Questions and Answers Sol72062120R00003.pdf

Att. J.11

TUHIFADHI MALIALISI ACTIVITY

Sol_72062120R00003

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

GENERAL

1. Given the current uncertainty relating to COVID-19 and the effect on the exchange rate, could USAID provide offerors with an exchange rate for consistency among budgets?

No. Offerors should determine an exchange rate based on their market projection.

COVER LETTER

2. In the USAID Business Forecast, the Tanzania Tuhifadhi Maliasili Activity is listed with a value of $25-49.9 million.

Can USAID please confirm the ceiling price for this activity?

No. Offerors’ budget should be based on the LOE guidance in the RFP and their technical approach. Under ADS 302.3.5.7.”The Contracting Officer (CO) must not include the Government cost estimate in a competitive solicitation ... COs must not include estimated cost ranges in solicitations for a cost-reimbursement term (LOE) contract.” Since the contract contemplated by the RFP is a LOE contract, no ceiling estimate or range will be provided.

3. Although the Tanzania activity is a CPFF term type contract, we note that the business forecast for this opportunity had included an anticipated range of $24-50 million. Could USAID provide further information on the budget range for this RFP?

No. Offeror’s budget should be based on the LOE guidance in the RFP and their technical approach. Under ADS 302.3.5.7.”The Contracting Officer (CO) must not include the Government cost estimate in a competitive solicitation ... COs must not include estimated cost ranges in solicitations for a cost-reimbursement term (LOE) contract.” Since the contract contemplated by the RFP is a LOE contract, no ceiling estimate or range will be provided.

4. Although under ADS 302.3.5.7, the CO is not required to include estimated cost ranges for CPFF term contracts, a ceiling or range would be helpful in addition to the LOE provided as it would provide offerors a sense of the level of activities USAID is envisioning as well as the amount of funds available for this program. Could USAID please revise the solicitation to include either a contract ceiling or dollar value range to help prevent wide variances in offers?

No. Offeror’s budget should be based on the LOE guidance in the RFP and their technical approach. Under ADS 302.3.5.7.”The Contracting Officer (CO) must not include the Government cost estimate in a competitive solicitation ... COs must not include estimated cost ranges in solicitations for a cost-reimbursement term (LOE) contract.” Since the contract contemplated by the RFP is a LOE contract, no ceiling estimate or range will be provided.

SECTION B – SERVICES/PRICES

5. The contract type referenced in section B.2 Contract Type (Page 7) in the RFP is that of CPFF-term type contract. As the scope of work has clear, achievable milestones, would USAID be amendable to changing the

No. The contract type will remain CPFF-term type as it is not possible to clearly define the requirement and set realistic, measurable targets on what will be considered success at the outset.

contract type to CPFF-Completion? Qualified offerors should have the insight and ability to price and perform this engagement on a CPFF-completion basis and could propose fee payment milestones that align with the milestones in their draft activity MEL plan. Such an approach benefits USAID as it incentivizes the achievement of tangible outcomes rather than merely days worked.

6. Section B.4 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee Budget' suggests no Fixed Fee is to be applied for Grants Under Contract (GUCs). This appears to be inconsistent with FAR 15.404-4 and ADS 302.3.6.9, which state, inter alia, that pre-negotiation fee objectives must be determined according to a structured approach that considers contractor effort, risk, and other special factors. Grants require significant effort to administer and carry risks for the contractor. Additionally, the statutory underpinnings of fixed fee at 10 USC 2306(d) and 41 USC 254(b) discusses fee definitions and limitations in terms of total estimated cost, which would include grants in this case. Given these factors, we respectfully request that USAID reconsider its agency pre-negotiation fee objective of 0 percent on grants and allow offerors to charge a fee that is reasonable and consistent with federal regulations.

Fixed Fee must not be applied to the GUCS amount of $7,500,000 based FAR 16.306(d)(2), as fixed fee is directly tied to the level of effort expended. However, per Section B.4 The $7,500,000 amount does not include any relevant management or administrative expenses incurred by the contractor, which means offerors can budget for administration costs for these grants.

7. Why has a budget allocation not been provided for the overall award, only the $7.5m for GUCs?

Because each offeror has to propose a budget based on their technical approach. The GUCs amount of $7,500,000 is fixed and individual grants will be made after contract award.

8. Section B.6 provides a table of LOE for the activity. Can USAID please confirm that all LOE provided to the project from the contractor’s headquarters (project management, technical support, financial management, etc.) is in addition to the referenced total LOE of 31,382 person-days?

No. The 31,382 person-days is total LOE. This includes all long-term and short-term direct employees and consultants. This also includes headquarters and administrative staff.

9. In Section B.6, Level of Effort (page 8), could USAID confirm that the 31,382 person-days of professional level of effort (LOE) are not intended to include administrative-type roles (e.g., HR Manager or Accountant)?

No. The 31,382 person-days is total LOE. This includes all long-term and short-term direct employees and consultants. This also includes headquarters and administrative staff.

10. B.6. Level of Effort states that “The Contractor must devote 31,382 person-days of professional level of effort (LOE) for the following categories of employees: Long- Term and Short-Term direct employees and consultants.”

However, on page 121 under Cost proposal Instructions, the RFP notes that “USAID has estimated the total cost of labor including Professional Staff Expatriate and Local, Short-term staff and Consultants to be 31,382 days. USAID

a. Yes. Per Section L, Offeror may submit an alternative LOE table based on their technical approach.

b. No. The LOE breakdown table provided under B.6(a) will not be removed as this is a Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) requirement for CPFF-term type contract. The final negotiated LOE table will be incorporated into the award.

recognizes that USAID may lack sufficient information to adequately estimate the level of effort required to perform the contract.”

a. Could USAID please confirm that as noted on page 121 under Cost proposal Instructions, the offeror, in accordance with FAR 52.215-1 Alternate II, “may submit an alternative LOE table based on their technical approach.”

b. Additionally, would USAID consider removing the LOE breakdown table provided under B.6(a) to allow offerors to submit an alternative LOE table that is based on their technical approach?

The instructions allow for offerors to propose an alternative table.

11. Could USAID please clarify whether the 31,382 person-days LOE specified in table B.4 includes budgeted labor from subcontractors?

The 31,382 person-days LOE should include LOE attributed to subcontractors that have a role/responsibility that will directly contribute to achieving the objectives of the award. This would not include subcontractor labor for auxiliary services such as cleaning, security, or IT services. These examples are not meant to represent an all-inclusive list.

12. In Section B.6 (page 8), could USAID confirm that the 800 person-days of short-term staff and consultants are intended for technical assistance and not administrative home office support (e.g., project or contracts management)? We note that some organizations’ indirect rates are low because they direct bill home office support to USAID and therefore may have difficulty achieving the recommended level.

No. The 800 person-days is for headquarter short-term staff in any function (i.e. both technical and admin) and directly hired consultants in any function. Please remember that USAID is allowing for offerors to propose alternative LOE tables.

13. In Section B.6 (page 8), could USAID confirm that the 800 person-days of short-term staff and consultants would not apply to fixed price subcontracts as that mechanism is structured around a specific deliverable and does not track

LOE?

No. The 800 person-days STTA and consultants would not apply to subcontractor or grantee staff. The 800 person-days from the prime (i.e. STTA) or individuals directly contracted by the prime for specific tasks.

However depending on the offeror’s management approach, some of it could apply to a major subcontractor.

14. Under B.7 Indirect Costs (Page 9), the RFP states that Major Subcontractors “are those subcontractors whose proposed costs exceeds 20% of the total LOE” and under L.6.2 (viii) Past Performance (Page 118) states that Major Subcontractors “are those subcontractors expected to perform at least 20%...of the technical effort,” however L.7

(a) Submission Requirements (2)Proposed Costs/Prices (Page 120) states that “the detailed budget must be submitted for the prime and all major subcontractors, The RFP has been amended to revise the language in Section B.7 Indirect Costs.

The major subcontractor threshold for past performance and for detailed subcontractor cost proposals are distinct and correct as written.

proposed to have a total estimated cost of $3,000,000 and above.” Can USAID clarify if the major subcontractor threshold is that totaling or exceeding 20% or is $3,000,000 and above of the total proposed price?

15. Section B.7 states that "Major Subcontractors are those subcontractors whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the total LOE" while Section L.7 (a. Submission Requirements) states that "The detailed budget must be submitted for the prime and all major subcontractors, proposed to have a total estimated cost of $3,000,000 and above." These statements seem to conflict based on the potential dollar value. Could USAID revise the instructions under L.7 to be consistent with B.7 stating that budgets are required for major subcontractors whose costs exceed 20% of the total

LOE?

and correct as written.

USAID intends to evaluate the cost proposals for those subcontractors with a total estimated cost of $3,000,000.

USAID is not requesting Offerors to complete Section B.7 and USAID will add the appropriate subcontractor information upon selection of the successful contractor and negotiation of the final total estimated cost.

16. Major subcontractors under section B.7 is defined as “subcontractors whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the total LOE,” however under L.6.2, major subcontractors are define as “subcontractors expected to perform at least 20% (as quantified by or calculated by level of effort for staff and/or total estimated direct expenditures) of the technical effort under the contract being solicited.” Then, in L.7.a(2), USAID refers to major subcontractors as those “proposed to have a total estimated cost of $3,000,000 and above.” Can USAID please confirm that offerors may utilize the definition as described under section L.6.2?

and correct as written. Please submit past performance and detailed subcontractor cost proposals based on the guidance for past performance and cost proposals, respectively.

SECTION C – DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT

OF WORK

17. Section C.3.4 Objective 2 (page 23) references “US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC)” and DFC tools (such as direct lending, credit guarantees, or equity financing). Could USAID indicate the level of DFC funding allocated within the mission to support this activity?

The DFC level is $500,000.

18. Section C.5.2, page 28 states that “The Contractor must include number of hectares in wildlife corridors as an additional disaggregate for EG 10.2-2 and EG 10.2-1 and a required custom indicator on corridor use. USAID will provide the Contractor with Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) for these required custom indicators." Could USAID clarify what their planned

Yes. See Attachment J.10 Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) under Section J.

The RFP is amended to reflect this change.

custom indicator on corridor use will be so we may include it in our MEL annex?

19. Section C.5.2, Required Standard and Custom Indicators (page 28), requires contractors to include a custom indicator on “corridor use.” Would USAID please confirm to what type of use this requirement is referring?

Yes. See Attachment J.10 Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) under Section J.

20. Section C.6 Strategic Biodiversity Activities Fund (page

28) states that “the proposed funding level for the period of performance of the Contract is detailed in Section B.4.”

However, there is no reference to the Fund currently under B.4. Would USAID consider providing a plug figure or percentage of total estimated cost for this fund?

a. Additionally, the Strategic Biodiversity Fund is not included as a line item in the Summary Budget table under Section L.7. Could USAID please confirm that it should be included as a separate budget category?

USAID amended the RFP to provide a $3,000,000 plug figure in Section B.4 that will be added to the final contract.

a. Yes, the Strategic Biodiversity Activities Fund should be included as a separate budget category.

21. Sections C and J reference the Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) for this activity. However, the embedded link in Section C is not working. Could USAID please provide a copy of the IEE?

Yes. See Attachment J.3 attached. The RFP was amended to remove the links to the IEE in Sections C and H.

22. Section C.6 Strategic Biodiversity Activity Fund states “The proposed funding level for the period of performance of the Contract is detailed in Section B.4.” However, the referenced funding level information was omitted from this section. Would USAID confirm the level of funding for the Strategic Biodiversity Activity Fund?

The Strategic Biodiversity Activity Fund is $3,000,000.

23. Can you please clarify if international NGOs are eligible for the GUC mechanism, or whether it is only for local NGOs and other local communities, University researchers etc? The language in the solicitation suggests it is for local communities, but it’s not completely clear if the NGOs and University researchers etc have to be local as well.

Yes. International NGOs are eligible. The RFP is amended to reflect this change.

SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

24. Section H.10a (page 59) states “The total value of any individual grant to a U.S. organization must not exceed $100,000. This limitation does not apply to grant awards to non-U.S.NGOs.” Can USAID confirm that locally established partners, defined in ADS303 as U.S. or international organizations that work through locally-led

Yes. The limitation does not apply to grant awards to non- U.S. NGOs.

operations and programming models, are not held to the $100,000 threshold listed here and in ADS302.3.4.13?

SECTION I – CONTRACT CLAUSES

25. Section I.1 includes the FAR clause 52.222-41 Services Contract Labor Standards (APR 2018). Given the Statement of Work contained in Section C it does not appear this clause would be applicable. Would USAID consider removing it?

No. Since this RFP does not meet the FAR clause 52.222- 41 exception criteria.

SECTION K – REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS, AND

OTHER STATEMENTS

26. Section K, Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements, is included in the RFP, but Section L.7 does not require the submission of Section K to be included in the cost volume. Would USAID like offerors to include Section K in their submission?

Offerors must carefully read all the Provisions under Section K and follow the necessary instructions. See K.1 FAR 52.204-8 on Annual Representation and Certifications

SECTION L – INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES

TO OFFERORS

27. Section L.6 (page 116) states that “The text in any text boxes included within the technical proposal must not be less than 12 points in size.” Would USAID consider allowing Offerors to use a font size smaller than 12 points, but still legible for text boxes within the technical narrative?

Yes, but no less than 8pt.

28. Would USAID allow offerors to use 11” x 17” page size for theory of change graphics to allow for a more comprehensive and legible presentation?

Yes.

29. Section L.6.1, General Technical Proposal Instructions (page 116), requires 12-point font within text boxes in the technical proposal. We respectfully request that offerors be permitted to use a slightly smaller font (10 point).

Yes, but no less than 8pt.

30. Section L.6.1 (page 116) paragraph (c) requires all graphs and charts to be included in the annexes. However, paragraph (d) implies that tables, graphs, charts, etc. are allowed in the technical proposal, although they will be counted against the page limit. Can USAID please confirm that offerors are allowed to include tables, graphs, charts, etc. in the technical proposal?

Yes and they will be counted toward the page limit.The text “All graphs and charts must be included in the annexes” is deleted from the RFP.

31. Section L.6 (page 116) states that “All graphs and charts must be included in the annexes” and then later states that “A page in the Technical Proposal that contains a table, chart, graph, etc. not otherwise excluded below is included within the stated page limitation for the Technical

Yes, and they will be counted toward the page limit. The text “All graphs and charts must be included in the annexes” is deleted from the RFP.

a. No additional annexes are permitted for graphics.

Proposal.” Can USAID please confirm that tables, charts, and graphics can be included in the Technical Proposal?

a. Additionally, would USAID consider the addition of a separate annex (e.g., Annex F) for graphics, with the understanding that all relevant graphics will be referenced in the proposal content?

32. Section L6.1.c of the RFP states that “all graphs and charts must be included in the annexes.” Would USAID please consider adding an annex for charts and graphs?

We have updated the language on pg 116, part c. No additional annexes for charts and graphs will be accepted.

33. In section L.6.1(e), USAID notes that the technical proposal should be organized as follows: i. Cover Page; ii.

Table of Contents; iii. Acronym List; iv. Technical Approach; v. Management Approach; vi. Annexes: Annex A – Draft Activity MEL Plan (not to exceed 10 pages);

Annex B - First Year Work Plan (not to exceed three pages);

Annex C - Organizational Chart (not to exceed one page);

Annex D - Key Personnel CVs (not to exceed two pages per position) and letters of commitment; and Annex E - Contractor Past Performance Information (no page limitation). Would USAID consider inserting an executive summary, as referenced in L.6.1(b) to this list?

An executive summary is not required and will not be evaluated.

34. An Executive Summary is mentioned as a non-substantive item that is not included in the Technical Proposal page count limit on page 116 in section L.6.1(b), but it is not included in the required Technical Proposal outline provided in L.6.1(e), also on page 116. Would USAID confirm that an Executive Summary can be included in the opening of the proposal and that it will not be counted toward the 25-page limit for the Technical Proposal body?

An executive summary is not required and will not be evaluated.

35. Please confirm that offerors may include an Executive Summary in their technical proposals that does not count against the overall page limit.

An executive summary is not required and will not be evaluated.

36. Section L.6.2 Technical Proposal Format (page 117) states that, in the Management Approach, the offeror must submit a 5 page MEL Plan, and that “As an annex, in table format, Offerors must submit a draft Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Plan with indicators proposed for the goal, IR, and sub-levels of activity

Yes, the MEL annex may contain narrative information in addition to the indicator table. The RFP was amended to clarify that narrative information is allowed.

implementation. Offerors must propose annual and life-of-activity targets for each indicator, means of verification, methods of data collection, and key assumptions for each indicator.” Can USAID confirm that the Annex may contain information in addition to the described table?

37. Section L.6.2, page 117 states that “As an annex, in table format, the Offeror must submit a draft Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Plan with indicators proposed for the goal, IR, and sub-levels of activity implementation.” Putting all the information normally presented in a MEL Plan, including narrative context, in a table format is restrictive. Would USAID accept a MEL Plan that contains narrative/paragraph format along with a list of indicators in a table format?

Yes, the MEL annex may contain narrative information in addition to the indicator table.

38. The cover letter states that a “Key Personnel Annex [is due] May 12, 2020 at 0700 EAT.” Can USAID confirm that the Key Personnel Annex is the same as Annex D - Key Personnel CVs?

Yes. Key Personnel Annex is Annex D as described under Section L.6.2(vi) Management Approach

39. Section L.6.2, Technical Proposal Format (page 118), requires a key personnel annex with two-page CVs, references, and signed letters of commitment for each key personnel position. Can USAID please confirm that offerors may include the required key personnel references on a separate page that does not count against the two-page CV limit?

Yes, this information may be provided on a third page.

40 Would USAID consider allowing any additional annexes to be included by offerors, such as one with Letters of Support from local CSOs, GOT counterparts, the private sector, etc.…?

No, offerors may not submit additional letters of support with the proposal.

41. Section L.6 (page 118) states that “Offerors must submit a list of three of the most recent(within the last three years) and relevant awards for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal per Offeror and major subcontractor” and Section M.2 (page 130) states that “Relevant performance is defined as an activity with a life of project value of at least $15 million that includes biodiversity conservation in a context similar to Tanzania.”

a. Could USAID confirm that it considers not yet exercised option years to be part of the total life of project value?

a - Yes, total life of project value includes option years.

b - Past performance will be considered relevant if the award value is $15 million or more.

b. Additionally, for the three past performance references for major subcontractor(s), could USAID confirm that relevant performance below $15 million will be considered?

42. In reference to USAID PEB #2014-05, does USAID reasonably anticipate that significant direct charges are likely to be incurred outside the United States with a focus on local organizations within Tanzania and, if so, can USAID please confirm that a Small Business Subcontracting Plan will not be required from the apparent successful offeror for the subject solicitation?

No. Per Section L.7(5) Unless the Offeror is a small business concern, a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required from the Apparent Successful Offeror. Note PEB# 17-01 replaced PEB# 2014-05 in its entirety.

43. Section L.6.2 (viii) Past Performance (Page 118) states that “Offerors…must provide past performance for itself and each major subcontractor.” To successfully perform the scope of work, Offerors may partner with subcontractors that provide expert services but will not provide a level of support at or above the major subcontractor threshold. Due to the critical support these firms will provide, will USAID allow, but not require, offerors to include past performance from non-major subcontractors?

No, Offerors are requested to adhere to the requirements in Section L.6.2 of the RFP.

44. Section L.7, Cost Proposal Instructions (page 120), requires an original signature on the SF-33. Since proposals will be submitted electronically, could USAID please confirm that a scanned or electronic signature will be sufficient?

Yes. Scanned or electronic signature is acceptable.

45. Under L.7, the solicitation states that “The cost proposal must be in Excel 2003 and compatible with a MS Windows XP operating environment.” Could USAID revise this to state Excel 2003 or later versions for offerors to use more recent versions of Excel for their submissions?

The RFP was amended to state “The cost proposal must be in Excel 2003 or later

46. Section L.7 Cost Proposal Instructions states “For seminars, workshops and conferences, if any, the Offeror must indicate the purpose, venue and duration of proposed conferences and seminars, their relationship to the contract objectives, along with estimates of costs” (page 123).

Would USAID consider removing this requirement to allow offerors to present cost information for possible seminars, workshops and conferences in a way that allows offerors to best represent their technical approach and reflect flexibility.

No. This level of detail is necessary and important to

USAID.

47. For the environmental compliance costs requested under the complementary information section described on page 127:

a. Would USAID consider providing additional information about what should be included, such as providing cost categories or examples of what should be highlighted?

b. How will this information be evaluated for adequacy?

a. Offerors should make a determination of what environmental costs to include based on their technical approach

b. The evaluation team will determine adequacy relevant to the offeror’s technical approach as part of the cost realism evaluation.

48. Section L.7 Cost Proposal Instructions (page 121) makes clear that offerors should assume that the GOT will not exempt or reimburse value-added tax. Can USAID please confirm whether offerors should budget for VAT on costs over $500 with the understanding that the criteria in USAID/Tanzania IP Notice 2020-01 would still have to be met for the cost to be allowable?

Yes. Offerors should budget for VAT on costs over $500 with the understanding that the criteria in USAID/Tanzania IP Notice 2020-01 still has to be met for the cost to be allowable.

49. Section L.7, p. 124 states that “(k) Grants Under Contract – At the time of grant award, Offeror must provide information sufficient to determine reasonableness of costs proposed for each grantee. Detailed information documenting basis for proposed costs (including Indirect Costs) must be provided in the budget narrative.” Since USAID has provided a plug figure for GUCs, can USAID please confirm that the reference to detailed information for grantees is meant for post-award purposes?

Yes. This detailed information will be required after the award when implementing individual GUCs.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

50. Section M.2.b states the following: The management approach will be evaluated based on the extent to which

• The Offeror incorporates the necessary management structure, systems, and expertise to carry out the proposed approach.

• The Offeror presents a robust MEL strategy and plan with ambitious but achievable targets.

Would USAID confirm that neither Key Personnel nor staffing will be evaluated based on what is presented in Section M.2?

Key Personnel and staffing will not be evaluated as separate factors or subfactors, but the information provided about key personnel and staffing will be used by evaluators to evaluate the management approach as described under M.2b.