HAY_TAO_RFP_Amend01-signed.pdf

RFP No. SOL-687-16-000013

Amendment 01

1. Section C.5.1 notes that Hay Tao may collaborate with regional counter-wildlife trafficking programming based with the USAID/Southern Africa Mission. Would USAID please clarify if there are specific programs being implemented with which Hay Tao should collaborate, or does this signify collaboration within Southern Africa mission staff directly?

Answer: This refers to collaborating with future counter-wildlife trafficking (CWT) or counter-wildlife crime (CWC) programs managed out of the USAID Southern Africa

Regional Mission. We cannot fully define that potential collaboration currently because those programs are still under development. This does NOT signify collaboration with staff of that Mission, but could involve collaboration with implementing partners that work on CWT/CWC programs of that Mission. Communications with the USAID

Southern Africa Regional Mission on matters relating to the Hay Tao activity will be managed by USAID Madagascar staff though Hay Tao staff could be contacted or involved as USAID Madagascar deems necessary.

2. Would USAID please confirm how many key personnel positions there are and their titles? Section C.7 lists six key personnel, while L.6.3 lists five key personnel positions.

Answer: Please provide five (05) Key personnel as mentioned in Section L.6.3.

3. Per Section H.17(b)1 of the RFP, would USAID please provide the most current local compensation plan against which salaries are to be considered?

Answer: Please see attached a copy of the most recent LECP.

4. Would USAID confirm in which section the staffing plan should be presented, whether it should be in the personnel section as described in L.6.3 or in the management plan as described in M.4.3 of the RFP?

Answer:Please provide the staffing plan in the Management Plan as stipulated in M.4.3 of the RFP.

5. Would USAID permit offerors to provide a two-page Executive Summary that would not count against the 35-page count for the Technical Proposal?

Answer: The Executive Summary will be counted against the page limitation.

6. Section L.6 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal (p.72-73) lists a

Draft Performance Management Plan (PMP) as an annex, but also calls for a Draft PMP in the

Technical Proposal body. Would USAID confirm that a Draft PMP is required only in the annex?

Answer: The Draft PMP (M&E Plan) will be included as an annex.

7. Section L.6 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal (p.72-73) lists a

Past Performance Narrative as part of the body of the Technical Proposal, but the evaluation criteria indicate that the required information should be included in the Past Performance

Reference annex. Would USAID confirm that Past Performance text is not required in the body of the Technical Proposal?

Answer:Per Section L.6.6, please submit Past performance references in an Annex to the

Technical Proposal.

8. Section L.6.6 Past Performance (p.80)

a. Would USAID please confirm that SF 294s are to be submitted as part of the cost proposal, and therefore not required in the technical proposal or annexes?

Answer: On Page 80 of the RFP, Offerors are requested to provide with their summary a copy of the 10 most recent SF 294 “Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts" against which they were required to report for the past 3 years. This will be part of the technical proposal and may be included as annex.

b. Would it be sufficient for Offerors to note where their SF 294s are uploaded in eSRS?

Answer: Offerors are required to provide copies of their SF294 in an annex.

9. Section L.6.6 Past Performance (p.80) Would USAID please confirm that small business reference information does not count towards the 50-page limit of the annex?

Answer: It will be counted against the annex page limitation.

10. Will USAID allow additional years of experience to substitute for a Master’s Degree for key personnel positions? Flexibility in the degree requirement will provide USAID a broader range of candidates for consideration.

Answer: An additional five (5) years of relevant technical experience can substitute a

Master’s Degree for key personnel positions.

11. Section L.6.3 Key Personnel (p.74) Would USAID confirm its flexibility that the COP and DCOP may have complementary expertise in Institutional Strengthening & Governance, Natural Resource Management and Biodiversity rather than the COP necessarily being an

Institutional Development Specialist and the DCOP necessarily being an NRM/Biodiversity specialist?

Answer: Provided that the expertise required in these two critical positions is assured in the candidates proposed in the offer, USAID is flexible regarding the complementarity of expertise in the COP and DCOP positions.

12. The Offeror respectfully requests an updated Local Compensation Plan/FSN scale for

USAID/Madagascar.

Answer: Please refer to our answer to question 3.

13. Section J. List of Attachments (p.56) Can USAID please confirm if SF LLL -

Certificate of Lobbying Activities should be included as part of the Cost Proposal?

Answer: This will be submitted as one package and will be part of the Cost Proposal.

14. L.7.2 Part 2 - Proposed Costs/Prices (p. 82) USAID states that visas, inoculations, and related costs should be included under the "Miscellaneous" line item under "Travel &

Allowances." However, on p. 83, USAID states that "passports and visa fees, medical exams and inoculations" should be included as part of "Other Direct Costs." Can USAID clarify where implementers should include passport, visa, and other related costs?

Answer: Visas, inoculations, and related costs should be included under the

"Miscellaneous" line item under "Travel & Allowances.”

15. The RFP makes significant reference to the need to tailor interventions to areas of

HBV and areas targeted by Mikajy. Could USAID provide further guidance on the location of these areas?

Answer: Please refer to the RFI for Mikajy (see attached) released in March 2016 concerning the five potential zones for the Mikajy activity. Please note that USAID does not expect Mikajy offerors to try to work in all five zones, but a smaller subset of these.

16. On page 37, Section H.17(b)(1) states “Reimbursable salaries and wages for TCNs and CCNs for employees shall not exceed, without specific approval by the Contracting

Officer, the prevailing grade under the U.S. Government’s Local Employee Compensation

Plan (LECP) for CCNs of equivalent qualifications employed by the USAID Mission in the country in which the TCN/CCN is employed.” Could USAID please provide the current

LECP for Madagascar?

Answer: Please refer to our answer to question 3 for the USAID LECP.

17. On page 82, Section L.7.3 states “Proposed daily rates for CCNs must be within the local compensation plan.” This conflicts with the Section H.17(b)(1) statement that indicates salaries and wages for both TCNs and CCNs must be within the local compensation plan ranges. Could USAID clarify whether or not the local compensation plan rates are applicable to TCNs and CCNs, or only CCNs?

Answer: Salaries and wages for both TCNs and CCNs must be within the local compensation plan ranges. Appropriate salary waivers for qualified TCN’s may be considered

18. Given the need for close coordination with Mikajy, can USAID share the final statement of objectives (SOO) for the Mikajy activity? If not, should offerors use the draft

SOO from the RFI as a basis for planning? Likewise, can USAID indicate if there are any other USAID funded biodiversity or climate resilience focused projects in planning or under development aside from Mikajy?

Answer: For Part 1, please refer to the answer for Question 15. For Part 2, here below for your reference are short descriptions of the other relevant component activities of the Conservation and Communities Project (CCP) in addition to Hay Tao and Mikajy.

1) PEER (Partnerships for Enhanced Engagement in Research) Program: Under

PEER, USAID will partner with USAID’s Global Development Lab and the National

Academy of Sciences to fund applied research in support of CCP’s objectives.

2) USAID-Peace Corps Inter-Agency Agreement: Under this partnership USAID will provide training for Peace Corps Volunteers (PCVs) in the agriculture program who are located in rural communities near protected areas. These PCVs will collaborate with

Mikajy and other partners in Mikajy sites as well as in with partners in other areas where Mikajy is not operating on activities consistent with the three objectives of the

CCP, including the provision of small grants to be developed by Peace Corps volunteers in partnership with their communities.

3) USAID-US Forest Service Inter-Agency Agreement: USAID will collaborate with

US Forest Service for specific and timely technical support from this agency in the areas of training and targeted technical assistance in training and capacity building for climate change mitigation, including greenhouse gas inventory development and monitoring protocols for forested landscapes and other targeted assistance as needed.

19. Under Objective 1, on Page 10 in the SOO, the RFP indicates that an expected result of Hay Tao is “Institutional capacity to analyze, interpret, and report on biodiversity data is improved at the national level as well as the sitebased protected area and CBNRM level”. Can

USAID provide more guidance as to when sitebased interventions fall under Mikajy versus

Hay Tao?

Answer: Mikajy will be responsible for biodiversity, climate change, governance, livelihood, etc., data collection at their sites. The Mikajy contractor will work with local partners (communities, Madagascar National Parks, other organizations with delegated management of protected areas, civil society, and other local organizations) to use data to improve management and protection of biodiversity, climate resilience, good governance, livelihood support, etc. The Mikajy contractor will share data and their experience on using this data to improve the above activities with the Hay Tao contractor. The Hay Tao contractor is then responsible for working with partners on developing the database management structures and data use/application at the national level that improve nation-wide understanding about the status of biodiversity, climate resilience, key ecosystem types, and key ecosystem services. Hay Tao will also work to develop best practices for optimizing region/commune/protected area-specific management of biodiversity by comparing Mikajy-supported sites with those of other partners in order to build the community of practice that results in the improved management of biodiversity across the country, not only in Mikajy sites.

20. Under Objective 3, is the term civil society intended to be inclusive of media?

Answer: USAID will work with the Embassy on supporting media actors on issues related to the goals of the Conservation and Communities Project. Therefore, for Hay

Tao purposes, civil society is not intended to be inclusive of media.

21. Can USAID provide an indication of the percentage of funds coming from the

Biodiversity, Climate Change, and/or Sustainable Landscapes earmarks, if any?

Answer: The requested information is not available at this time.

22. For the purpose of the cost proposal, what should offerors assume for the start date of the project?

Answer: The expected start date of this project will be approximately mid-2017.

23. On Page 7, the RFP states that the offeror should propose a fee payment schedule based on the PMP and that this will be incorporated into contract at time of award. However, the RFP also states that the final PMP is due 120 days after award. Can USAID clarify if the fee payment schedule is to be based on the draft PMP?

Answer: The fee payment is based on the final PMP (M&E Plan).

24. Can USAID clarify if the Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan referred to on page 12 of the RFP is the same as the Performance Management Plan referred to on pages 15 and 18, and the ME&L Plan referred to on page 17 of the SOO? Given that Performance

Management Plans are typically Mission level tools related to the CDCS, can USAID confirm that offerors should include a Performance Management Plan and not an MEP (M&E Plan)?

Answer: Anywhere that an activity-level PMP for Hay Tao is referenced, please consider this to mean an Activity M&E Plan for purposes of this RFP.

25. Page 18 of the RFP indicates the PMP must include a performance indicator reference sheet (PIRS) for each indicator. Given the page limitations for the proposal annexes, can

USAID confirm that PIRS are required in the final PMP subsequent to award, but not in the draft PMP submitted with the offeror’s proposal?

Answer: The offeror may include the PIRS in the final PMP (M&E Plan) subsequent to award.

26. Page 18 of the RFP states that “Respondents to this RFP should therefore include as part of their application their approach to achieving environmental compliance and management, to include:

5b) The respondent’s approach to developing and implementing and EMMP;

5c) The respondent’s approach to providing necessary environmental management expertise, including examples of past experience of environmental management of similar activities; and

5 d) The respondent’s illustrative budget for implementing the environmental compliance activities.” Can USAID clarify if this is expected as an annex to the technical proposal, and if so, if it counts towards the 50 page limit?

Answer: This information is required as part of the Annex and will count against the total number of pages.

27. On page 20 under Annual Performance Reports, the RFP refers to “Success stories (if available) and a brief analysis on the general political and education context”. Should this be the environmental context instead of the education context?

Answer: The success stories will include a brief description of the general development context and how these stories relate directly to the goals of the Hay Tao activity.

28. On page 26, the RFP notes that USAID must be “significantly involved in establishing selection criteria for GUCs and must approve the actual selection of grant recipients.” Can

USAID clarify if offerors may pre-identify and name GUC recipients at the time of proposal?

Answer: Offerors may pre-identify and name GUC recipients in their proposals.

29. Is there a minimum, maximum or plug figure that offerors should use for the grants program?

Answer: No, there is no minimum, maximum or plug figure for the grants program

30. Can USAID confirm that the 35 page limit to the technical proposal does not include the cover page, table of contents, and acronyms list?

Answer: The cover page, table of contents, and acronyms list will count against the page limitation.

31. On page 72, the Draft PMP is listed as a required section in the technical proposal.

Can USAID confirm that the PMP is only required as an annex and does not need to be included as a section in the main body of the proposal?

Answer: Please refer to question 6.

32. Page 74 states that “Key personnel must be available immediately upon contract signature to initiate the assignment in Madagascar.” We kindly request that USAID consider availability within 30 days of contract signature, given the need for a notice period.

Answer: Key personnel must be available no later than thirty days after contract signature.

33. On page 76, the RFP indicates that the I&T/Database Specialist will “provide the required capacity building to the local Database Specialist to take over the Information system management upon the completion of his mandate at end of year 3.”· Does this requirement apply if the proposed I&T/Database Specialist is a Malagasy national? · Will the local

Database Specialist be considered key personnel in Y4 and Y5?

Answer: This requirement applies even if the proposed I&T/Database Specialist is a

Malagasy National. The local Database Specialist will not be considered Key Personnel in Y4 and Y5.

34. On page 78, under L.6.4 Management Plan, the RFP states that proposals should include corporate capability statements for all subcontractors. Can USAID clarify if this is expected as an annex, and if so, if it counts towards the 50 page limit?

Answer: The RFP has been amended to increase the Annex page limit to 75 pages.

35. Page 79 lists a number of areas in which offerors must demonstrate corporate experience. Can USAID clarify the distinction between #1 (technical assistance and training for community based natural resource management (CBNRM) of forest, marine, and coastal resources for sustainable use, biodiversity conservation, and climate change mitigation and adaptation purposes) and #7 (developing and implementing CBNRM training programs for community based natural resource managers, including their government and non-government support partners in support of improved protection of biodiversity and enhanced climate resilience)?

Answer: USAID considers #1 to be related to day-to-day support and technical assistance in these areas while #7 refers to developing effective training programs in these areas and training-of-trainer capabilities to continue those programs even after the conclusion of the Hay Tao activity.

36. Can the past performance annex include relevant cooperative agreements or is it limited to contracts?

Answer: Past performance may include assistance awards for similar activities.

37. On page 80, the RFP states that offerors must provide “a narrative summary of your organization's use of small business concerns over the past three years” as well as the names and addresses of three SB concerns and a summary of their work. Is this to be included as an annex or in the main body of the technical proposal in the past performance section? If it should be an annex, does it count towards the page limit?

Answer: It should be included in the annex and will be counted against the 50 page limitation.

38. On page 80, the RFP indicates that offerors must submit SF294s and that the reports may be enclosed as an annex and will not be considered in the page limit.

Can USAID confirm that this is referring to the 50page annex limit?

Can USAID confirm that SF294s are required as an annex to the technical (and not the cost) proposal?

Answer: Please refer to question 8.

39. Can USAID clarify several differences between the instructions for the budget and budget notes:

Section 2 on page 81 indicates that the budget must include the heading of “Travel & allowances” while Section 3 on page 83 requests separate sections for “Allowances” and

“Travel and Transportation” in the budget notes

In Section 2, visa and inoculation costs are listed under “Travel & Allowances” while in Section 3, passports and visas fees, medical exams and inoculations are listed under “Other

Direct Costs”

In Section 2, consultants are listed under labor costs, while in Section 3 consultants and their associated travel costs are listed as a separate section

Answer: Please refer to answer to question 14.

40. Is Part 6 – Evidence of Responsibility required for major subcontractors?

Answer: Evidence of Responsibility is required for the Prime Offeror and major subcontractors.

41. Can USAID provide additional detail on the relative weighting or points assigned for the technical evaluation criteria?

Answer: Adjectival rating will be used to evaluation the proposals. Please refer to the

RFP for additional details.

42. Can USAID provide the link for the PEA report at the bottom of page 3 of the

“important documents” annex?

Answer: Please see the link to this PEA report below:

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00M9HQ.pdf

43. Regarding L.6.6.3 on page 80, submission of copies of the 10 most recent SF 294

“Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts” for the past three years will require a http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00M9HQ.pdf significant number of pages. Given the overall 50-page limit for all annexes, may we instead submit a list of the SF 294s for which we were required to report for the past three years and that have been submitted to eSRS?

Answer: Please refer to answer to question 8.

44. Please confirm that the proposal cover, cover letter, table of contents, and acronym list are not subject to the 35-page limit noted in L.6.B (page 73).

Answer: Please refer to answer to question 30.

45. Section B.3(f) on page 7 indicates that the Offeror propose a fee payment schedule based on the PMP, and that it will “be incorporated into contract at time of award.” Would

USAID please consider revising this requirement to allow Offerors to select a variety of deliverables against which fee may be awarded?

Answer: Please refer to answer to question 23.

46. Regarding Section L.7.3 on page 84:

a. Consultants: USAID notes that all costs associated with each STTA engagement (e.g., salaries and wages, fringe benefits, allowances, etc.) should be included in the Consultants cost category. In Section L.7.2(2) on pages 81-82, however, USAID states that Offerors must organize their proposals per standard cost elements, where Consultants is listed as a separate cost element from Salary and Wages, Fringe Benefits, Allowances, etc. Could USAID please clarify what costs should be included in the Consultants cost category?

Answer: a. Whereas Section L.7.3 of the RFP (page 84) differentiates between a consultant (persons who are members of a particular profession or possess a special skill and who are not officers or employees of the Contractor) and Short Term Technical

Assistance (STTA) (that are employees of the offeror), Section L.7.2(2) provides instructions that offerors must organize their proposals by using standard cost elements in order to undertake a meaningful comparison of cost. Consultants Cost Category, in general, may include costs such as consultant compensation and travel related expenses.

b. Subcontracts: USAID lists Subcontracts as a cost element, but it is not included in the standard cost elements in Section L.7.2(2). Could USAID please confirm that Offerors may include Subcontracts as a cost element in the prime budget for clarity of presentation of proposed cost reimbursement type subcontracts?

Answer: b. Offerors may include Sub-contracts as a separate cost element in the prime budget.

47. Regarding Section L.7.4 on page 85,

a. Could USAID please clarify that separate budgets are required only for sub-offerors with cost-reimbursement-type subcontracts?

Answer: a. Yes, separate budget tabs are required for all subcontracts.

b. We are unclear on the purpose of the “consolidation” of all sub-offeror costs, given that offerors will submit a standard summary budget plus detailed prime and sub-offeror budgets.

Could USAID please confirm that submission of a standard overall summary budget plus detailed budgets for themselves as prime and each sub-offeror (with a cost reimbursement type subcontract) will be sufficient? If so, would USAID please consider removing this additional requirement?

Answer: b. Offerors must submit sub-offeror budgets in accordance with instructions in

Section L.7.4.

48. Will USAID please provide a copy of the following documents:

a. USAID’s Development Objective PMP referenced in F.6.3?

b. The Conservation and Community Project’s Logical Framework, Theory of Change

(TOC) and other relevant results and associated performance indicators?

c. The US Government Mission to Madagascar’s Integrated Country Strategy (ICS) and/or relevant sections which provide further detail on Objective 3.1 (referenced in Section C –

Statement of Objectives, C3 page 5).

Answer: USAID has already provided sufficient information for use by the offerors for the purpose of this RFP.

49. As ADS 203 is no longer active and implementing partners should follow guidance as directed by ADS 200 series more broadly, would USAID consider revising the language in

Section F.6.3, which currently states, “The PMP shall comply with USAID Policy Directives and Required Procedures, ADS 203 series, on Assessing and Learning on PMP for monitoring results and data quality?”

Answer: Related topics are now covered under ADS 201.

50. Would USAID please clarify whether offerors are expected to develop a draft

Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (as listed in E.3 page 12) OR a Performance

Management Plan (as listed in F.6 page 15 and 18 and Section C – page 16) OR a draft

ME&L Plan as referenced in Section C – Statement of Objectives on page 17?

Answer: Please refer to the answer to question 24.

[END OF AMENDMENT 01]