Amendment_1_-_Attachment_1_-_Question_List_and_Responses_Final.pdf

SOL-72052718R-00001 - Pro-Bosques

Amendment 1 – Attachment 1 Questions and Responses

SOL-72052718R-00001 - Pro-Bosques Amendment 1 – Attachment 1

Questions and Responses

Cover Page/General

1. A través del presente, solicito el archivo traducido a español de la Solicitud: SOL- 72052718-R-00001, Oportunidad "Asegurar un programa forestal sostenible inclusivo y rentable."

RESPONSE: USAID no proveerá una traducción al español. USAID will not be providing a Spanish translation of this RFP.

2. On the first page it states USAID “is seeking proposals from U.S. or non-U.S. non-profit or for-profit organizations”, may I therefore conclude that a German firm is eligible to participate in the tender process – alone or in consortium with a local / international company?

RESPONSE: Yes.

3. On the first page it says “USAID encourages participation, to the maximum extent possible, of small business concerns in this activity as a prime or subcontractor. USAID also encourages proposals that include teaming arrangements – prime contractors and subcontractors – with regional or local members.” Is this to be understood as a preference for a smaller consulting firm and/or consortium of smaller international + local/regional organizations?

RESPONSE: While small businesses are encouraged to participate, there will be no preference for small business during the evaluation process. Please see Section M: Evaluation Factors.

4. Reference: SOL Sections Cover, B, and L, paragraphs several (see specific below), pages cover, 5,101, and 102: The cover page and Section L.4 (a, page 102) state that the contract type is a cost-plus-fixed fee (CPFF) type term form contract, while Section B.2 (page 5) and Section L.2 (page 101) state the contract type as cost-plus-fixed fee (CPFF) completion type. Can USAID please confirm the correct contract type?

RESPONSE: The contract is cost-plus-fixed fee (CPFF) completion type contract. Amendment 1 to the solicitation clarifies the contract type.

5. The solicitation cover page first paragraph, Section B.9 (page 7), and Section L.4(a)

(page 102) state that this is a cost-plus fixed fee term type contract, while Section B.2 (page 5) and Section L.2 (page 105) both state that this is a cost-plus fixed fee completion type contract. Please clarify the type of contract USAID intends to use.

RESPONSE: See response to question number 4.

6. The cover page of the RFP and Section L.4 (a) state that the project of reference will result in a cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) term-type contract. Yet, Section B.2 reads that this

Questions and Responses will be a CPFF completion-type contract. Could USAID please confirm whether the resulting contract will be CPFF term or completion?

RESPONSE: See response to question number 4.

7. The cover letter for the subject solicitation indicates that questions regarding the RFP must be submitted in writing to limasolicatation@usaid.gov. However, all other references, including Section L.3 (page 102), Section L.4 (h) (page 103), Section L.5 (a) (page 104), and Section L.5 (b) (page 105) indicate that proposals and questions must be submitted electronically to limasolicitations@usaid.gov. Please clarify the correct e-mail address to submit proposals and questions.

RESPONSE: The correct e-mail address is: limasolicitations@usaid.gov.

Amendment 1 to the solicitation updates the e-mail address for submissions.

8. Section L.6(c)(4)a. Key Personnel (page 107) states that offerors need only identify the proposed Chief of Party. The RFP does not provide guidance regarding non-key personnel. Could USAID please clarify whether offerors may name non-key personnel?

RESPONSE: It is within the offerors discretion to identify non-key personnel.

See Section L.6(c)(4)b. Staffing Plan.

9. May offerors provide annexes other than those specified in Section L.6(a) (page 105), provided those annexes are summarized in the text of the proposal?

RESPONSE: Only those annexes listed in Section L.6(a) may be included.

10. General: Would USAID please clarify whether they would allow a grants mechanism under this opportunity? If so, would USAID provide a plug figure for grants to enable comparability? If no plug figure, would USAID provide minimum or maximum values for the grants pool, should grants be possible?

RESPONSE: No grants will be permitted under this contract.

Section C

11. SOL Section C.2, paragraph 3, page 8. The RFP states: “The PRO-BOSQUES Contract will contribute with support to monitoring and enforcement to objective 1…The second contract under the Forestry Program will be implemented through an Interagency Agreement with the United States Forest Service (USFS), and will be primarily responsible for objective 1”.

a. Would USAID please provide additional clarification regarding the ways in which

PRO-BOSQUES will be expected to collaborate with the USFS under the Forestry Program on Objective 1? Will the PRO-BOSQUES work plan for Objective 1 only need to be validated by the USFS or will it also need to be approved?

Questions and Responses

RESPONSE: USAID encourages strong coordination with all USAID-funded activities. In this particular case, USAID will be responsible for coordination with USFS and the implementer of PRO-BOSQUES in order to implement the USAID Forestry Program in Peru. Work plans for both activities will be approved by USAID only.

12. Section C.4.1. (page 11), Footnote 4 states that “USAID will provide basic overview training of the MC-SNIFFS system to the implementer of the contract through the existing partnership with the software’s developer, Synergy Inc.” Can USAID please describe the nature of partnership it maintains with Synergy? Will USAID maintain this partnership for the duration of this new project?

RESPONSE: In March 2017, USAID transferred the MC-SNIFFS web platform, that responds to the current forest process under the Forest Law and Regulations approved in 2015, to the Servicio Nacional Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre (SERFOR).

Since the MC-SNIFFS transfer, SERFOR has been testing the system and entering data of ‘enabling titles.’ However, there are some structural issues to managing the information in the system.

USAID recently awarded a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) to Synergy, which is available through June, 2019. During the BPA period of performance, Synergy will resolve structural issues to the MC-SNIFFS system along with focused technical assistance to SERFOR and other system users. Synergy will also provide training to SERFOR in order for SERFOR to perform modifications and new improvements after the life of the BPA. Currently, 131 enabling titles of the Amazon Timber Corridor (Loreto - Ucayali - Huánuco - Lima) have been uploaded, and SERFOR is continuing to upload data in coordination with the regional Governments. With previous USAID support, a total of 428 people were trained in the use of MC- SNIFFS; including specific training to SERFOR and regional authorities.

Contract implementation of the PRO-BOSQUES activity may result in supporting SERFOR through coordination with Synergy after the closure of the BPA. Details of the additional work required will be determined at the work plan level.

13. Section C.4.1 (page 11) explains that Synergy retains legal ownership of the source codes to MC-SNIFFS and that structural changes at that level must be done by Synergy.

Multiple questions arise:

a. Please explain what additional work is required on this system, and what part of this

USAID expects the implementer to complete. Please also provide details of the MC- SNIFFS system’s implementation, such as status, system testing reports, user pool/data (number of existing and anticipated users), etc.

RESPONSE: See response to Question 12.

b. Is USAID willing to provide a plug figure for associated costs of this work, since only the implementer of the Peru Bosques project would have unique and relevant cost data for work completed to date which would form a basis to estimate remaining costs.

RESPONSE: As per Response #12, the work for MC-SNIFFS is contracted independently with a software developer. The implementer of Peru Bosques does not have unique and relevant cost data for work completed to date. Please refer to the Statement of Work for information about required coordination, by the successful offeror, with the software developer and the Government of Peru.

c. We are concerned that Synergy may have entered into an exclusive arrangement with one offeror, which limits fair competition for this solicitation. Would USAID please consider including language in the solicitation to prevent an exclusive arrangement with Synergy?

RESPONSE: USAID discourages the use of exclusive agreements, as this limits USAID’s ability to receive the best services.

Amendment 1 to the solicitation includes this update.

14. SOL Section C.4.1, paragraph 3, page 11. Would USAID please provide additional examples of activities that would fall under "Community Control and Oversight"?

RESPONSE: Examples and tasks related to “Community Control and Oversight” were provided in the SOW in Section C.4.1. USAID expects offerors to use these as a framework for proposing creative and effective proposals to achieve the desired results.

15. SOL Section C.4.1 Task 1.1, paragraph 1, page 12. Expected Outcomes for Task 1.1 a.

reads: “By the end of year 3, 100% of existing management documents from ‘Title Holders’ (Títulos Habilitantes) are registered in the MC-SNIFFS”. In relation to ‘Title Holders’, footnote 7 reads: “For this Activity, Title Holders include: Concessions of Permanent Production Forests (BPP), Private Lands and Native Communities in Amazon regions (Loreto, Ucayali, Madre de Dios, Amazonas, San Martin, Huánuco, Junín, Pasco, Cusco, and Puno )”.

a. Article 39 of the Regulation for Forest Management - RGF (DS Nª 018-2015-

MINAGRI) has a broader definition of enabling titles, which also includes: i). The assignment contracts in use in residual or remnant forests; ii). The resolution of SERFOR that authorizes the administration of local forests; iii). The authorization for extraction of medicinal plants; iv). The authorization for the extraction of emergent or riparian aquatic vegetation; and v) The authorization for extraction of shrub and herbaceous species.

b. Considering then that the RGF has a broader definition of qualifying titles, we would like to clarify whether in Objective 1, offerors should only include: concessions (timber and for forest products other than wood); permits in private previews and permits in lands of native and peasant communities.

RESPONSE: The SOW is very specific when defining “Title Holders” for this Activity. Please review Expected Outcomes for Task 1.1.a and referenced

Questions and Responses footnote. Other ‘enabling titles’ might be considered after the top three priorities are addressed.

16. SOL Section C.4, footnote 14, page 16. Footnote 14 reads: “The Local Forest is established on public lands and administered by the municipalities. Through this modality, small producers can sustainable and legal use forest resources, wildlife, and access to environmental services (SERFOR, 2016)”. The second sentence appears to be incomplete. Would USAID please clarify the meaning of this sentence?

RESPONSE: The footnote is correct. This is an official description based on the Forest Regulation approved in September 2015. For more information about Local Forests, please refer to Supreme Decree No. 018-2015-MINAGRI, which approved Forestry Management Regulation (Title XVIII - Local Forest Management, Articles 103-110).

17. Regarding Sub-Task 1.1.1, can USAID provide clarification regarding the potential integrations and the role of the organizations mentioned. For instance, can USAID clarify if examples include SUNAT (Taxes and Customs) instead if SUNASS (National Superintendence of Sanitation Services)?

RESPONSE: During the development of MC-SNIFFS, SUNAT and RENIEC were consulted and involved. Currently, SUNAT and RENIEC have some functionalities that allow interoperability among their systems. However, the Activity shall continue interoperability with these and other institutions that have involvement in the control and management of timber.

18. Regarding Sub-Task 1.1.2, since assessment of module implementation can only be done once it is developed and operating, can USAID clarify whether technical assistance for other SNIFFS modules would extend to development and eventual implementation of the modules?

RESPONSE: The implementer will provide technical assistance to SERFOR to support the continued development of the National Forest and Fauna Information System (SNIFFS, in Spanish) to achieve the eventual goal of implementing SNIFFS complete with all modules. Implementers are not expected to work on all modules needed for the complete implementation. See also response to question 15.

19. For the illustrative indicators for Task 3.1, the “[a]mount of change in Indigenous

Empowerment Index, in regard to social, economic and environmental aspects” is cited.

Can USAID provide a reference for the Indigenous Empowerment Index?

RESPONSE: USAID expects the implementer to measure and evaluate the Activity’s progress toward increasing the rights and resources of the indigenous communities working in coordination with the Activity. The implementer would be expected to either develop a new methodology or propose an existing methodology to evaluate and monitor progress towards this task.

Questions and Responses

20. In Sub-Task 2.2.4, a reference is made to “voluntary forest companies.” Can USAID elaborate on what kind of entity this is, and provide an example?

RESPONSE: ‘Voluntary Forest Company’ is any type of company/enterprise that is developing or willing to develop specific research that contributes to the Peruvian forest sector. By doing this, this company might apply to the Tax Incentive Mechanism promoted by the GOP. For more information, please refer to Law No.

30309:

https://innovateperu.gob.pe/landings/incentivo-tributario/

21. Among the expected outcomes for Task 3.1 are: “a. By the end of Year 4, 100% of targeted communities are implementing CFM activities included in their Life Plans.”

Should it not be the decision of the targeted communities as to whether the CFM activities included in their life plans actually progress to the implementation stage? If so, then the 100 percent target does not seem reasonable.

RESPONSE: All of Component 3 of this Activity is related to the development of Life Plans and CFM as a means to improve indigenous communities’ livelihoods by improving territorial management, reducing deforestation and achieving sustainability through productive activities. The Offeror must identify those communities that meet the conditions to carry out CFM activities, promote their development in a systematic and programmatic manner and incorporate this approach in internal management documents such as the communities’ Life Plans.

22. SOL Section C.4, Task 3.2.1, page 19. Sub Task 3.2.1, “Technical assistance to indigenous communities and their federations to carry out CFM-based value chains identified and prioritized in their Life Plans to achieve sustainability” seems to contain a typo. Would USAID please re-state this sentence?

RESPONSE: The corrected statement is: Technical assistance provided to indigenous communities and their federations to implement Community Forest Management (CFM)-based value chains that are included in their Life Plans.

Amendment 1 to the solicitation updates Sub-Task 3.2.1.

Section F

23. Page 30, Section F.7.1, states that the rapid mobilization plan is due 20 calendar days after contract award. On page 38 in the Reports and Deliverables Matrix, the rapid mobilization plan is due 30 calendar days after contract award. Could USAID please confirm the rapid mobilization plan due date?

RESPONSE: The rapid mobilization plan is due 30 days after contract award.

Amendment 1 to the solicitation includes this clarification.

24. On page 28, Section F.6 states that the chief of party must have a minimum of “10 years of senior management experience of highly complex, large-scale, international, or national projects in the field of natural resource management.” We respectfully request

Questions and Responses that USAID allow offerors to propose candidates with 10 years of experience managing projects in other fields aside from natural resource management to be consistent with the academic background.

RESPONSE: USAID will consider a Chief of Party with 10 years of senior management experience of highly complex, large-scale, international, or national projects. The requirement for experience managing projects specifically in the field of natural resources shifted to a preferred skill. Amendment 1 to the solicitation includes this update.

Section H

25. On page 56, Section H.16 (b) references a U.S. government’s Local Employee Compensation Plan (LECP). Could USAID please provide a copy of this LECP?

RESPONSE: Section H.16 has been updated and no longer references the LECP. The requirement for salary comparison with USAID Local Compensation Plans is no longer relevant.

26. Reference: SOL Sections H, L, paragraph 17(f); 7(C)(2)(A) and 7(C)(4), pages 58, 111, 113: Would USAID provide the most up-to-date FSN scale for Peru?

RESPONSE: See response to question 25.

27. On page 57, Section H.17 (a)(1) requires the establishment of salary ranges and further states that that individual’s salary must be negotiated within the established range, based on his or her certified salary history and the conditions stated further in this paragraph. This restriction may prevent offerors from complying with AIDAR 752.7007, incorporated by reference in RFP Section I.1 and Section H.16 (a)(2)(iii), which states that “Direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract.” We respectfully request that USAID allow offerors to follow their own established policies and procedures when negotiating salaries.

RESPONSE: Sections H.16 and H.17 have been updated to reflect AIDAR

752.7007 and USAID Peru Application of Peruvian labor law. Offers should follow their own established personnel policies and procedures.

28. On page 58, Section H.17.(e) states that for consultants, “the Offeror must submit a Pay

Scale, which will include the level of expertise (e.g., Junior, Mid-Level, Senior), along with the responsibilities and the qualifications sought for each level.” This restriction may prevent offerors from complying with AIDAR 752.7007, incorporated by reference in RFP Section I.1, which states that “Direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract.” We respectfully request that USAID allow offerors to follow their own established policies and procedures when negotiating salaries for consultants.

RESPONSE: See response to question 27.

29. On page 62, Section H.22 states that the geographic code for this contract is 935;

however, other sections of the RFP indicate that this code is 937. Can USAID please confirm that the geographic code is 935 as indicated in Section H.22?

RESPONSE: The geographic code for this award is 937. Code 937 includes the United States, the recipient country (in this case Peru) and developing countries other than advanced developing countries, but excluding any country that is a prohibited source. Amendment 1 to the solicitation updates Section H.22.

Section K

30. On page 86, Section K.1 includes FAR 52.237-8 Restrictions on Severance Payments to Foreign Nationals. Consistent with the guidance in FAR 37.113-1 and considering that the anticipated contract will be performed entirely overseas, we respectfully request that USAID include FAR 52.237-9, Waiver of Limitation on Severance Payments to Foreign Nationals, to prevent conflict with applicable local employment laws.

RESPONSE: Based on AIDAR 731.205-6, the FAR reference is updated to 52.237-9. On this same topic, Section H.17 is replaced and now includes the following:

"Costs for Severance payments to foreign nationals employed by the non- Federal entity outside the United States due to the termination of the foreign national as a result of the closing of, or curtailment of activities by, the non- Federal entity in that country (known in some countries as “Arbitrary dismissal” or Indemnización por Despido Intempestivo/Arbitrario), in general should not pertain to USAID funding. The general rule is to consider these costs as non-allowable costs. Under exceptional circumstances, these costs may be considered allowable and their approval will be made on a case-by-case basis. If this is the case, offerors shall request these costs to be incorporated into the budget and provide adequate justification. Please note that it is the Contractor’s responsibility to conduct adequate personnel management and use business acumen to minimize these costs."

Amendment 1 to the solicitation updates section H.16 and H.17.

Section L

31. SOL Section L.6 (b), paragraph 1, page 105. The RFP states that “The Technical Proposal shall be written in Arial Font, 11-point size. The 11-point size requirement does not apply to footnotes and tables, though these should be used appropriately and not in place of basic text”. Can USAID confirm that offerors may also use fonts other than Arial 11-point for graphics and text boxes that are appropriate and not in place of basic text?

RESPONSE: Yes, offerors may use other fonts in graphics and text boxes so long as all text is readable and appropriate.

32. SOL Section L.6 (a), paragraph 1, page 105. Would USAID allow offerors to include an M&E Plan as an Annex to the technical proposal?

RESPONSE: No, USAID will not evaluate the MEL plan. Amendment 1 to the solicitation updates Section F.7.3. for clarification.

33. SOL Section L.6 (4) a., Paragraph 1, page 107. In the Technical Approach, should offerors include position descriptions of only the key personnel, or may we describe other personnel roles and responsibilities?

RESPONSE: The Technical Approach should include information about both Key Personnel and the Staffing Plan. Section L.6(4)b. states that “The offeror must describe how the proposed Staffing Plan will ensure successful implementation.” Personnel roles and responsibilities may be included in this section.

34. SOL Section L.6 (4) a., paragraph 2, page 107. Per the RFP, the resume for the Chief of

Party should be no longer than five pages. Are references included in this page limit?

RESPONSE: Yes, contact information for references for the Chief of Party is included in the five (5) page limit.

35. SOL Section L.6 (5)(d), paragraph 1, page 109. Would USAID please confirm that offerors should include (d) Performance in Using Small Business (SB) Concerns (including the (A) narrative summary, (B) copy of our most recent SF 294, and (C) names and addresses of three SB concerns) as part of Annex C - Past Performance Report Forms?

RESPONSE: Offerors should include Small Business Concerns information in Annex D. Amendment 1 to the solicitation updates Section L.6.

36. Reference: SOL Section L, paragraph 6(c)(5)(d)(3)(B), page 109: May we include a list of projects for which SF 294s have been submitted to eSRS rather than full copies?

RESPONSE: Offerors should include copies of the SF 294. Please also see the amendment to the solicitation which amends Section L.6(c)(5)(d)(3)(B) to limit the number of SF294 to be submitted to the most recent five (5).

37. With respect to Section L.6(c)(5)(d)(3)(B) (page 109) please confirm that offerors may include in Annex D a list of contracts for which subcontracting reports were filed in eSRS, in lieu of SF 294 report copies.

RESPONSE: See response to questions 35 and 36.

38. Reference: SOL Section L, paragraph 7(B), 7(C)(2), 7(C)(2)(J), pages 110, 111, 113: Would USAID confirm that the term CLIN, as referenced throughout Section L, refers to major cost categories (Salary and Wages; Fringe Benefits; Allowance; Travel, Transportation and Per Diem; Other Direct Costs; Subcontracts; Fixed Fee, etc.) and offerors should submit summary and detailed budgets in accordance with these CLINS?

Questions and Responses

RESPONSE: This solicitation has been amended to remove reference to CLINS.

Offerors should submit summary and detailed budgets by cost category.

Amendment 1 to the solicitation includes these updates.

39. On page 110, L.7.B. states “For each CLIN, the offerors shall provide a detailed budget

(breakdown) with narratives explaining the basis for the estimate for each category of cost/input in sufficient detail to facilitate determination of cost reasonableness.” There are two additional references to CLINS on pages 111 and 113. However, there are no references to CLINs in Section B.4. Price Schedule. Could USAID please confirm whether the summary budget should be presented by CLIN? If the budget must be presented by CLIN, could USAID please provide guidance on the establishment of these

CLINS?

RESPONSE: See response to question 38.

40. On page 110. L.7.B. states “The detailed budget must be rolled up in summary fashion into the line items in Section B.4, or as provided in the budget template (Summary Budget worksheet).” Could USAID please provide a copy of this budget template?

RESPONSE: This Solicitation has been amended to remove reference to a budget template. Please reference Section L.7.C (2) for required content of the proposed budget. Amendment 1 to the solicitation updates section L.7.

41. Reference: SOL Sections B, L, paragraph 4; 7(B), pages 5, 110: The Instructions (Section L.7(B)) state “The detailed budget must be rolled up in summary fashion into the line items in Section B.4, or as provided in the budget template (Summary Budget worksheet).” As no Summary Budget Worksheet has been provided, could USAID please confirm offeror’s should format their summary budget per Section B.4?

RESPONSE: See response to question 40.

42. SOL Section L.7 B, paragraph 2, page 110. The RFP specifies that “for each CLIN, offerors shall provide a detailed budget (breakdown) with narratives explaining the basis for the estimate for each category of cost/input…” Could USAID please confirm that the CLINS referenced are the categories indicated in the price schedule in section B.4 (page

5) of the RFP?

RESPONSE: See response to question 38.

43. SOL Section L.7 (4), paragraph 1, page 113. Under Policies and Procedures, the RFP states “Please refer to Section H.7 for more detail”. However, section H.7 provides information on Consent to Subcontract. Would USAID please confirm if additional information is available regarding Policies and Procedures?

RESPONSE: Instead of Section H.7, please refer to Section H.16. Amendment 1 to the solicitation includes this update.

Questions and Responses

44. SOL Section L.7.C (4), paragraph 1, page 113. This section requires offerors to submit a copy of their personnel policies. Can USAID please confirm that this is only applicable for offerors who are not current USAID contractors?

RESPONSE: Yes, USAID confirms that this is only applicable for offerors who are not current USAID contractors. If an Offeror does not have prior USAID contracting experience, it must submit a copy of its personnel policies, especially regarding salary and wage scales, fringe benefits, merit increases, promotions, leave, differentials, travel and per diem regulations, etc. The CO may determine that a pre-award survey is necessary (see FAR 9.106).

Attachments

45. Attachment J.5. d) Can USAID please elaborate on the anticipated relationship/division of labor between PRO-BOSQUES’ role in monitoring and enforcing sustainable forest management policies and practices, and the role of the interagency agreement with the USFS, which will be responsible for capacity building and implementation of the forest management policies and practices?

RESPONSE: See response to question 11.

[End of Attachment 1 – Questions and Responses]