71.

34. Page 52, Clause H.11(c) and (f), Additional Requirements for Personnel

Compensation, subparagraph (c) states “Salaries and wages must be reflective of the

“market value” for each position along with salary history. Salaries and wages may not exceed the contractor’s established policy and practice, including the contractor’s established pay scale for equivalent classifications of employees, which shall be certified to by the contractor. As well, no individual salary or wage may exceed the employee’s current salary or wage, or the highest rate of annual salary or wage received during any full year of the immediately preceding three (3) years without the approval of the Contracting Officer.”

Subparagraph (f) states “the initial salary shall not exceed either the individual’s recent long-term salary by 5%”.

Question: Market value and contactor policy complement each other in the establishment of a fair value for position requirements (compensation structure) and is the basis of the

AIDAR 7521.7007 approach. Inserting the use of an individual’s salary history into the

Offeror’s compensation structure and position assessment undermines the position valuation and creates unfair compensation for equal work. Please remove the conflicting requirement of individual salary consideration.

A: Market value determination (i.e.: FSN-equivalent grade 10), should be done for all proposed positions at the different skillset levels (i.e. years of experience, expertise, Senior, Junior) and in line with the contractor’s personnel policies prior to advertising. The determination shall be kept with the contractor’s personnel files at the Human Resources department and shall serve as the basis to support the salary range for the advertised positions. If an individual meets all of the requirements of the advertised position; is identified as the most qualified; but does not have long-term salary history which equates to the position they are selected for, then the advertised minimum salary for that position will apply.

35. Page 52, Clause H.11(d) and (e), Additional Requirements for Personnel

Compensation, subparagraph (d) states “The initial starting salaries of all…..consultants or employees…. must be approved, in advance and in writing, by the Contracting Officer.”

Subparagraph (e) states that positions listed as ““TBD” must be approved, in advance and in writing, by the Contracting Officer.”

Question: Please consider the prior approval of a salary structure based in market surveys for employee positions in each country that will facilitate the oversight of initial salaries while reducing unnecessary paperwork.

A: Initial salaries for individuals being charged as “Direct Costs”, identified and reflecting in the final and negotiated proposal are considered to be approved upon award signing.

Positions who do not reflect individuals and for which salary history is unable to be documented, cannot receive blanket prior approval.

36. Page 53, Clause H11(g), Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation, states that “For CCN staff, the ceiling is the maximum salary of the highest senior FSN position authorized under the U.S. Embassy Compensation Plan, which will be provided to the contractor on request after contract award.

Question: Please provide the Local Compensation Plan, so that Offerors may consider cost limitations in preparing their cost proposal.

A: Local Compensation Plans for Burkina Faso and Niger dated July 4, 2010 are incorporated to this RFP amendment 01.

37. Could USAID please provide the most recent FSN scales for Burkina Faso and Niger, so that we may not exceed proposing the maximum salary of the highest senior Foreign

Service National.

A: See answer to question 36 above.

38. On page 53, in section H.11(g) Salary Ceiling, the RFP states, “For CCN staff, the ceiling is the maximum salary of the highest senior FSN position authorized under the U.S.

Embassy Compensation Plan, which will be provided to the contractor on request after contract award.” Could USAID confirm that the Local Compensation Plans effective July

4, 2010, for both Burkina Faso and Niger remain in force at the present time?

39. Section H.11, paragraph (g), page 53: USAID states that “For CCN staff, the ceiling is the maximum salary of the highest senior FSN position authorized under the U.S. Embassy

Compensation Plan, which will be provided to the contractor on request after contract award.” Will the mission provide the compensation plan for the proposal phase, considering that the budgeted rates will be binding in the contract?

40. Section H.11, paragraph (g), pages 52-53, references that for CCN staff the salary ceiling is the maximum salary of the highest senior FSN position authorized under the U.S.

Embassy Compensation Plan and that it will be provided to the contractor on request after contract award. Given that this will impact cost proposals, would USAID please provide the local compensation plan for Niger and Burkina Faso?

41. Section H.11.(g), paragraph 1, Salary Ceiling, pages 52-53

Q: Can USAID please provide the US Embassy Compensation Plan for Niger and

Burkina Faso?

42. Section H.11, paragraph (h), page 53, states that “Project Staff may be granted a one-time annual increase after their completion of twelve months of satisfactory service under the contract.” Would USAID please confirm that staff will be allowed annual increases upon completion of satisfactory performance every 12 months?

A: Yes.

43. Page 52, Clause H.11(l), Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation, states

“Any six-day workweek proposed for STTAs requires prior written approval by the

Contracting Officer.”

Question: Please incorporate approval for a six day work week for ALL STTA as this clause does for international STTA.

A: A six-day work week is authorized for all STTAs, with no premium pay.

44. SOL Section H.12, page 54:

(a) Would USAID consider lifting the restrictions on unallowable costs for Third

Country Nationals (TCNs) specified in this section?

A: No

(b) Given the nature of the project, it may be that CCN hires from Niger will be fielded to

Burkina (or vice versa). In these cases, would USAID consider lifting the restriction on payment of allowances to CCNs?"

A: No

45. Section I.5, paragraph (a), page 66, states that the Contractor agrees to submit a proposal, including data other than certified cost or pricing data and certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.408, Table 15-2. Are offerors required to provide a Certificate of

Current Cost or Pricing Data?

A: Yes

46. Section J.6., 1.2, page 93, last paragraph mentions “a multi-use water systems approach

“(see objective 3.2)”. If this is to the results framework diagram on page 73, Objective 3, IR

2, does not seem to have any sub IRs that relate to multi-use water systems. Could USAID please clarify this reference?

A: The reference on page 93 should be to Objective 3, IR 1.3.2.1. rather than “see objective

3.2) that is currently stated.

47. In attachment J.2, page 74, poultry is mentioned in the REGIS roles and responsibilities, yet it is not included as a sub-sector under IR 2.2 on page 16. How does poultry fit into the results framework?

A: The focus value chains of this contract are cowpea, small ruminants, and poultry (see page 15). Also see answer to quest 9 above.

48. Section Attachment J.5, paragraph 5, pages 88-89 Q: For Result 2.2.5, “Improve the enabling environment for local and regional private sector investment”, are we correct that all six indicators listed are illustrative custom indicators?

A: Yes, these are illustrative custom indicators.

49. Page 106, J Attachments, Attachment J.11, contains the Standard Form template for

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.

Question: Please clarify whether the Offeror is to complete and include this form as part of the Cost Proposal.

A: A completed J.11 must be submitted as an annex.

50. Section Attachment J.13, pages 110-117

Q: Attachment J.13 provides USAID’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan Template.

However, Section L makes no reference to a small business subcontracting plan. Are we correct that offerors are required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan as part of the proposal?

A: A small business subcontracting plan is required if small business utilization is anticipated.

51. Page 119, Clause K.3 – Annual Representations and Certifications indicates the insertion of the NAICS code for the solicitation.

Question: Please identify the NAICS code for this solicitation.

A: North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code is: 541990

52. Section L.3. General Instructions, paragraph 6, page 126: The RFP states that proposal annexes should include resumes of key personnel, long-term personnel, and short-term personnel. To limit the number of pages in the annexes, would it be acceptable to include paragraph bio descriptions of proposed short-term personnel, rather than full resumes for short-term personnel?

A: Annexes pages do not count against the total page limit. Resumes are required to be submitted for all key personnel, long-term and short-term personnel.

53. Page 126, in section L.3. Length and Format, the RFP references resumes of proposed short-term personnel as Annex B. Would USAID confirm that the Offeror may include resumes for short-term personnel specifically cited in the proposal, but that for illustrative short-term personnel not explicitly proposed, an experience and capabilities matrix may be provided?

A: Yes. Also, see answer to question 52 above.

54. Section L.3, paragraph 6, page 126: Section L limits the Annexes to the following: (A)

Resumes of Key Personnel; (B) Resumes of proposed long and short-term personnel; (C)

Signed LOCs from key personnel; and (D) Branding and Marking Plan. However, SOL

Section L.6(b)(1) Management Plan, paragraph 3, page 134, states that "an organizational chart shall be provided in an annex to the Technical Proposal," and in paragraph 5 states that

"the proposal must include Letters of Commitment (in the annex) from all such proposed partners/sub-Offerors." Please confirm the orders and limitations to the technical annexes, as well as the orders and limitations to the cost annexes.

A: There are no page limitations to the annexes. The following annexes are added toL.3.(e):

E. Organizational Chart

F. Key Personnel position description

G. Sub-partner Letters of Commitment

H. Maps of Project sites

I. Relevant assessments

J. Certification of exceptional capacity

K. SF 294 Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts

55. On page 127, in section L.3. General Instructions to Offerors, the RFP states that only electronic submissions of proposals will be accepted for receipt under this solicitation. In addition to the official electronic submission, would USAID accept a courtesy hard copy of an offeror’s proposal after the due date for submission for its reference?

A: As stated in the solicitation, only electronic submission of proposals will be accepted.

56. Page 126, Clause L.3, General Instructions to Offerors, states that “Offerors may also send an Adobe Acrobat portable document format (.pdf) electronic submission” while the cover letter states “an electronic copy of the technical proposal in Microsoft Word and cost proposal in Microsoft Excel” must be submitted by the Offeror.

Question: Please confirm that, in place of the Word format, the Offeror may submit all pieces of the proposal in Adobe Acrobat portable document format (.pdf), with the exception of the Excel budget.

A: Yes, See answer to question 3.

57. Page 126, Clause L.3(e), Length and format, Table of Contents; In the current format, it is not entirely clear how the evaluation committee will be able to establish and measure the page count when some pages count and others do not all within the main body of the technical proposal.

Question: Please consider moving all sections and attachments that are not counted in the

65 page limitation to the annex.

A: As indicated in section L6, page 129, “Table of Contents” The 65 page limitation includes:

55 pages covering: (c) Technical Implementation and (f) Past performance

10 pages covering: (d) Management and Staffing Plan

58. Page 126, Clause L.3(e), Length and format, Table of Contents, lists the Annexes A – D which are excluded from the 65 pages allowed for the Technical Proposal. Several annexes referenced in later sections of Section L are not listed.

Question: Please confirm that additional annexes required by the solicitation will be excluded from the 65 pages allowed for the Technical Proposal. These include:

(a) Local Capacity Building Plan (L.6(a)(5));

(b) Gantt Chart of Activities (L.6(a)(6));

A: Are included in the 65 pages Technical Implementation (see L6, page

129 and see answer to question 57)

(c) Draft M&E Plan (L.6(a)(8));

A: Are included in the 65 pages Technical Implementation (see L6, page 129)

(d) Subcontractor Letters of Commitment (L.6(b)

(e) Project organogram (L.6(b)(1))

A: See answer to question# 54

(f) Estimated level of effort table (L.6(b)(1));

A: Included in the 65 pages Technical Implementation (see L6, page 129 and see answer to question 57)

(g) Four one-page key personnel position descriptions (L.6(c));

A: See answer to question# 54

(h) Three past performance information sheets (L.6(d));

A: See answer to question 57)

(i) Maps of project sites (L.6(e)).

A: See answer to question# 54

59. Page 126, Clause L.3(e), Length and format, states that the technical proposal is limited to 65 pages.

Question: Please confirm that certain pages may be excluded from the 65-page limitation, including such standard exceptions to page limitations as transmittal letter, acronym list, table of contents and annex dividers.

60. Section L.3, paragraph 6, page 126: “Technical proposals must be strictly limited to no more than 65 pages in length, (Times New Roman point 12 font size, single-sided pages, with one inch margins), excluding annexes which are limited to the following: Annex: A.

Resumes of Key Personnel with three references (full contact information to be provided:

name, position, relationship, e-mail address, telephone number); B. Resumes of proposed long and short-term personnel; C. Signed letters of commitment from key personnel; D.

Branding and Marking Plan (not to exceed 2 pages)”

Section L.6.b.1, paragraph 3, page 134 - “An organizational chart shall be provided in an annex to the Technical Proposal.”

Q: Are we correct that the organizational chart may be included in an annex that does not count towards the page limit?

A: Yes, and see answer to question 54 above.

61. Section L.3, paragraph 7, page 126 - “Technical proposals must not make reference to cost data in order that the technical evaluation may be made strictly on the basis of technical merit.”

Section L.6.b.3, paragraph 5, page 135 - “The draft staffing plan must include… the proposed compensation of the different positions.”

Q: Would USAID consider removing the requirement to include proposed compensation for different positions in the Staffing Plan because doing so would include cost data in the technical proposal?

A: The Staffing Plan of the technical proposal must only indicate the grade level for the position (i.e. Senior, junior). No salary rates should be mention in the technical proposal.

62. Section L.3, paragraph 5, page 126 - “Technical proposals must be strictly limited to no with one inch margins), excluding annexes which are limited to the following: Annex: A.

Resumes of Key Personnel with three references (full contact information to be provided:

name, position, relationship, e-mail address, telephone number); B. Resumes of proposed long and short-term personnel; C. Signed letters of commitment from key personnel; D.

Branding and Marking Plan (not to exceed 2 pages)”

Section L.6.b.1, paragraph 6, page 134 - “The proposal must include Letters of

Commitment (in the annex) from all such proposed partners/sub-Offerors.”

Q: Are we correct that partners/sub-Offerors’ Letters of Commitment may be included in an annex that does not count towards the page limit?

63. Section L.3, paragraph 6, page 126 - “Technical proposals must be strictly limited to no with one inch margins), excluding annexes which are limited to the following: Annex: A.

Resumes of Key Personnel with three references (full contact information to be provided:

name, position, relationship, e-mail address, telephone number); B. Resumes of proposed long and short-term personnel; C. Signed letters of commitment from key personnel; D.

Branding and Marking Plan (not to exceed 2 pages)”

Section L.6.e, paragraph 1, page 138 - “Maps of the project sites, relevant proposed key personnel letters of intent, relevant assessments, resumes, and biographical data sheets must be included and will not count towards the page limit.”

Q: Are we correct that maps of project sites may be included in an annex that does not

Q: Are we correct that relevant assessments may be included in an annex that does not

64. Section L.3, paragraph 16, page 127 - “All proposals in response to this RFP shall be due at the above email address, not later than the date and time, as indicated on the cover page of this RFP.”

Q: Given the limited number of existing USAID programs in Niger and Burkina Faso and the poor communications infrastructure in the two countries, would USAID consider granting a two week extension for the submission of REGIS-AG proposals?

A: No. Please refer to the cover page for the submission due date and time.

65. Section L.3. General Instructions, paragraph 6, page 126: The RFP states that annexes should be limited to: (A) Resumes of Key Personnel; (B) Resumes of Proposed Long- and

Short-Term Personnel; (C) Signed Letters of Commitment from Key Personnel; and (D)

Branding and Marking Plan. We seek clarification of the list of annexes. Specifically:

a. Section L.6., paragraph 5, page 129 itemizes the specific components of the technical proposal, including (e) Key Personnel, and (f) Past Performance. These two sections (Key Personnel and Past Performance) are not accounted for in the total 65-page allocation for (c) Technical Implementation (55 pages) and (d) Management and

Staffing Plan (10 pages). As Key Personnel is already accounted for as an annex

(Resumes and LOCs for Key Personnel) and as Key Personnel will also be addressed as part of Management and Staffing, and as Past Performance will be a lengthy document in itself, given its specific requirements, could the Key Personnel (e) and

Past Performance (f) sections introduced on page 129 be addressed within the annexes and not as part of the 65-page technical narrative?

Section L.6(b)(1), paragraph 3, page 134 states: “An organizational chart shall be provided in an annex.” Q: Please confirm that the organizational chart should be included as an annex.

Section L.6(b)(1), paragraph 5, page 134 states: “The proposal must include Letters of

Commitment (in the annex) from all such proposed partners/sub-offerors.” Q: Please confirm that institutional letters of commitment from partner organizations should be included as an annex.

Section L.6(e) Annexes, paragraph 1, page 138 states that annexes must include “maps … and biographical data sheets.” Q: Please confirm that maps are not required but may be included as an annex, and please confirm biographical data sheets should not be included in the technical proposal.

66. Section L.6, paragraph 2, page 128 -

Q: Are we correct that offerors may include a table of contents and list of acronyms that do not count against the 65 page limit for the Technical Proposal?

67. Section L.6, paragraph 2, page 128 - “annexes will be used to judge the Offeror’s past experience”.

Q: Are we correct that within the Table of Contents listed on page 129, f) Past

Performance -relevant to this Contract may be placed in an annex that does not count against the 55 page limit for the Technical Implementation Strategy nor the 65 page limit for the Technical Proposal?

A: Past performance is included in both the 55 and 65 page limits for the Technical

Proposal. Please see answer to question 57 above for further clarification.

68. Section L.6, paragraph 4, page 129 -

Q: Are we correct that within the Table of Contents, e) Key Personnel may be placed in an annex that does not count against the 65 page limit for the Technical Proposal?

69. Section L.6, paragraph 4, page 129: The outline for the technical proposal reads, “c)

Technical Implementation (limited to 55 pages includes items (c) and (f) below)." Can

USAID please clarify whether the reference is instead to items (e) and (f)?

A: Please see answer to question 57 above.

70. Section L.6, paragraph 4, page 129: Under Table of Contents, item (f) requires Past

Performance information from the Prime Contractor and partner organizations. Please clarify whether only major subcontractors (those allocated 20% of the total budget) are required to submit past performance information.

A: Proposed subcontractors with relevant past performance relating to similar scope, size or activity should be submitted.

71. Section L.6, paragraph 4, page 129 - “4. Strategy for Developing an Inclusive and

Competitive Target Value Chains” Ref: SOL Section L.6.a.4, paragraph 1, page 131 -

“Strategy for Increasing the Competitiveness and Inclusiveness of the Selected Value Chain in the Target Area” Q: Are we correct that the title for the fourth subsection of Technical

Implementation should be “Strategy for Increasing the Competitiveness and Inclusiveness of the Selected Value Chains in the Target Area”?

A: The title for the fourth subsection of Technical Implementation should read: “Strategy for

Developing Inclusive and Competitive Targeted Value Chains.”

72. Section L.6(b)(3) Staffing Plan, paragraph 5, page 135 states that the draft staffing plan should include “the proposed compensation of the different positions.” Please confirm that matters related to personnel compensation or other such cost matters should be addressed in the cost proposal and not the technical proposal.

73. Section L.6(d) Past Performance, paragraph 11, page 138: The RFP states that offerors should “provide a copy of the most recent SF 294 … for each contract against which you were required to report for the past five years.” Will USAID consider allowing offerors to submit 10 to 15 SF 294s that are indicative of our work, to limit the size of the electronic files? Five years’ worth of SF 294s would be a volume in itself.

A: Yes, also see answer to question 54 above.

74. May the budget narrative be submitted as part of the overall PDF version of the business proposal, or should we send the budget narrative as a Microsoft Word document as well?

A: See answer to question 3 above.

75. Page 129, in section L.6 Instructions for Preparation of the Technical Proposal, the

Table of Contents section provides page limits for some of the sections, but it is not clear if other sections are included in those limits or outside them. Could USAID please clarify the page limits for each lettered section: a, b, c, d, e, and f?

A: Page 129 - Table of Contents :

(a) Cover page - No page limit

(b) Executive Summary – limited to 2 pages

(c) Technical Implementation (M&E portion is limited to 10 pages), and (f)

Past Performance cumulative = limited to 55 pages for both (c and f).

(d) Management Staffing Plan – limited to 10 pages

(e) Key Personnel – no page limit

(f) Covered under (c) above.

(g) Annexes – no page limit

Also please see answer to question 57 above for further clarification.

76. On page 136, in section L.6(c) Key Personnel, the RFP states, “For each key personnel, the position description must not exceed one page.