AGRICULTURAL_EXTENSION_RFP_QUESTIONS_AND_RESPONSES.pdf

AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION & ADVISORY SERVICES ACTIVITY

SOLICIRATION NUMBER 72062019R00005 – QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

1. Is there any particular or general reason(s) that informed the selection the states for the conduct of agricultural value chain extension and advisory services activity?

USAID RESPONSE: Selection of the states were based on the following:

• Their production potential for prioritized value chains;

• Their demonstrated commitment to promote and diversify agriculture production;

• The accumulated knowledge and capacities of key stakeholders developed through past association with USAID;

• The opportunity to leverage private sector partnerships;

• High rates of undernutrition;

• Social needs; and

• Security considerations.

2. In each of the states selected, do you have the all the local government and communities that are of peculiar interest or total coverage of all the local government and communities?

USAID RESPONSE: Under Section B (8), page 11 of the RFP, this Activity is required to conduct a value chain mapping assessment by Year 1, quarter 3. This assessment will be used to determine the local government areas and communities (in consultation with USAID) in which the Activity will be implemented.

3. Do you have the list of Enumeration Areas (EAs) to be covered within each state?

USAID RESPONSE: See Answer to Question 2 above.

4. Do you by any means, through your previous studies or collaboration with other agencies maintain the list of smallholders’ farmers and other value chain actors?

USAID RESPONSE: Mission has a list of more than 400,000 value chain actors that previous USAID funded activities have engaged. This list will be shared with all new FTF activities as a starting point.

5. Do you have the GPS coordinates of the smallholders’ value chains, if you do, did you obtain them by satellite or by going to the field to collect them?

USAID RESPONSE: Previous USAID funded activities provided USAID with GPS coordinates of more than 400,000 value chain actors. These will be shared with new FTF activities.

6. In federal government agencies there exit unnecessary bureaucracy and protocols that could affect time line in the procurement and supplies of agricultural and value chain actors inputs, should such situations arise and to ensure that the time line is met, can the private sector specialist or provider be engaged?

USAID RESPONSE: USAID has been assigned 19 desk officers by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development (FMARD). USAID also has a strong collaboration and coordination with FMARD’s Projects Coordinating Unit (PCU). Therefore, these channels will be used to address such issues.

7. Section F.6.7.3 (RFP pp. 36) references an Interactive Value Chain Actors Map. Does USAID envision the Interactive Value Chain Actors Map to be publicly available?

USAID RESPONSE: This will be for the sole use of USAID.

8. Page 20 of the solicitation, under section C.7., lists “increased gross margin per hectare of smallholder farmers” as a performance objective that must be accomplished in the focus areas and/or with the target populations. However, the revised Feed the Future indicator handbook, from March 2018, replaced indicators pertaining to gross margin per hectare with indicators focused on improved yield, such as EG.3-10, 11, 12. Can USAID clarify whether it is acceptable to measure this performance objective using an indicator focused on yield, instead of gross margin, per revised Feed the Future measurement guidance?

USAID RESPONSE: Yes, EG.3-6,-7,-8 Farmer's gross margin per hectare, per animal, or per cage obtained with USG assistance (RAA) has been replaced with EG.3-10,-11,-12 Yield of targeted agricultural commodities among program participants with USG assistance [IM-level].

9. Page 20 of the solicitation, under section C.7., lists “increase in the average value of agricultural and rural loans” as a performance objective that must be accomplished in the focus areas and/or with the target populations. However, the revised Feed the Future indicator handbook, from March 2018, replaced this indicator with the broader financing indicator (EG.3.2-27) to account for both credit and loan related financing. Can USAID clarify whether it is acceptable to measure this performance objective using the new EG.3.2- 27 indicator instead of EG 3.2-6, per revised Feed the Future measurement guidance?

USAID RESPONSE: Yes, EG.3.2-6 Value of agricultural and rural loans as a result of USG assistance (RAA) has been replaced with EG.3.2-27 Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USG assistance [IM-level].

10. Can USAID please clarify whether they require annual targets to be presented at the proposal stage for all required indicators (as described in Section C.7, pp. 21), or only life of activity targets (as stated in Section L.8, pp. 134)?

USAID RESPONSE: The Offeror must propose targets (annual and life of Activity) at the proposal stage for all the indicators required by USAID. However, offerors should note that these targets will be subject to review based on lessons learned during implementation of Activity.

11. Can USAID please clarify whether specific mitigation measures are to be included in the required EMMP rather than the offeror’s environmental compliance approach with example mitigation measures?

USAID RESPONSE: Under Section F.6.15(9), page 39, the Contractor’s approved EMMP must describe in specific terms, the IEE conditions that apply to proposed activities under the Contract for the life of the program, consistent with Section H.29 of this Contract. Under Section H.29.h(1), the [contractor/recipient] shall prepare an EMMP or M&M Plan describing how the [contractor/recipient] will, in specific terms, implement all IEE and/or EA conditions that apply to proposed program activities within the scope of the award.

Therefore, specific mitigation measures are to be included in the required EMMP.

12. Section L.5.5 (a)(2) Performance Work Statement (pp. 127), sub-bullet iv. states, “Describe the work in terms of the required results rather than either “how” the work is to be accomplished.” Can USAID please clarify the use of the word ‘either’?

USAID RESPONSE: Page 127, L.5.5 (a) (2) iv is corrected to read: Describe the work in terms of the required results rather than “how” the work is to be accomplished.

13. Section L.5(c) (pp. 125) and Section M.2.2 (pp. 146–147). As there is a discrepancy between these sections, please confirm the titles/names of Factor 1 and Sub-Factor 1.1.

USAID RESPONSE: Page 146-147, Section M.2.2 is corrected to read:

FACTOR FACTOR NAME RELATIVE IMPORTANCE & CRITERIA

FACTOR 1 TECHNICAL

CAPABILITY

[See Section L.5.5 (a)]

In descending order of importance. Factor 1 is more important than Factors 2, 3 and 4. All Sub- Factors under Factor 1 - Technical Approach, are of equal importance.

Sub-Factor 1.1

Technical Approach

Extent to which the offeror clearly described how they will carry out and fulfill the work described in the SOO and proposed PWS. Information must clearly demonstrate offeror’s capability to achieve the expected objectives and deliverables identified in the solicitation.

Sub-Factor 1.2 PWS ● Extent to which the proposed PWS clearly encompasses the information included in Section C and Section L.5.5(a)(2). PWS must be well conceived, clear, detailed, technically sound, and ambitious yet feasible; as well as a sound rationale for relative priorities throughout Activity implementation to achieve all of the interventions and tasks identified in this RFP.

● Extent to which the Performance Requirements are specific for tasks that make up the PWS and the required outputs are measurable.

Sub-Factor 1.3 QASP The extent to which the QASP provides a comprehensive description of the actions to be taken and addresses all the requirements in Section L.5.5(a)(3)

FACTOR 2 STAFFING PLAN

& MANAGEMENT

CAPACITY

[See Section L.5.5 (b)]

In descending order of importance. Factor 2 is more important than Factors 3 and 4. All Sub- Factors under Factor 2 – Key Personnel, Staffing Plan, and Management Plan, are of equal importance.

Sub-Factor 2.1 Key Personnel The key personnel must meet or exceed the minimum qualifications as outlined in Section F.5 and addresses all requirements in L.5.5(b)(1).

Sub-Factor 2.2 Staffing Plan Extent to which the Staffing Plan clearly addresses all the requirements in Section C and L.5.5(b)(2)

Sub-Factor 2.3 Management Plan Extent to which the Management Plan clearly addresses all the requirements in Section C and L.5.5(b)(3)

FACTOR 3 INSTITUTIONAL

EXPERIENCE [See Section L.5.5 (c)]

In descending order of importance. Factor 3 is more important than Factor 4.

• Extent to which the Offeror and its subcontractors convincingly demonstrate capacity and experience in implementing projects of similar scope and complexity;

• The extent to which the offeror clearly or intelligibly described all proposed partner organization’s institutional responsibilities and how these responsibilities complement and complete one another;

● Extent to which institutional capacity will make implementation of activity more efficient and cost-effective towards ensuring that as high a percentage of the budget as possible is utilized for programmatic interventions.

14. Section L.5(c) (pp. 126) and Section L.5.5 (pp. 130–132). Please confirm that a narrative for past performance is not required in the main body of the technical proposal.

USAID RESPONSE: As stated on Page 131, L.5.5(d)(a)1., offeror is to list in an annex to the technical proposal at least five (5) to ten (10) of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to work in the solicitation… “The Contractor Performance Report – Short Form (Attachment J.7) must be utilized to document past performance information.”

15. Section L.5(c) (pp. 126). Please provide offerors with instruction for the Small Business

Participation Plan annex.

USAID RESPONSE: There is no requirement for offeror to submit a Small Business Participation Plan and any reference to such has been removed from the solicitation.

However, USAID encourage participation to the maximum extent possible of small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns and women-owned small business concerns in this activity as prime contractor or as a subcontractor, as defined in Part 19 of the FAR.

16. RFP Section F.3, page 32, states, “The Contractor must have state coordinators in the seven focus states to follow up on activity interventions.” Does USAID require that offerors propose seven state coordinators, one in each of the seven focus states? If not, would USAID accept an approach with fewer than seven coordinators but adequate coverage to follow up on activities in the seven states?

USAID RESPONSE: USAID requires that offerors propose seven state coordinators, one in each of the seven focus states.

17. Would USAID consider a key personnel candidate with a Nigerian post-graduate diploma

(PGD) as meeting the minimum requirement of a master’s degree (Section F.5.4, pages 33- 35)? If not, would USAID consider relaxing this requirement for the Private Sector Specialist position?

USAID RESPONSE: USAID does not consider a post-graduate diploma to be equivalent to a Master degree. Minimum requirements are as outlined in Section F.5.4.

18. Section F.5.4.2 Deputy Chief of Party includes “ensure that synergies among Activity elements and grantees are capitalized upon” among the position’s responsibilities. As we found no other references to sub-grants in the RFP, would USAID please confirm that this reference is erroneous and no grants under contract are contemplated for this program?

USAID RESPONSE: The reference is erroneous and no grants under contract are contemplated for this Activity. Section F.5.4.2 is updated accordingly.

19. Section F.6 includes a Summary Table of Reports and Deliverables with submission dates

(page 40). We request the following clarifications:

a. Deliverable 6 requires a Final Report due “forty-five (30) calendar days prior to the completion of the contract.” Would USAID clarify whether it is 30 or 45 calendar days?

USAID RESPONSE: Forty-five (45) calendar days. Page 40, Deliverable 6 has been updated accordingly.

b. Deliverable 7 requires “An Integration Plan for Gender and other Vulnerable Groups” pre-award, yet the instructions in Section L do not request that it be submitted as part of the technical proposal. We also note that Section C.8.3 (page 26) requests a Gender Action Plan be submitted as part of the AMELP. Would USAID please clarify whether submission of a Gender Action Plan is sufficient at the proposal phase, with offerors planning to prepare an integration plan for approval within six months post-award?

USAID RESPONSE: Section B(8), page 11, requires the submission of an Integration Plan for Gender, Youth and other Vulnerable Groups by Year 1, quarter 2. Therefore, submission of a Gender Action Plan is sufficient at the proposal phase but an Integration Plan for Gender, Youth and other Vulnerable Groups must be submitted by Year 1, quarter 2.

20. The NAICS code and small business size standard listed on the RFP cover page and in

Section K.2 (page 108) do not match. Would USAID please confirm which is correct?

USAID RESPONSE: The NAICS code for this acquisition is 541690 – Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services

21. As the Small Business Participation Plan (L.5(c).9, page 126) includes cost information, would USAID confirm that the plan should be submitted as part of the cost proposal rather than as an annex to the technical volume, as is currently stated in the RFP?

However, USAID encourage participation to the maximum extent possible of small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns and women-owned small business concerns in this activity as prime contractor or as a subcontractor, as defined in Part 19 of the FAR.

22. Per Section L.5.5 (a), page 127, we understand that both the PWS and QASP will be incorporated into the contract. As such, we respectfully request that offerors be permitted to present “Performance Standards” only once, in the QASP where it intuitively belongs, rather than in both sections as requested in Section L. This will eliminate redundancy and allow offerors to make best use of page limits.

USAID RESPONSE: Under Section L.5.5(a)(2)(vi), page 127 stipulates that PWS should include performance standards, while Section L.5.5(a)(3), page 128, bullet 5 stipulates that QASP should include performance standards listed in the PWS. Doing this will show linkages between QASP and PWS and will not be a redundancy.

23. RFP Section L.5.5(d), page 131, states that contractor performance report short forms

(Attachment J.7) must be used to document past performance information. This form appears to require all parts be completed by USAID personnel. Could USAID clarify which parts the offeror should complete and which parts the contracting officer and/or agency will complete?

USAID RESPONSE: Part I is to be completed by offeror. Please refer to corrected form, Attachment J.7.

24. Would USAID please confirm that all contractor past performance information requested in Section L.5.5 (d) should be presented in an annex to the technical volume?

USAID RESPONSE: Yes. Please Question 14.

25. RFP Section L.12.4 (page 142) requires offerors to submit a copy of their most recent personnel policies. Given that offerors’ personnel policies can be lengthy documents spanning hundreds of pages, would USAID confirm that offerors with prior federal contracting experience do not need to submit organizational policies and procedures with the proposal as long as they remain available upon request?

USAID RESPONSE: This document will not count against the page limit. L.12.4 Part 4 – Organizational Policies and Procedures (pages 142) has been updated to read; “Offerors that have not received an award from any Federal Agency within the last five years must submit a copy of its most current…”

26. Page 6, Section B, Budget and page 136, Section L.12.2.3, Illustrative Budget Format, USAID provided two different budgets formats. The one on page 136 is more detailed and includes Participant Training along with the standard budget line items as described in Section L.10. Please confirm that the budget format on page 136 is preferred.

USAID RESPONSE: Section B should mirror offerors proposed budget/costs as submitted utilizing the format in Section L.12.2.3. If offeror is proposing training, this should be included in Section B.

27. Page 7, B.4 Multi-Year Contract states that, “this contract is subject to the requirements of

FAR 17.106.” Our careful review of this FAR Clause suggests it is not applicable to a contract for provision of services as opposed to Research and Design (R&D) Services as defined in the FAR.

Would USAID please delete this clause from the Solicitation or explain its applicability to the contemplated contract?

USAID RESPONSE: FAR part 17.106-1(c) requires the contracting officer to include a cancellation ceiling. The reference to 17.106 is to inform offerors what cancellation ceilings encompass.

28. Page 13, Section C.1.1, Purpose identifies “three main performance components”; (i)

Building the capacity of private extension service providers to capably and sustainably deliver extension and advisory services to agricultural value chain stakeholders, particularly smallholder farmers; (ii) Strengthening linkages between agricultural research institutions and agriculture value chain stakeholders; and (iii) Leveraging resources from private sector to enhance the scalability and sustainability of extension and advisory services in Nigeria.

However, C.7 lists two “performance objectives,” each of which have several sub-objectives, but none of which correspond to USAID’s three “performance components” from C.1.1. The performance objects include: C.7.1. Build the capacity of private extension service providers to deliver extension and advisory services to value chain stakeholders; and, C.7.2. Strengthen linkages between agricultural research institutions, agro-allied companies, the public and private extension providers, and agricultural value chain stakeholders. There is no reference to leveraging resources from the private sector.

Section C.7.3 then lists “performance objective indicators” for the third component.

Please confirm that there are three program components, (building capacity of private extension services; strengthening linkages to agricultural value chain stakeholders; and, leveraging resources from the private sector), In addition, please provide guidance on expected outcomes for the third component (leveraging resources from the private sector), beyond the performance indicators listed in C.7.3.

USAID RESPONSE: There are three program components as outlined in Sections C.1. For component three, and as outlined in F.5.4.3. Private Sector Specialist, the Private Sector Specialist will collaborate and coordinate with the FTF Nigeria Agribusiness Investment activity to develop strategic alliances with federal and FTF focus state ministries, departments and agencies, the private sector and other stakeholders towards leveraging resources from private sector to enhance the scalability and sustainability of extension and advisory services in Nigeria.

In reference to C.7.3 and as stated in the solicitation, Offeror to select and or propose other indicators for USAID consideration and concurrence.

29. Page 23, Section C.7.2, states that “the interventions must also align with the GON’s

Agriculture Sector Food Security and Nutrition Strategy (2016-2025) of enhanced value chains for improved nutrition.” Please confirm the reference document is the same as the GON’s Agricultural Promotion Policy (2016-2020) or provide a link to the Agriculture Sector Food Security and Nutrition Strategy (2016-2025)

USAID RESPONSE: These are two different documents. The link to the GON’s Agricultural Sector Food Security and Nutrition Strategy is https://drive.google.com/open?id=1PftYkfdc-owgjAGDDgFdUb1xunTH_TGG

30. Page 26, Section C.8.4. Youth refers to youth as individuals from 15 to 34 years old.

USAID’s Youth in Development Policy identifies youth as 10 to 29 years old and the Feed the Future Indicators Handbook defines “youth” as the age group 15 to 29. Can USAID clarify and confirm which definition of “youth” will apply for the Nigeria Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services project.

USAID RESPONSE: This is a Feed the Future funded activity. Therefore, please use the FTF definition.

31. Page 27, Section C.8.6. Monitoring and Evaluation notes: “To ensure coordination, collaboration, and possible leveraging of resources between activities, the Offeror, in consultation with USAID/Nigeria, must report on progress made toward goals and outcomes in monthly, quarterly and annual performance reports.” However, Page 37, Section F.6.15.

Periodic Progress Reports only lists quarterly and annual reports. Can USAID confirm https://drive.google.com/open?id=1PftYkfdc-owgjAGDDgFdUb1xunTH_TGG https://drive.google.com/open?id=1PftYkfdc-owgjAGDDgFdUb1xunTH_TGG https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/Youth_in_Development_Policy_0.pdf whether the Activity must submit monthly reports as well as the content of and the expected level of details in such reports.

USAID RESPONSE: Contractor must submit quarterly and annual performance reports.

However, they will also provide monthly update to the COR.

32. Page 33, Section F.5.4. lists minimum requirement for key personnel as “master’s degree or higher in agriculture, economics or business administration”. To ensure the engagement of local experts in leadership roles, can USAID expand the educational requirements for key personnel to include any relevant field.

USAID RESPONSE: Minimum requirements remain as outlined in Section F.5.4.

33. The RFP includes several sets of reporting requirements and deliverables. For example, on page 11, Section B.8.a, Payment of Fixed Fee, there is a Table of Fixed Fee deliverables.

On pages 40 and 41there is a Summary Table of Reports and Deliverables. Neither of these tables corresponds to the Performance Objective Indicators detailed in Section C.7. Please confirm that Offerors may propose a Schedule of Deliverables linked to payment of Fixed or Incentive Fee that reflects their proposed project design and workplan.

USAID RESPONSE: On Section B.(8)(a), page 11, offerors are only to suggest actual percentages under the Fee percentage column in their proposals and this will be negotiated with the successful offeror. Section F.6(15), page 40, outlines Reports and Deliverables with submission dates.

34. Page 56, Section H.14 Personnel Compensation and Section H.15, Leave and Holidays.

Please confirm that administration of compensation and fringe benefits, including paid leave, shall be in accordance with the Offeror’s established policies, procedures, and practices including payout of accrued leave balances for USN and TCN employees.

USAID RESPONSE: The awardee is to adhere to the requirements of H.14 AIDAR

752.7007 Personnel Compensation (JUL 2007) and H.15 AIDAR 752.7031 LEAVE AND

HOLIDAYS (OCT 1989).

35. Page 126, Section L.5., (c) Format and Presentation mentions both the Quality Assurance

Surveillance Plan (QASP) and the Draft Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (AMELP). Given the substantial amount of overlap between both documents, we respectfully request that the QASP be integrated into the AMELP Annex.

USAID RESPONSE: QASP and AMELP are two separate documents as outlined in Sections F.6.15 (12)(3), L.5.5(a)(3), and M.2.2, Sub-Factor 1.3, compared with Sections F.6.9 and F.6.15 (12)(2).

36. Page 129, Section L.5.5.b.2, Key Personnel states in the second paragraph: “As annexes to the technical proposal, a complete and current resume must be submitted for each key personnel and long-term staff position.” However, at C.2.5 Offerors are instructed to conduct a value chain assessment that will inform project activities and stakeholders. These directions lead one to conclude that the technical and geographic scope that will determine requisite skill set for Key Personnel, will be refined during start-up. Please confirm that Offerors should provide a complete and current resume for each key personnel and named long-term staff so that Offerors may retain the flexibility to nominate staff after the value chain assessment exercise is completed.

USAID RESPONSE: The value chain assessment is to provide critical information on the number and location of key value chain actors, including input dealers, producers, processors, aggregators, off takers, service providers, etc. for FTF selected value chains across the focus states. Therefore, the outcome of the assessments should not impact the requisite skill set for Key Personnel and long-term staff. Impact will only be on the location of their responsibilities within the FTF focus states.

37. Page 130, Section L.5.5(b)(3), Management Plan, bullet number 6 states “Activity organizational charts with linkages to the parent organization of key staff are recommended.”

However, on page 126, Section L.5(c) Format and Presentation, lists an Organizational Chart under Annexes. Would USAID kindly confirm that an organizational chart is to be included as an Annex and is not required for our response to L.5.5(b)(3)?

USAID RESPONSE: It is recommended that Activity organizational charts with linkages to the parent organization of key staff should be included in Section L.5.5(b)(3). Additional information could be included in the annex.

38. Page 131, Section L.5.5(d), Contractor Performance Information states under section (a)

“List in an annex to the technical proposal at least five to ten of the most recent relevant contracts for efforts similar to work in the solicitation.” However, on Section L.5.(c) Format and Presentation, lists Contractor Performance Information, within the Technical Proposal and under Annexes: Past Performance Information.

Question: Please confirm that Offerors should include the Contractor Performance Information an annex, as instructed in Section L.5.5(d) and it would not be included in the page count for the Technical proposal (if that is correct term).

USAID RESPONSE: Consistent with Section L.5.5(d)(a)(1), page 131, Past Performance Information is to be submitted as an annex to the technical proposal and is to include Attachment J.7. Annexes are not included in the page limitation listed in Section L.

Question: Please confirm that Offerors may also list relevant grants/cooperative agreements in addition to contracts as part of the Contractor Performance Information.

USAID RESPONSE: Past performance information is to be submitted for most recent work similar to the work in the solicitation. Recent and relevant projects are those projects completed or substantially completed in the past 5 years that are comparable in size, scope, and complexity with this project. Offeror is to submit past performance information that offeror deems relevant for the work described in the solicitation. Award information should be annotated on The Contractor Performance Report – Short Form (Attachment J.7)

39. Page 134, Section L.8. Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan mentions “The Offeror’s AMEP must show a clear results framework, approved indicators and life of activity targets, and detail how they will achieve the activity’s expected outcomes.” Please confirm that Offerors are expected to provide life of activity targets for high-level indicators only.

USAID RESPONSE: Please note that this should be Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (AMELP), not AMEP. According to Section L.8, The Offeror’s AMELP must show life of activity targets, and detail how they will achieve the activity’s expected outcomes. Therefore, targets should be set for all suggested indicators for USAID’s approval.

40. Historically, the rate of exchange between the Nigeria naira currency and the US dollar has fluctuated dramatically often as much as five percent in a relatively short time [https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=NGN&view=2Y]. This fluctuation reflects the price of oil and many other political and economic factors. And, there are multiple exchange rates [https://money.cnn.com/2017/05/02/investing/nigeria-naira-currency-dollars/index.html]. This degree of exchange rate fluctuation can complicate budgeting. In past solicitations USAID assigned a Fixed Exchange Rate for use by all offerors to mitigate variations in costing and pricing arising from applying differing exchange rates and data sources. Can USAID provide a Fixed Exchange Rate for this solicitation.

USAID RESPONSE: The resultant award will be a cost reimbursable contract that reimburse awardee for allocable, allowable, and reasonable costs incurred. Proposed costs are to be in U.S. dollars. Any exchange rate utilized should be the current market value at time of submitting proposal.

41. Please confirm that USAID/Nigeria will assist the successful Offeror in securing tax-exempt status and expediting imported equipment.

USAID RESPONSE: Yes, USAID/Nigeria will assist the successful Offeror in securing tax-exempt status and expediting imported equipment.

42. The wording of the “Objectives” or “Performance Components” differs in the three sections in which they are mentioned: page 13, Section C.1 Purpose includes three components; pages 21-23 Section C.7. Performance Objective Indicators includes only two of the three components as objectives; and pages 24-25, Sub-Section C.7.3.2. Performance Objective Indicators includes three Objectives.

a. Would USAID please confirm that the list of Components on page 13 also corresponds to the Objectives and amend pages 24-25, Section C.7 to include the third Objective along with its Sub-Objectives and their descriptions and minimum indicators?

https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=NGN&view=2Y https://money.cnn.com/2017/05/02/investing/nigeria-naira-currency-dollars/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2017/05/02/investing/nigeria-naira-currency-dollars/index.html

USAID RESPONSE: Please refer to USAID’s response to question number 28.

43. Page 22, Section C.7 Performance Objective Indicators includes Objective 7.1.4: Increased access to financial products and services. This objective and most of the bullet points under it seem to directly replicate the objectives and activities of the USAID Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity.

a. Would USAID please consider revising the bullet points to differentiate between the two Activities?

b. Would USAID also please consider removing or revising Serial Number 7 on page 11 (Deliverables Schedule)? This seems to also pertain to the Agribusiness Investment Activity.

USAID RESPONSE: a) FTF Nigeria Agribusiness Investment activity will work with lead firms, and financial institutions. This Activity will work with smallholder farmers and small-scale businesses (processors, service providers, etc.) who are not large enough to be lead firms that will be supported by the Agribusiness Investment activity. However, through coordination and collaboration with the Agribusiness Investment activity, the Activity will benefit from the financial instituions to support its beneficiaries with appropriate financial packages.

b) As explained in item (a) above, Serial Number 7 pertains to the Activity’s work with smallholder farmers and small-scale businesses (processors, service providers, etc.) who are not large enough to be lead firms that will be supported by the Agribusiness Investment activity.

44. Page 23, Sub-Section C.7.3.1. Purpose Statement Indicators: Strengthen sustainable extension and advisory services is the only reference to a Purpose Statement in the RFP.

Nutrition is not included in this Purpose Statement, though there are at least three indicators around nutrition.

a. Would USAID please confirm that the Purpose Statement of this Activity is to “Strengthen sustainable agricultural extension and advisory services”?

USAID RESPONSE: The third Feed the Future Nigeria objective is “A well-nourished population, especially among women and children”. Accordingly, nutrition intervention will be cross-cutting across all FTF Nigeria activities. Therefore, this Activity is expected to implement nutrition interventions as outlined in the solicitation.

45. Page 24, Sub-Section C.7.3.2. Performance Objectives Indicators lists three indicators

“Number of children under five (0-59 months) reached with nutrition-specific interventions through USG-supported programs (HL.9-1),” “Percentage of female participants of USG nutrition-sensitive agriculture activities consuming a diet of minimum diversity (EG.3.3-10),” and “Number of individuals receiving nutrition related professional training through USG supported programs (HL.9-4)”

a. Would USAID please consider removing these indicators as this Activity does not require nutrition-specific interventions and does not directly target children under five?

USAID RESPONSE: As outlined in Section C.7.3, page 23, indicators are illustrative.

Awardee is to select and or propose other indicators for USAID consideration and concurrence. Also, please note USAID’s response to Question 44 above.

46. On page 21, section C.7. Performance Objective Indicators, states, “In addition to the specific outputs above, the Offeror must propose standard indicators, as well as a schedule of deliverables demonstrating achievement of the above-mentioned objectives and outcomes.

The Offeror must propose targets (annual and Life of Activity) for all the indicators required by USAID.” Page 11 includes a list of required deliverables.

a. Would USAID please confirm that the “schedule of deliverables” is the same as the performance indicators with annual and Life of Activity targets?

USAID RESPONSE: The phrase “as well as a schedule of deliverables.” Has been deleted from Section C.7, Page 21.

47. Page 23, Section C.7.3 FTF Performance Objective Indicators, Sub-Section C.7.3.1 lists two indicators that were archived in the March 2018 update of standard indicators:

“Value of new private sector capital investment in the agriculture sector or food chain leveraged by Feed the Future implementation (EG.3.2-22)” and “Number of firms (excluding farms) or civil society organizations (CSOs) engaged in agricultural and food security-related manufacturing and services that have increased profits or become financially self-sufficient with USG assistance (EG.3.2-21).”

(https://www.agrilinks.org/sites/default/files/ftf-indicator-handbook-march-2018-508.pdf, page 251).

a. Would USAID please confirm that the offerors can instead use the new standard indicator introduced in the 2018 update that replaced EG.3.2-22: “EG.3.1-14 Value of new USG commitments and private sector investment leveraged by the USG to support food security and nutrition” (https://www.agrilinks.org/sites/default/files/ftf-indicator-handbook-march-2018- 508.pdf))

b. Would USAID please confirm that offerors should include the archived indicator “Number of firms (excluding farms) or civil society organizations (CSOs) engaged in agricultural and food security-related manufacturing and services that have increased profits or become financially self-sufficient with USG assistance” as a custom indicator?

USAID RESPONSE: Yes;

a) EG.3.2-22 Value of new private sector capital investment in the agriculture sector or food chain leveraged by Feed the Future implementation (RAA) has been replaced with EG.3.1- 14 Value of new USG commitments and private sector investment leveraged by the USG to support food security and nutrition [IM-level],

b) EG.3.2-21 Number of firms (excluding farms) or civil society organizations (CSOs) engaged in agricultural and food security-related manufacturing and services that have https://www.agrilinks.org/sites/default/files/ftf-indicator-handbook-march-2018-508.pdf increased profits or become financially self-sufficient with USG could be replaced by EG.3.2-29 Number of organizations with increased performance improvement with USG assistance [IM-level],

48. Page 34-35, Section F.5.4.3., Private Sector Specialist under minimum requirement states that the proposed candidate requires “demonstrated experience in using collaboration, learning, and adapting (CLA) approach to improve on private sector engagement.”

a. Would USAID please confirm that Private Sector Specialist candidates are not required to have experience leading and managing M&E and learning activities, given that private sector specialists bring a different skill set?

b. If so, would USAID please amend the requirements for this position to require “Demonstrated experience promoting and facilitating collaboration across multiple stakeholders and facilitating the incorporation of field-level research and learning into private sector strategies and interventions”?

USAID RESPONSE:

a) Private Sector Specialist are not required to have experience leading and managing M&E and learning activities. Minimum requirements are as outlined under Section F.5.4.3.

b) All Activity personnel are expected to use collaboration, learning and adapting (CLA) approach to improve on their work so that interventions that are not working are modified or discarded, while those that are working are scaled up.

49. Page 34-35, Sub-Section F.5.4.3., Private Sector Specialist under minimum requirement the RFP states the individuals require a “master’s degree or higher in agriculture, economics, or business administration.”

a. Would USAID please consider a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM) degree as a Master’s equivalent or higher?

USAID RESPONSE: A Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM) degree may be equivalent to a Master degree but s/he must still meet the minimum requirement as specified in Section F.5.4.3.

50. Page 35, Section F.5.4.4., Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Manager under minimum requirements the RFP states the candidate requires a “master’s degree or higher in monitoring and evaluation, agriculture, statistics, economics, or business administration.”

a. Would USAID consider amending this requirement in the revised solicitation to include a “Master’s degree in a field related to international development”, given that candidates may have significant M&E experience and expertise without this educational background?

USAID RESPONSE: The minimum requirement remains unchanged as spelled out in Section F.5.4.4.

51. Page 127, Section L.5.5 (a) Technical Capability (2) Performance Work Statement, iv. Scope states, “Describe the work in terms of the required results rather than either “how” the work to be accomplished. Give a precise statement of objectives or outcomes. Identify the tasks to be performed and how they will be performed”.

a. The first sentence indicates that offers are not to include “how” the work will be accomplished, and the second requires a description of how tasks will be performed. Would USAID kindly confirm that the PWS requires a description of the tasks to be performed and of how they are performed?

b. Would USAID kindly review and revise the paragraph as appropriate?

USAID RESPONSE: Please refer to USAID’s response to Question 12.

52. Page 129, Sub-Section L.5.5 (b) (1) Key Personnel states, “As annexes to the technical proposal, a complete and current resume must be submitted for each key personnel and long-term staff position, detailing the requisite qualifications and experience of the individual....Each resume will be accompanied by a signed letter of commitment from each candidate.” Moreover, page 125, Section L. 5 Instructions for the preparation of the technical proposal, Sub-Section (c) Format and Presentation, 9. Annexes list only Key Personnel CV/Resumes and Letter of Commitment as an annex.

a. Would USAID please confirm that offerors should include non-key personnel CVs (2 pages) and letters of commitment (1 page) in the same annex as the CVs and LOCs for the key personnel?

USAID RESPONSE: Under Section L.5.5(b)(1), it is stated that “As annexes to the technical proposal, a complete and current resume must be submitted for each key personnel and long-term staff position, detailing the requisite qualifications and experience of the individual. While the annexes do not count towards the page limit, resumes must not exceed three (3) pages in length for the proposed key personnel and two (2) pages for other identified proposed personnel. Qualifications, experience and skills will be listed in reverse chronological order starting with the most recent information. Each resume will be accompanied by a signed letter of commitment from each candidate indicating his/her: (a) availability to serve in the stated position; (b) intention to serve for a stated term of the service; and (c) prior work experience with the Offeror, if applicable. Letters of commitment must be included as an annex to the technical proposal and will not exceed one (1) page in length each.

53. Page 129, Sub-Section L.5.5 (b) (2) Staffing Plans states, “As part of the staffing plan, Offerors shall provide a supporting narrative that includes; (1) all long-term staff positions, their duties, and their respective levels of effort, (2) the roles and duties of short-term technical staff and their proposed level of effort, (3) …… and (4) the roles and potential contributions of short-term technical assistance (STTA) to the effective implementation of the activity.” Moreover, page 125, Section L. 5 Instructions for the preparation of the technical proposal, Sub-Section (c) Format and Presentation, 9. Annexes list only Key Personnel Position Descriptions as an annex.

a. Would USAID please confirm that offerors may include items 1, 2, and 4 in the same annex as the Key Personnel Position Descriptions, maintaining the requirement for a summary paragraph of clarity of staff roles and responsibilities in the Technical Proposal?

USAID RESPONSE: Section L.5(c)(6), page 126, stipulates that Staffing Plan is part of the Technical proposal. Also see USAID’s response to Question 52 above.

54. Would USAID please confirm that grants under contract are allowed and expected? If so, what is the anticipated range of the total value of the grants portfolio?

USAID RESPONSE: Grants under contract are not allowed or expected under this Activity.

Please also refer to USAID’s response to Question 18.

55. There appears to be no information available for the Feed the Future Nigeria Agro-Inputs

Project on Development Experience Clearinghouse. Would USAID please provide guidance on how to obtain a final report and any other relevant reports for this project?

USAID RESPONSE: We have provided the final report for the Feed the Future Nigeria Agro-inputs Project in Attachment J.6 of the revised solicitation.

56. Page 136, Sub-Section L.12.2 Part 2 – Proposed Costs/Prices/Budget, point 2 states “The Cost Proposal must be provided in two formats: (i) a summary and detailed budget, broken out by major cost elements, for the contract period of or five (5) years, from date of award;

and (ii) a summary and detailed budget for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) listed in Section B.3. This is to include a complete breakdown of the cost elements associated with each component and those costs associated with each proposed subcontract.” However, no CLINS are mentioned on page 6, Section B.3 Estimated Cost, Fixed Fee, and Obligated Amount

a. Would USAID please confirm that the term “components” refers to the items listed in the table under (b) Budget?

USAID RESPONSE: Section B.3 will include the total costs for all proposed Subcontracts.

However, the cost proposal, Section L.10 must include a breakdown of the cost elements associated with each component and those costs associated with each proposed subcontract.

57. The header of the table in section B.8(a) (pages 11 to 12) states “fee percentage.” Could

USAID replace this with “fee amount”, as the fee will be fixed for each deliverable upon award? There are also references to percentage payment of the fee under the “frequency” column. Could this be replaced with “amount” instead of “percentage”?

USAID RESPONSE: B.8(a) has been corrected to reflect Fee Amount.

58. Section F.5.4.2 (page 34) of the RFP designates “manage an effective monitoring and reporting system” as part of the responsibilities of the Deputy Chief of Party. Is it acceptable to shift these responsibilities to other Key Personnel team members as appropriate, as per the Offeror’s proposed staffing and management plan?

USAID RESPONSE: Minimum requirement for this position remains unchanged as outlined in the Section F.5.4.2.

59. Section F.6.11 (page 37) of the RFP states that “an Integration Plan for Gender, Youth, and Other Vulnerable Groups must be completed within six calendar months after signing the contract”; however, page 41 notes that the due date for this plan is “proposed pre-award.” Since this is not listed as a required annex in Section L, can USAID confirm that this deliverable is not required as part of the technical proposal?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see Question 19b.

60. Section F.6.12 (page 38), of the RFP indicates, “The Contractor will be required to maintain an up to date web page, with relevant country fact-sheets. The Contractor will send out weekly newsletter to stakeholders on the activities under the project.” Could USAID confirm these requirements are applicable to this project?

USAID RESPONSE: The requirement “The Contractor will be required to maintain an up to date web page, with relevant country fact-sheets. The Contractor will send out weekly newsletter to stakeholders on the activities under the project” has been deleted.

61. In the second paragraph of section F.6.14 (page 38), the RFP indicates that the contractor will be required to submit a disposition plan at least 90 calendar days before the completion of the contract. However, the second sentence states that USAID will approve the disposition plan in writing at least 90 calendar days before the completion of the contract. Could USAID please clarify the timing for submission and anticipated USAID approval of the disposition plan?

USAID RESPONSE: Section F.6.14, second paragraph is modified as follows: During the last year of the Contract term, at least 120 calendar days before the completion date of the Contract, the Contractor must provide to USAID in writing, a proposed plan for disposition of the loan or credit assets remaining at the termination of the Contract. USAID must approve or disapprove the proposed disposition plan in writing, at least 90 calendar days prior to the completion of the Contract. Regardless of any prior approval of all or portions of the proposed disposition plan, USAID reserves the right to direct or redirect such disposition plan.

62. Section F.6.15(2) (page 38) of the RFP indicates that contractors will be required to submit financial reports within two weeks after the end of the reporting period, while the summary table of reports and deliverables (page 41, item 12), requires financial reports to be submitted no later than 20th calendar day of each month. Could USAID please clarify which timeframe is accurate?

USAID RESPONSE: Page 41, Item 12 has been updated to correspond with Section F.6.15(2), page 38.

63. Section H.16 (page 59) of the RFP states “unless otherwise stated in the TOs,…” Could this be replaced with “unless otherwise stated in the contract”?

USAID RESPONSE: Section H.16, page 59 has been corrected to read contract.

64. Section H.33 (page 73) of the RFP requires the contractor to comply with ADS 548. Our understanding is that ADS 548 has been archived and cannot be located at https://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/agency-policy/series-500. Could USAID please delete this clause?

USAID RESPONSE: ADS 548 has been archived and no longer applies.

65. Attachment number J.6 “Small Business Participation Plan Template” is not available at the google doc link provided on page 105 of the RFP: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1t5tE7FcwRqB5BTPcLpubowskVz0Tz2HW.

Rather, the provided document for J.6 is USAID’s Fiscal Year 2018 small business goals.

Could USAID please provide the preferred template for this plan?

However, USAID encourage participation to the maximum extent possible of small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns and women-owned small business concerns in this activity as prime contractor or as a subcontractor, as defined in Part 19 of the FAR. Attachment J.6 is now replaced to be the FTF Nigeria Agro-Inputs Project Final Report for December 7, 2017.

66. Could USAID clarify the information required as part of “Evaluation Method” in the QASP, as noted in section L.5.5(a)(3) (page 128) of the RFP? In particular, how does Evaluation Method differ from Primary Method of Surveillance?

USAID RESPONSE: “Evaluation Method” (second paragraph, bullet 7) from page 128 has been deleted.

67. In section L.5.5(a)(3) (page 128), for “Acceptable Quality Level”, the RFP states that “For this requirement, the AQL is 100% compliance due to the critical support provided by the mainframe operations.” Could USAID clarify this statement and confirm that it is applicable to this project?

USAID RESPONSE: The AQL is 100% compliance due to the critical support provided by mainframe operations has been deleted.

68. Section L.5.5(b)(1) (page 129) of the RFP indicates, “As annexes to the technical proposal, a complete and current resume must be submitted for each key personnel and long-term staff position…”; however, Section L.5 (page 126) lists only “Key Personnel CV/Resumes” as a required Annex. Can USAID confirm whether we should include other long-term staff CVs as part of the Key Personnel CV Annex?

USAID RESPONSE: Yes, please refer to USAID’s response to Question 52.

https://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/agency-policy/series-500 https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1t5tE7FcwRqB5BTPcLpubowskVz0Tz2HW

69. Section L.5.5(b)(2) (page 129) of the RFP indicates, “As part of their staffing plan, Offerors shall provide a supporting narrative that includes: (1) all long-term staff positions, their…