Attachment_2_-_Responses_to_RFP_Questions.pdf

HINGA WEZE

Q & A:

RFP# AID-SOL-696-16-000014

A: TECHNICAL QUESTIONS

1. The following indicators, listed as Required Performance Indicators in the Table “Feed the Future Rwanda Hinga Weze Activity Results Framework” on page C-12 and C-13 of the RFP, are FTF Zone of Influence (ZOI) population-based survey indicators (per “FTF Indicator Handbook” dated 25 July 2016, page 6). Could USAID please confirm that the data for these four indicators will be collected by USAID and not by the Hinga Weze activity implementing partner? Furthermore, would USAID also please indicate whether a baseline study for the following indicators has been conducted, and if not when will the baseline study be conducted:

• Prevalence of women of reproductive age (15-49) consuming targeted nutrient-rich value chain crops or products.

• EG.3.3-b Prevalence of Children 6-23 months consuming targeted nutrient-rich value chain crops or products (iron-fortified beans and milk).

• HL.9.1-c Women’s dietary diversity score: Mean number of food groups consumed by women of reproductive age.

• HL.9.1-a Percentage of children 6-23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet (MAD).

Answer: The Contractor for Hinga Weze will be responsible for collecting data for the indicators on pages C-11 and C-12 of the RFP (Section C.3) as part of its Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) plan.

The four indicators provided in the question have been collected as part of USAID’s Population Based Survey (PBS) for Rwanda in January 2015, although the PBS measured all of the Feed the Future Zones of Influence (ZOI) and not just those districts targeted by Hinga Weze.

2. Page C-12, the RFP states that an expected result for Component 1: Sustainable agriculture productivity is “At least 200,000 farmers have increased their agricultural productivity by at least 50 percent.” Can USAID clarify if an Offeror can propose the performance indicator “Farmer’s gross margin per hectare, per animal, per cage obtained with USG assistance” to measure productivity? This performance indicator is listed as an indicator of IR 2 “Farmers’ market access improved” in the Table “Feed the Future Rwanda Hinga Weze Activity Results Framework” on page C-11. Would USAID please clarify?

Answer: That indicator can be used to measure both productivity and profitability (market participation). The Offeror will also be expected to propose custom indicators to measure achievements under each of the 3 components.

3. Page C-12, the RFP states that an expected result for Component 1: Sustainable agriculture productivity is “Irrigation infrastructures developed to irrigate at least 400 hectares of farmland.” Regarding the establishment of irrigation infrastructures to cover 400 hectares, would USAID please clarify if this refers to the establishment of large scale irrigation perimeters or small scale systems (between 1 to 10 hectares)?

Answer: This refers to small scale irrigation systems.

4. Within bullet points 2-4 on page C-14 of the RFP, approaches to supporting agro-input network strengthening do not appear to account for the recent entry of the APTC into the input distribution channel and the financial consequences for retail level dealers. Could USAID please confirm if the mission’s expectations remain unchanged in light of this?

Answer: Bullet points 2-4 remain unchanged.

5. Page L-8, within Section L.9 Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan, the third bullet states “Explain the rationale for the proposed program results, indicators and targets over the life of the project.” Would USAID please confirm that we may propose additional performance indicators in the M&E Plan, adding to those presented in the RFP as Required Performance Indicators (page C-11 Table: Feed the Future Rwanda Hinga Weze Activity Results Framework)?

Answer: Yes, the Offeror may propose additional indicators.

6. Would USAID please clarify the difference between expectations for “Organizational Capability and Experience” and “Past Performance”?

Answer: Section M.6 and M.7 of the RFP provide USAID definitions for each category.

7. On page L-9 of the solicitation, RFP says that “Offeror should include more detailed project reference information as an annex, as needed. If applicable, letters of commitment from sub-awardees and/or partners that reference what expertise they will provide, relevant to the description in the RFP, may be included in this annex.” Could USAID please confirm that this section refers to an additional, optional annex on Organizational Capability?

Answer: This information should be included in the authorized annexes listed on pages L-5 and L-6 of the RFP.

8. Page F-8, section F.6(a).1.4: Can USAID confirm that use of AIDtracker Plus is in lieu of submitting standard quarterly reports? Or, is use of AIDtracker Plus in addition to use of quarterly reports?

Answer: The use of AIDtracker Plus is in addition to quarterly reports.

9. Page F-12, could USAID please confirm that the selected contractor will have to submit both Quarterly reports and AIDtracker Plus (F.6.(a).1.4) reports on a quarterly basis? Or, will these reports be consolidated into one report?

Answer: See answer 8 above; the contractor must submit both quarterly reports and data in AIDtracker Plus on a quarterly basis.

10. Because of the importance of coordinating implementation with the USAID Private Sector Driven Agricultural Growth project, could USAID please make quarterly reports and the 2015-2016 annual report (if available) and any other relevant technical deliverables available? Beyond the horticulture and potato value chain analyses and the 2014-2015 annual report, we were unable to locate these on DEC.

Answer: These will be made available as quickly as possible. Please continue to check the DEC for updates.

11. Is it expected that the contractor will include technical interventions in the Irish Potato value chain in all districts targeted by the program?

Answer: Technical interventions in the Irish Potato value chain will be expected wherever it makes sense based upon the proposed technical approach.

12. Would USAID please clarify whether USAID is still encouraging offerors to promote increased private sector involvement and new business models for input distribution, given the recent change to the GOR input model with distribution flowing through the APTC and the reduction in private input dealers?

Answer: Yes, as there is still some role for the private sector in the new system.

13. Please confirm whether the offerors may use Feed the Future funding to promote optimal breastfeeding, and also optimal handwashing. Further, please clarify whether promotion of the full array of Essential Hygiene Actions, and the Essential Nutrition Actions would fall within scope for this Feed the Future-funded program.

Answer: Breastfeeding interventions are not anticipated under this activity. Section C.4.2.2.3 “Component 3: Nutrition Sensitive Agriculture” provides information on the types of nutrition interventions that are expected.

14. RFP page J-1 provides the SF LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities as a form to be used under this RFP. However, there is no relevant annex allocated in either Technical or the Cost volumes for the subject document. Could USAID please clarify whether the SF LLL is to be submitted with the proposal, and is if yes, whether it should be part of the Technical or Cost volume, and whether only prime offeror should submit it, or prime and major subs, or prime and all subs.

Answer: Please submit the SF LLL as part of the Cost Proposal for the prime and all subs identified in the proposal.

15. PSDAG is presently conducting a number of activities that Hinga Weze is also being instructed to do. For example, PSDAG has supported Irish Potato value chain development in some of the Hinga Weze-targeted districts by providing potato cooperatives with post-harvest handling equipment and collaborating with RPT to support linkages to markets. While it is clear Hinga Weze must collaborate closely with PSDAG, could USAID more clearly differentiate the scope and responsibilities of these two projects?

Answer: It is incumbent upon Hinga Weze Offerors to recommend methods of collaboration as part of their proposals.

16. Will Hinga Weze be considered a “CHAIN-contributing activity” or does USAID/Rwanda consider that the Activity will “contribute to a nutrition objective but NOT fall within CHAIN’s purview” (as described in the Feed the Future Rwanda Case study “Enhancing Multi-Sectoral Coordination and Collaboration through the CHAIN Project” developed in collaboration with the SPRING project and dated July 2016)?

Answer: Hinga Weze will contribute to a nutrition objective but not fall within the CHAIN project.

17. While the objectives of Hinga Weze (pgs. C-1, C-8, and elsewhere) clearly focus on the nutritional status of women and children under five years of age, the provided indicators only refer to women, and children 6–23 months (pg. C-11, C-12, and elsewhere). Will USAID please clarify the age group of children targeted by the Activity?

Answer: Please see amendment 1 to the RFP. The objectives of Hinga Weze will target children 6-23 months.

18. Could USAID please provide an indication of desired budget allocation by IR?

Answer: USAID/Rwanda does not have a desired budget allocation by IR for this solicitation. However, minimum results have been outlined within each component to support budget preparation by Offerors.

19. Per Section B.8 on page B-3, Identifier H: # farmers that use improved post-harvest handling techniques is also a subset or disaggregate of Identifier D: # farmers have applied improved technologies or management practices. Would USAID consider combining these objectives?

Answer: See amendment 1 to the RFP; these have been combined.

20. The HW Results Framework table indicators in Section C.3 (page C-11) include: “Value of small-holder incremental sales generated with USG assistance.” Are we correct that

Offerors are not required to include this indicator as it is not mentioned under the expected results for any of the three components?

Answer: This is a required indicator. The Offeror is expected to set the target.

21. The HW Results Framework table indicators in Section C.3 (page C-11) include:

“Number of micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), including farmers, receiving agricultural-related credit as a result of USG assistance.” Are we correct that Offerors are not required to include this indicator as it is not mentioned under the expected results for any of the three components?

22. The HW Results Framework table indicators in Section C.3 (page C-12) include:

“Farmer's gross margin per hectare, per animal, per cage obtained with USG assistance.”

Are we correct that Offerors are not required to include this indicator as it is not mentioned under the expected results for any of the three components?

23. The HW Results Framework table indicators in Section C.3 (page C-12) include:

“Number of households with improved nutrition, hygiene and food safety practices.” Are we correct that Offerors are not required to include this indicator as it is not mentioned under the expected results for any of the three components?

Answer: See amendment 1 to the RFP; this indicator will be removed from the list of required indicators.

24. Section C.3 on page C-11 states “USAID/Rwanda expects to increase agricultural productivity and income for 300,000 smallholder farming households.” However, Section C.3.1 on page C-12 indicates “At least 300,000 farmers have applied improved agriculture technologies. At least 200,000 farmers have increased their agricultural productivity by at least 50 percent.”

The unit of measure for the overall goal of increased productivity is households.

However, the unit of measure for the Component 1 expected results is farmers. Are we correct that the overall goal on page C-11 should be “increase agricultural productivity and income for 300,000 smallholder farmers”?

Answer: See amendment 1 to the RFP; the unit of measure should be farming households. The goal has been adjusted to, “increase agricultural productivity and income for 200,000 farming households.”

25. Section C.3, page C-11/C-12 states: “Through this contract, USAID/Rwanda expects to increase agricultural productivity and income for 300,000 smallholder farming households.”

• At least 300,000 farmers have applied improved agriculture technologies

• At least 200,000 farmers have increased their agricultural productivity by at least

50 percent

According to the 2012 Rwanda Crop Assessment report, there were approximately 346,000 ha under cultivation in Hinga Weze’s target ZOI in the 2012 Season A (the main agricultural season). Assuming this data is accurate, this would mean that there are approximately 692,000 farmers/farming households, assuming 0.5 ha under cultivation per farmer. When comparing this number of farmers/households to the Hinga Weze targets, this implies that the project must reach nearly all farmers in the target districts to achieve expected results for Component 1, assuming 43% adoption of improved technologies by farmers engaged by the project and that 29% of the farmers are able to achieve a 50% or greater improvement in productivity. Are these assumptions in line with USAID’s calculation of the program targets of 300,000 farmers applying improved agricultural technologies, and 200,000 farmers increasing productivity by 50%? If not, could USAID provide the assumptions for the targets?

Answer: According to the EICV3 Agricultural Thematic, there were 733,000 farming households in the 10 target districts in 2012. The Twigire Muhize extension program reported 73% adoption of good agricultural practices in 2015 (the weblink to this report is provided in section J of the RFP). The report also indicated that “farmers applying GAP also achieve higher yield increases” compared to those not applying GAP. Yield increases averaged 64% (particularly 122% for beans and 70% for maize). USAID assumes that 37% of farming households applying improved technologies or practices will increase yield by at least 50%, which led to the estimation of 200,000 farming households targeted (733,000*0.73*0.37= 197,983).

26. Section C.3, page C-12 includes the following as expected results for Component 3:

Nutrition sensitive agriculture:

• Increase in the prevalence of women of reproductive age (15-49) consuming targeted nutrient-rich value chain crops or products by at least 50 percent over baseline

• Increase in the prevalence of children 6-23 months consuming targeted nutrient-rich value chain crops or products by at least 50 percent over baseline

• Increase by 50 percent in the percentage of children 6-23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet (MAD)

• Increase by 50 percent in Women’s dietary diversity score: mean number of food groups consumed by women of reproductive age

Each of the indicators referenced above are measured relative to the total population within Hinga Weze’s ZOI. Increases of 50% against the total population are extremely ambitious given the complex factors that influence diets, many of which are outside the project’s manageable interest, as well as the fact that the project will not reach all targeted groups. We respectfully request that USAID clarify the specific populations against whom these indicators will be measured (i.e., only the project targeted population is counted) and/or permits the Contractor to propose its own targets.

Answer: These targets are intended for the Hinga Weze target population, not the entire population.

27. Section C.4.2.1 on page C-13 lists Management and Administrative Services. Because

Management and Administrative Services are not mentioned in Sections L.7 or L.8, are we correct that the services described in Section C.4.2.1 are for budgeting purposes only and do not need to be addressed in the technical proposal?

Answer: Offerors should adhere to the instructions in Section L of the RFP and determine which aspects of its technical approach need to be highlighted in the technical proposal.

Additionally, the information provided in C.4.2.1 is expected to inform the budget.

28. Section C.4.2.2.1, Component 1 (page C-15) indicates “Where relevant the Contractor will promote existing research on drought-, heat-, flood-, and low-N tolerant crop varieties in the laboratory and in the field that develops context-specific, climate-smart crop varieties and cultural practices to allow farmers to cope with the changing environmental conditions they are facing.”

• Question A: Does USAID anticipate that the Contractor will have a research agenda and commensurate funding to support additional research that will advance the agenda of promoting the adoption of sustainable intensive production that is climate-smart and promotes resilience?

• Question B: If so, will the Contractor be permitted to conduct research, or will research only be supported by project funding for external institutions?

Answer: The offeror should “promote existing research” on “drought-, heat-, flood-, and low-N tolerant crop varieties.” This preexisting research can be laboratory or field-based as long as findings are “context-specific” for Hinga Weze. As such, no standalone research is required within component 1; however it is expected that the aforementioned research will be incorporated into the offeror’s proposed technical approach for component 1. Therefore, USAID neither encourages nor discourages primary research as a part of Hinga Weze, but strongly recommends the incorporation of preexisting and ongoing research into the adoption of climate-smart technologies and practices, where relevant. In addition, any research should prove to generate results that can be used during the project lifetime.

29. The PPR template included in Attachment 4 asks offerors to define each PPR as “difficult” or “routine.” Would USAID please provide definitions for “difficult” and “routine”?

Answer: Please ppirs.gov for additional information. “Routine” complexity is defined as “Low” or “Medium” below and “Difficult” complexity is defined as “high” below.

Low - The contract requires mature, proven technology or services of a non-complex nature, such as the production of simple items, or performance of simple operations.

Contract requirements are simple, and efforts are routine. Highly skilled labor is not required in order to meet contract requirements. The contract may be for a follow-on, repetitive type, or commercial acquisition. Contract requirements can be accomplished with a low degree of management effort, and routine services may be performed with minimal supervision. Examples include: commercial-off-the-shelf supplies or parts (such as transistors), and commercial services (such as grounds keeping).

Medium - The contract requires mature, proven technology or services of a moderately complex nature. While the technology may be moderately complex, and the services require skilled labor, no new technology is being developed, and the technology is being used for proven applications only. No new applications of the technology are being performed. Contract specifications have moderate tolerances, and may have a routine delivery schedule. A moderate degree of management oversight is required to ensure accomplishment of contract requirements. Examples include: night vision goggles, design and construction services for routine repairs and alterations to real property, and financial support services.

High - The contract requires new technology or services, or a new application of existing technology or services, with a high degree of technical uncertainty. Performance requires state-of-the-art machinery, or highly skilled personnel. Contract specifications include stringent tolerance limits, and services must be performed to exacting standards. The contract may have an accelerated delivery schedule. A high degree of management effort is required to ensure accomplishment of contract requirements. Examples include:

development of new aircraft, or weapons systems.

30. Please clarify USAID’s interest in having proposal bidders briefly address the opportunities for the use of DFS as part of the overall technical approach (Sections “C.3” and “C.4”) in connection with the requirements set in sub-section “H.32 ELECTRONIC

PAYMENTS SYSTEM,”

Answer: Digital financial services (DFS) have proven a cost effective and safe method for disbursing payments to beneficiaries, subcontractors, or grants under contract in the Rwandan context and are being promoted by USAID/Rwanda. In part 4 of subsection H.32 offerors are encouraged to obtain “more information about how to establish, implement, and manage electronic payment methods at:

http://solutionscenter.nethope.org/programs/c2e-toolkit.”

31. Regarding page M-1, Section M.2, would USAID please consider weighting the evaluation factors to inform offerors of their relative importance?

Answer: The technical evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance with “technical approach” being the most important factor and “past performance” being the least important factor.

32. In Section F.5.1, starting on p. F-2, USAID indicates that the education requirements for the Chief of Party include a preference for a Master's degree in "agricultural sciences, business administration, rural development, or agricultural economics." Given the importance of nutrition-sensitive agriculture and resilience for the Hinga Weze Activity, would USAID confirm that a Master's degree in a field of study directly related to project components would be acceptable?

Answer: A degree in these fields is preferred, not required.

33. It is clear that per Section C.5.1, p. C-19, that USAID has targeted ten specific districts in Rwanda for field production and nutrition activities for small farmer households. Can USAID please confirm that the contractor shall be allowed to conduct activities outside of the ten targeted districts in order to achieve the Component 2 expected results of increased value of incremental sales, improved post-harvest handling techniques, and a reduction in post-harvest losses?

Answer: USAID recognizes that interventions under Component 2 may have broader reach than in just the ten target districts because value chains are systems. However, interventions to direct beneficiaries should be focused in the 10 target districts.

34. Several USAID-funded programs are listed on pages C-8 to C-9. Are these the only programs that USAID/Rwanda feels are relevant with which Hinga Weze should collaborate? Or are other programs funded by other U.S. or non-U.S. donors also considered relevant?

Answer: On page C-8 the solicitation states, “The Contractor is also expected to work closely with other USAID activities related to improve market and access to finance, improve diet diversity and leverage other partners’ resources to reach the Hinga Weze goals. The Contractor will also learn and leverage from other donors’ related programs in Rwanda.”

35. On page C-14, in the fourth bullet, the RFP states, “The Contractor must propose interventions to improve the enabling environment which can include promoting government policies that allow the private sector to play a great role in the inputs sector and ensure the sustainability of private sector involvement in the sector.” Since this requirement seems to be more closely aligned with the scope of the PSDAG program, would USAID please clarify how it envisions Hinga Weze’s involvement in supporting the enabling environment and promoting government policies?

Answer: Offerors must propose how to most effectively improve the enabling environment for private sector actors. While strong engagement with PSDAG is critical to achieve this objective, the offeror may propose additional interventions that augment PSDAG’s efforts. All offerors are encouraged to go to USAID’s Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) to review all pertinent PSDAG documents. The DEC can be accessed here: https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/home/Default.aspx.

36. On page C-17, under section C.4.2.2.3 – the RFP notes that there are ‘three primary pathways’ but then four pathways are listed. Please confirm that the four items listed are intended as the designated pathways.

Answer: See amendment 1 to the RFP; the three primary pathways to improve nutrition outcomes of agriculture considered under Hinga Weze are: 1) improved nutritious food production; 2) increased agricultural income; and 3) increased consumption of nutritious foods. Improved women’s empowerment undergirds these three pathways and should be included in any proposed interventions under Component 3.

37. There is a required PMP indicator on page C-12 “# of HHs with improved nutrition, hygiene and food safety practices” that cannot be found on any USAID indicator guides. Can USAID identify if there is a source and a Performance Indicator Reference (PIR) Sheet that can be provided for this indicator? If the PIR is not available would USAID consider proposing an alternative indicator(s) as there is concern that the stated indicator really represents three separate indicators for nutrition, hygiene and food safety and it’s not clear what is to be measured. For example:

A. For nutrition practices - what nutrition practices does USAID want Hinga Weze to address that are not already captured by the other indicators that address consumption, quantity and diversity?

B. For food safety - the RFP narrative is silent on what aspects of ‘food safety’ Hinga Weze aims to address, so it’s unclear as to what the contractor would measure.

C. For hygiene practices – which hygiene practices does USAID want Hinga Weze to address?

Answer: See amendment 1 to the RFP; this indicator will be removed from the list of required indicators.

38. On page C-12, in the table, the indicator is spelled out as “Number of farmers and others who have applied improved technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance” and later on the same page it’s listed as “At least 300,000 farmers have applied improved agricultural technologies.” We note that the “management practices” are missing from the version of the indicator that has the target. Can you please clarify if “management practices” are to be counted?

Answer: Yes, they will be counted.

39. On page C-12, in the table, the indicator, “Number of hectares of land under improved technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance” is quite similar to the two indicators found later on that page, specifically, “At least 4,000 hectares of terraces developed” and “Irrigation infrastructures developed to irrigate at least 400 hectares of farmland.” Are we to conclude that the first indicator is the combination of the two indicators on terracing and irrigation?

Answer: While the first indicator will combine these two indicators, it is not limited to them. Other improved technologies may be considered.

40. We are aware that RAB has soybean as a high priority for the country (it has lots of potential). Would USAID agree for the project to work on soybean production in the context of livestock (for the production of animal feed)?

Answer: See amendment 1 to the RFP; the reference to “livestock” in section C.1 has been removed.

41. Related to baseline/midline/endline evaluation is a question about USAID’s use of “prevalence” in first two indicators for IR3 (C-12; they are: 50% increase in women of reproductive age’s consumption and 50% increase in children’s consumption of targeted crops/products). Does USAID intend for this to be a point prevalence (where only baseline and midline or endline are considered) or a period prevalence (where routine monitoring data show 50% increases on a smaller time scale—perhaps semi-annually or annually)?

Answer: USAID intends this to be point prevalence (baseline, midline, and endline).

42. The RFP references (C-18, 2nd bullet) the “findings from the SPRING technical assistance trip to Rwanda,” however that report is not on the SPRING website. Will USAID share this?

Answer: See amendment 1 to the RFP; the reference to the report has been removed as it is not pertinent to the Offerors.

43. In addition to focusing on more nutritious crops (e.g. high-iron beans, OFSP and fruits and vegetables), to what extent does USAID expect livestock be included? Would dairy also be included?

Answer: See amendment 1 to the RFP; the reference to livestock has been removed from section C.1. Livestock and dairy should not be included in offeror’s submissions under this contract.

44. The RFP references required coordination with other stakeholders at multiple points (e.g., C-21, F-10). Can the Mission please describe any existing fora or mechanisms through which Implementing Partners and other stakeholders currently communicate? For example, does the Mission convene an agriculture working group, or other Community of Practice?

Answer: The Mission convenes at least two implementing partner meetings a year. The agriculture sector working group is also a platform where the implementing partner could meet other stakeholders in the agricultural sector.

45. If there is a PERSUAP in place for Rwanda, could USAID please share a copy of this?

Answer: No, PERSUAP is project specific.

46. Are local (Rwandan) partners prohibited from entering into exclusive partnerships under Hinga Weze? Given the highly competitive environment for this procurement, we would kindly request that USAID discourage, if not prohibit, exclusive partnering arrangements with local partners.

Answer: USAID/Rwanda discourages exclusive partnering arrangements with local partners.

47. On page L-7, Section L.7, the RFP states that the Offeror should include a draft work plan for the first year of activity as an annex. Please clarify whether the draft workplan reference on page L-7 is the same as the illustrative work plan referenced on page L-5.

Page F-12 references a draft work plan on that is due 60 days after award issuance.

Answer: The work plans described in L-5 and L-7 are one in the same. The work plan referenced in F-7 will be required for the successful Offeror.

48. Page C-12, the RFP states that an expected result for Component 1: Sustainable agriculture productivity is “At least 4,000 hectares of terraces developed.” Regarding the 4000 hectares of terracing to be achieved under Component 1, could USAID please clarify if the RFP is referring only to new terraces, or if rehabilitation of existing but unused terraces count towards this objective? If pertaining to new terraces, could USAID confirm that it anticipates that a very sizable portion of the project budget will be devoted to this activity?

Answer: USAID encourages development of new terraces where possible and needed;

rehabilitation of degraded and poorly designed terraces will also be considered.

49. RFP page D-12: The RFP specifies that the Rwanda Hinga Weze Activity will develop 4,000 hectares of terraces. Would USAID please clarify whether this includes rehabilitation of existing terraces or is it referring to developing new terraces?

Answer: See answer 48 above.

50. The RFP’s call for 4,000 ha of terraces developed and 400 ha of farmland irrigated (page C-11, expected results for component 1) is ambitious given the value of the project and, in particular, the plug figure of $8,280,00 for program activities (L-14). Could USAID provide more direction regarding the role Hinga Weze is intended to play, specifically, in the development of terraces, and the type of terracing envisioned (radical, progressive, other)? For example, is USAID envisioning that Hinga Weze will support the “soft side” of LWH’s and other projects’ past and potential future work on terracing, thereby contributing to the “development of 4,000 ha of terracing” or is USAID expecting Hinga Weze to establish new terracing sites?

Answer: Hinga Weze will be expected to work in close collaboration with MINAGRI and district authorities in the development of terraces. The determination of the type of terraces depends on many factors such as the soil type and the available resources.

USAID will not prescribe any methodology or type of terrace to allow innovative ideas.

The $8,280,000 is not a plug figure; it is the ceiling authorized for grants under contract.

51. On page C-12, for the indicator “At least 4,000 hectares of terraces developed.” Would USAID please clarify if rehabilitating underperforming or poorly designed terraces would contribute to the total target of terraces developed? Furthermore, given the high costs associated with developing terraces, does USAID anticipate that program funds would be sufficient to reach this target, or are offerors expected to leverage additional resources?

Answer: Rehabilitation of poorly designed or degraded terraces will be considered. The Offeror is encouraged to use cost effective methodologies that have already been used in Rwanda.

52. In Section L.12 (page L-14) two types of contractual costs are indicated, however, the budget template provided in Attachment 10 provides sub-grants as a third category of contractual costs. Please confirm that all sub-awards, including both grants under contract and subcontracts may be included as a third category. Does the $8,280,000 figure stated on page L-14 of the RFP, apply to all contractual costs, or only to the sub-heading a.

Program activities?

Answer: The $8,280,000 figure applies to grants under contract only. Grants under contract are included under “contractual” as a category of program activities.

53. Section F.6.(e) of the RFP indicates that there will be grants under the contract for Hinga Weze, yet no illustrative ceiling or floor amount is given for the grants fund and whether or not these should be “matching grants.” (See especially H.17: “Grants Under USAID Contracts,” on page H-8)

• Does USAID have a specific amount of total grant funds in mind that would be allowed under Hinga Weze, even as a percentage of the total project budget? We note the ceiling for individual grants is $100,000.

Answer: Section L.12, page L-14 of the RFP provides a ceiling for grants under contract of $8,280,000. In order to allow for innovation, USAID will not provide a plug figure or floor amount for grants under contract. The ceiling of $100,000 applies to grants under contract to U.S. organizations.

• Can USAID-Rwanda clarify whether or not grants will be made only to private sector organizations and entities (such as farmer-based organizations or FBOs or cooperatives or associations) or could Hinga Weze make grants to the MINAGRI and even, potentially, to RAB?

Answer: No grants will be issued to MINAGRI or RAB.

• Does this grant allows sub-grantees to directly transfer funds to RAB?

Answer: No.

• Must all grants be “matching grants,” that is grants which are matched by a cash or “in-kind” contribution from the grant recipient?

Answer: No. Please see above. For more guidance please review page H-8 of the RFP.

54. Within the Budget Line Item Headings section L.12(b)2 (pages L-14/L-15), the subheadings under Contractual do not list a section for Subcontracts, and Grants Under Contract are classified under Program Activities. However, in the budget template (Attachment 10) there is no line item for Grants Under Contract within Program Activities, and there is a separate section for Subgrants. To comply with the instructions in Sections L.12(b)2 and L.12(b)3, may offerors make the following two adjustments to the budget template:

• Change Subgrants to Subcontracts to include all relevant subcontracting costs?

• Add a line for Grants Under Contract separate from the Program Activities section?

Answer: Subcontracts should be captured under “Program Activities.” Grants under contract should be captured under “Subgrants.”

55. The budget template provided in Section J does not indicate in the prime offeror’s detailed budget tab where subcontractor costs should be captured. May offerors add a line item for subcontractor costs?

Answer: See answer 54 above; it is acceptable to add a line under “Program Activities” for subcontractor costs.

56. A Staffing Plan and a Mobilization Plan are referenced both as part of the Annex on page L-6 and as part of the Personnel and Management Approach on page L-7, of the RFP.

Would USAID please clarify?

Answer: Offerors may address “Personnel and Management Approach” in both the Technical Proposal body and in the annex.

57. P.136 section M.4, Personnel and Management Approach, bullet-point 2 – “The extent to which the proposed key personnel possess the full range of experience, skills, and expertise required to successfully implement the program (as demonstrated in the proposal narrative, resumes, references, and letters of commitment).” We kindly request USAID to clarify whether or not the required three references for each Key Personnel should be presented as complete contact information or full narrative references.

Answer: Offerors should provide the information requested in Section L.6, page L-6, under “Key Personnel References.” USAID/Rwanda will reach out the references via the contact information provided.

58. Could USAID please confirm that the position descriptions requested in Section L.6(c) are to be submitted as part of “6. Staffing Plan” in the Technical Proposal Annex?

Answer: Yes, that is correct.

59. Would USAID please clarify what information should be provided in the organizational chart, requested in Annex 7. Is this distinct from the detailed Staffing Plan requested in Annex 6?

Answer: Yes, the organizational chart is distinct from the detailed staffing plan. Offerors should follow the guidance on page L-6 of the RFP.

60. Section L.8, page L-8: The RFP does not list the Staffing Plan as one of the annexes to the Personnel and Management Approach, however page L-6 of the RFP lists the Staffing Plan as one of the Annexes to the Technical Proposal Body. Would USAID please confirm the Staffing Plan is part of the Annex under the technical proposal?

Answer: On page L-4 the RFP states, “The technical proposal annex must contain the documents specified below, including work plans, organization charts, detailed staffing plans, position descriptions, resumes, letters of commitment from personnel or partners, teaming arrangements, letters of support, experience/performance references, list of recent eSRS/SF 294s and any other supporting documentation requested explicitely in the RFP.” Additionally, page L-6 of the RFP includes the requirements of the staffing plan referenced above for more explicit guidance to potential offerors. The Staffing Plan is part of the annex under the Technical Proposal.

61. As there are the annexes corresponding to the Draft MEL Plan, Staffing Plan, Mobilization Plan, and Past Performance (and possibly Organizational Capability, per above question), could USAID please confirm that offerors do not need to include this information in the main technical approach subject to the 30 page limit?

Answer: Offerors should determine how to best present their proposal within the requirements provided in Section L of the RFP. Information in the annexes mentioned above should reinforce the technical approach.

62. The RFP calls for a Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Plan in the body of the proposal and as an annex. Can USAID clarify what information should be provided in the body of the technical versus the annex?

Answer: Guidance for requirements for the MEL Plan within the technical proposal body is provided on page L-8 of the RFP. In addition to what is required in the technical proposal, the RFP states, “The offeror should include a preliminary monitoring and evaluation plan as an annex.” The annex requirements are outlined in page L-9 of the

RFP.

63. On page L-5 the RFP states that the MEL plan should “…include an explanation of how data and information will be collected, analyzed, and used, and the cost effectiveness of such activities…” Could USAID clarify what is meant by the “cost effectiveness” of data collection and analysis plans?

Answer: The offeror should propose plans or methods that are within reasonable budgetary constraints of the contract and that add value to the contract.

64. On page L-8, the RFP states “The Offeror must describe approaches to collaboration with research and evaluation partners, as well as an internal MEL system.” Are there specific research and evaluation partners that bidders should consider? Also, should bidders propose a research agenda for the project?

Answer: USAID does not have specific research and evaluation partners identified for Hinga Weze. The Offeror may propose a research agenda, depending upon its technical approach.

65. The RFP states that bidders should “Include a preliminary list of indicators, benchmarks, and targets” in the MEL plan. Should benchmarks be interpreted to mean levels at baseline?

Answer: Yes.

66. In the narrative at the top of page C-11 the nutrition indicator says: “Increase by 50% the number of pregnant and lactating women consuming a diversified diet.” However, later, on the same page in the table, and in the bullets, the RFP says “Women of reproductive age 15-49.” Would USAID please clarify which indicator should be used?

Answer: Please see amendment 1 to the RFP; the correct indicator is “Prevalence of women of reproductive age (15-49) consuming targeting nutrient rich value chain or products.”

67. On page C-11 (in the narrative) the RFP says “Increase agriculture productivity and income for 300,000 smallholder farming households.” However, on page C-12 (in the bullets) the RFP says, “At least 200,000 farmers have increased their agricultural productivity by at least 50 percent.” Can USAID please clarify if the unit should be farmers or smallholder farming households? Also, what is the total number that is expected to be reached?

Answer: See answer 24 and 25 above. The unit is farming households.

68. In Section F.5.5, starting on p. F-5, USAID indicates that candidates for the Senior Nutrition Specialist position with "experience with food and equipment quality standards would be an added advantage". Can USAID please clarify what experience would meet the qualification for this experience, specifically related to "equipment quality standards"?

Answer: USAID cannot list what qualifications constitute adequate “experience with food and equipment quality standards” because they are varied. What is expressed here in the RFP is that experience assessing, designing, or managing food quality and equipment quality standards is an added advantage to a proposed candidate when compared to a candidate without such experience. However, this is not a requirement for a proposed staff member for this position.

69. Section F.5 of the RFP states that the Senior Nutrition Specialist should have “nutrition policy research and policy advocacy” experience. Nutrition policy research and policy advocacy is absent from the description of nutrition services or expected results listed in Section C.4.2.2.3 Component 3 Nutrition Sensitive Agriculture. Could USAID clarify the extent to which Hinga Weze will be expected to perform services or achieve results in the area of nutrition policy research and policy advocacy?

Answer: Hinga Weze will share encountered policy research and advocacy issues with responsible government structures/institutions, other donors operating in the agricultural sector, and other key stakeholders within Rwanda in order to look for solutions.

70. The COP experience requirements stated on pages F-2 and F-3 of the RFP include “at least a bachelor’s degree in a relevant technical area such as agriculture, environment and climate change, natural resource management, or rural and economic development” and state that “a master’s degree in agricultural sciences, business administration, rural development, or agricultural economics is preferred.” Would USAID consider 20 years of relevant experience in lieu of a relevant degree?

Answer: A bachelor’s degree is required.

71. Section L.6 (page L-4) states that the Annex is to include, among other things, “position descriptions.” Yet in the description of the Annex (pages L-5 and L-6), there is no mention of position descriptions. Please confirm whether or not offerors are to submit position descriptions.

Answer: As indicated in answer #58, the position descriptions will be submitted as part of the staffing plan.

72. Would USAID please confirm that Annex 2 is intended to include relevant documents (Letters of Support, MOUs, etc.) for partners who are not members of a consortium, while Annex 8 is intended for relevant documents for subcontractors?

Answer: This distinction is correct.

73. Page F-5, the position description for 4. Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist states that “S/he will lead a system for continuous communication with the two established external evaluation partners.” Would USAID please consider providing information regarding who these partners shall be, their Scope of Work, and how they will likely interact with the Hinga Weze activity?

Answer: These external evaluation partners are contractors who will conduct independent performance evaluations on Hinga Weze. They will be selected through a competitive process before the evaluations begin.

74. The RFP notes that the Senior M&E Specialist (F-5) “will lead a system for continuous communication with the two established external evaluation partners.” Will the external evaluation partner collect baseline data? It is clear on F-7 in item F.6(a).1.2 that “a final evaluation might be considered based on the results of the midterm evaluation” but who will conduct the baseline is not clear.

Answer: The baseline data are collected by the Hinga Weze contractor at the beginning of the activity implementation.

B: CONTRACTUAL QUESTIONS

75. Could USAID please confirm that the authorized geographic code for this procurement is 935 as is stated on the RFP cover page and in section H.3, and not 937 which is stated in section H.2?

Answer: The geographic code is 935 as specified on the Cover Page and Section H.3

76. Per section L.12(a)(2) of the RFP, the 1st paragraph states “the Offeror must propose a cancellation ceiling”. Yet, the 2nd paragraph states “the cancellation ceiling established for this contract is $300,000”. Please confirm whether we should propose $300,000 based on the above statement, or decide on this separately.

Answer: The cancelation ceiling of $300,000 is a USAID/Rwanda estimate. The Offeror must propose a cancellation ceiling that is commensurate with its cost proposal.

77. There is no budget amount given under section B.3 of the RFP, either a ceiling or a floor amount. Yet, the USAID-Rwanda RFI issued January 22nd, 2016 anticipated a budget of between $33.5 to $35.0 million (page 9, section 6. Implementation Mechanism of the RFI). Is the original estimate of the costs/budget in the RFI still valid or not?

Answer: The magnitude of the requirement is between $32.5 million and $35.7 million, as indicated on the RFP Section L.12(b)4. See amendment 1 to the RFP.

78. Please consider adding USAID's “Guide to Digital Financial Services (DFS) in Agriculture” from February 2016 as an additional resource for potential bidders.

Answer: See attachment to amendment 1 of the RFP.

79. Page H-4, Section H.6 Personnel Approvals states “ii) up to five percent above the highest rate of annual salary received during any full year of the immediately preceding three (3) years”. Would USAID please confirm that this maximum allowable 5% increase does not apply to CCNs below FSN-9?

Answer: Yes, that is correct.

80. P.62 section H.6 Personnel Approvals, sub-section (a) CCN Employees Compensated below FSN-9 level – “Any approval required by the contract for any employee who is (1) a citizen of Rwanda (Cooperating Country National) and (2) whose salary, not including benefits, is equivalent to or less than the compensation specified for Grade 8, Step 14 in the Rwanda Local Compensation…”, we kindly request that USAID provide the minimum and maximum rate for each grade in FSN scale of the Rwanda Local Compensation Plan.

Answer: The Local Compensation Plan is attached to Amendment 1 to the RFP.

81. Page H-4, Section H.6 Personnel Approvals states “iii) the individual’s highest consulting rate, assuming that the individual has had thirty days or more of paid consulting work at the proposed rate or higher.” Can USAID please confirm that consultants' rates cannot exceed the highest consulting rate, and that the 5% increase allowed for salaried employees does not apply to consultants? If so, would USAID please consider allowing up to a 5% increase for consultants in addition to employees?

Answer: The 5% increase allowed for salaried employees does not apply to consultants.

Any consultant rate increases will require additional Contracting Officer approval.

82. Page L-9, Section L.10 states “Offeror should include more detailed project reference information as an annex, as needed.” Can USAID confirm that this additional project detail would be an optional separate annex, whereas completion of the PPIS described in L.11.A are required?

Answer: Additional project detail may be provided in an optional annex or included in the existing list of required annexes, as appropriate. The completion of Past Performance Information Sheets is required.

83. Page L-14 of the RFP notes “4. Equipment (unit cost greater than $5,000).” Can USAID confirm the definition of equipment under this Contract will be increased to $5,000 as opposed to $500?

Answer: See amendment to RFP; the threshold for equipment is for unit costs above $500.

84. On page L-14, Section L.12 Direct Costs, please confirm the definition of equipment for the budget is in fact items with a value of more than $5,000, and not $500 with a useful life of 2 years.

Answer: See question 83 above.

85. The budget template distinguishes between expendable and non-expendable equipment.

Would USAID consider removing the expendable equipment line since items worth less than $5,000 are to be captured under the supply line item, per the definition…