SWIFT_IV_Questions_FINAL.pdf

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR

SUPPORT WHICH IMPLEMENTS FAST TRANSITION IV (SWIFT IV)

INDEFINITE QUANTITY CONTRACT (IQC)

1. Question: In order to demonstrate the specialized skill sets in the geographic locations listed in Sub IQCs A and B, is subcontractor past performance acceptable to support the Past Performance requirements or will only past performance of the Prime/JV evaluated?

Answer: As stated in L.7.5, the majority of the past performance short forms should be submitted for projects in which the prime offeror was the prime contractor. In the case of a Joint Venture, this would mean that the majority of the short forms should be from the members of the Joint Venture when acting as prime contractors. USAID will expect to evaluate past performance of major subcontractors, but this should complement rather than replace past performance of the prime offeror.

2. Question: Section L.7.6 Activity Manual states, ―(See Section M.2(e))‖, but Section M.2.(e) was not provided in the RFP. Can USAID please provide the evaluation requirements for the Activity Manual?

Answer: Per the attached amendment, the reference to M.2.(e) has been removed. The

Activity Manual will not be evaluated as a separate evaluation factor, but use of the proposed Activity Manual and consistency with the policies and procedures therein will be evaluated throughout the evaluation of the technical approach.

3. Question: If a JV is formed to support the SWIFT IV contract, do the past performance of the individual JV partners meet the Past Performance requirements listed in

Sections L.7.5 and M.2.(d)

Answer: Please see the response to Question 1 above.

4. Question: Section L.7.1(b) states that only one Part I is required for submission if a offeror is proposing both Sub IQCs however, Section L.7.1.(a) on page 105 states, ―while Part I maybe idenditical for both sub-IQCs, offerors should submit Part I binders for each sub-IQC…‖ Which instruction should be followed?

Answer: Per the amendment, the offeror should submit a Part I binder for each sub-IQC if they are submitting proposals for both sub-IQCs.

5. Question: Can Offerors submit additional annexes not included in the list provided in the RFP?

Answer: No.

6. Question: The subheading for L.7.6 on pg. 116 of the RFP directs the reader to ―(See

Section M.2(e))‖. There is no such section. Was that section replaced by J.14, the

Activity Manual Outline, or will additional information be provided?

Answer: J.14 does not replace M.2.(e). Please refer to the response to Question 2.

7. Question: Please confirm that phrases ―Implementation in Transition Contexts‖ and

―Implementation in Transition Environments‖ (see RFP pg. 122) are used interchangeably. Which phrase is preferred to be used in the technical proposal?

Answer: These terms were being used interchangeably. It should read ―Implementation in

Transition Environments‖ in the text box at the top of page 122. This has been corrected per the Amendment.

8. Question: Please confirm that the Activity cycle flow chart requirement (RFP pg.107) is in addition to Part I Annexes. If separate, can it be added to the list of Annexes?

Answer: Per the amendment to the RFP, the Activity Cycle Flow Chart has been added to the list of annexes for Part I.

9. Question: Is Annex 1 Case Study - Work/Implementation Plan the same as the Start-up and

Implementation Plan required on RFP pg. 109. If different, are there specific instructions re: page limit and requirements for Annex 1 Case Study -

Work/Implementation Plan?

Answer: These are the same thing. The proper term is Start-up and Implementation Plan.

It has been corrected in the amendment to the RFP to reflect that change in the list of annexes.

10. Question: Please confirm that Start-up organization chart required on RFP pg.109 is in addition to Annex 2 - Organizational Chart. If separate, can it be added to the list of Annexes?

Answer: Per the amendment, the Start-up Organization Chart has been added to the list of annexes.

11. Question: Section L.7.4 Supporting Regional Transition Programs C.1) Start-up (RFP pg.

114) states that ―The offeror shall provide a narrative description of their plan to establish operations in the illustrative countries. This should include specific detail on how the offeror intends to register in country, establish an office, quickly provide liquidity of funds, and recruit local staff. The narrative should not exceed two (2) pages for each country‖. Do these pages count towards the

30 page limit for the technical proposal?

Answer: Yes.

12. Question: Activity Manual in not listed as an evaluation factor. Kindly clarify the weight of the Activity Manual in the overall evaluation of the offerors.

Answer: Please see the response to Question 2.

13. Question: Please confirm that there is no page limit for the Activity Manual.

Answer: There is no limit. However, the Activity Manual will be considered as a draft of the Activity Manual deliverable for the IQC, and therefore, it should not contain extraneous information that is beyond what is required in the RFP.

14. Question: Section L.8.7). Are major subcontractors expected to submit Evidence of

Responsibility, too?

Answer: No. This is not required to be submitted to the Government. This will be submitted to the Prime Contractor(s).

15. Question: Section L.8.2. Does the government plan to supply Excel spreadsheets for all cost info requested?

Answer: The budget template and pipeline template have been provided in excel formats with the solicitation on FedBizOpps. USAID expects offerors to submit those elements of their cost proposal in excel format. There are no other components that are required to be submitted in Excel though offerors may choose to do so.

16. Question: Section H.12 requires sending hard copies of SF 294 and 295 to the Office of

Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. Under the new reporting requirements these reports are submitted on ESRS.gov database. Are the contractors required to send the hard copies in addition to reporting on

ESRS.gov?

Answer: Yes, Contractors are required to submit hard copies as part of the proposal package.

17. Question: Reference ATTACHMENT J.13 – ILLUSTRATIVE BUDGET SUMMARY

FOR CASE STUDY – COST PROPOSAL; Could USAID/OTI please provide the Budget Template in Excel format?

Answer: The budget template was provided with the solicitation package on FedBizOpps.

18. Question: (Ref. C.2 (c ), page 12) Desired outcomes are defined in terms of positive changes in attitudes, perceptions and behaviour’s. How does USAID expect this to be measured?

Answer: There is no set approach that USAID expects its SWIFT partners to use in order to measure attitudes, perceptions and behaviours. DCHA/OTI expects to work closely with SWIFT contractors, local partners, and other counterparts (the

USAID Mission, the Embassy, etc.) to identify the most appropriate approach on a country by country basis.

19. Question: Will USAID assist contractors with facilitating the registration process in the implementing countries?

Answer: Depending on the country program, USAID may provide assistance to contractors with in-country registration; however, offerors should assume that they will be responsible for in-country registration without assistance from

USAID.

20. Question: (Ref. c.3 (c ), page 26) Contractor must use the OTI Activity Database for documentation, approval and reporting on TAP activities. Will Contractors have access to the data for the support auditing and reporting requirements?

Answer: Contractor staff both in the field and in the home office will have access to the

OTI Activity Database, in the same way that USAID staff in Washington, DC and the field has access to the OTI Activity Database. Therefore, contractors will be able to utilize information in the database for programmatic auditing and reporting requirements. Please note that the OTI Activity Database is a program management tool and is not considered financially auditable (although contractors are required to accurately track activity commitments and disbursements in the Activity Database). Therefore, SWIFT IV contractors should have their own auditable financial management systems.

21. Question: (Ref I.8, page 88) requires Federal electronic information technology (EIT) to be accessible….for people with disabilities. Approximately what proportion of procurement actions has this applied to in the past?

Answer: Beyond ensuring that particular deliverables for the U.S. Government and the public (reports, videos, etc.) are accessible per Section 508, USAID does not anticipate significant procurement of other EIT under SWIFT IV task orders.

22. Question: (Ref. l.7.1, page 104-105) The narrative says that Part I should be submitted for

BOTH Sub-IQCs if the offeror is bidding on both Sub-IQCs, but the table indicates only ONE copy of Part I is to be submitted. Please clarify.

Answer: Please see the response to Question 4 above. Per the amendment, we have modified the table accordingly.

23. Question: (Ref L.7.2/ a.2, page 109) Implementation scenarios. A page limit for the narrative responding to Scenario 3 is given, but no page limit is given for

Scenarios 1 and 2. Instructions also say that each scenario is to be considered separately. Scenario 3 contributes 3 pages to total 30 page limit. How much should scenarios 1 and 2 contribute? Or are they not included in the total limit?

Answer: All three scenarios contribute to the overall page limit. The page limitation for

Scenario 3 was provided as a maximum page limitation. USAID has not put any limitations on the submissions for Scenarios 1 and 2. Offerors may use their best judgment in determining how they want to allocate space for those two scenarios.

24. Question: (Ref. L.8.2, page 117). Should the proposed budget include specifics of Scenarios

1, 2 and/or 3?

Answer: The budget is only for the case study referenced in a.1) of L.7.2.

25. Question: (Ref. l.7.4 c.2, page 114) Offerors are to submit up to three resumes of existing individuals for the illustrative countries. Are you asking for three candidates for

EACH position (COP, Senior Operations Manager, and Regional Program

Manager)? Or three TOTAL (i.e., one resume for each position)?

Answer: Three candidates for each position for a total of six resumes.

26. Question: Contractors are required to submit resumes for key personnel for the NapaMaka

Case Study (page 172). Can these resumes be the same resumes as the ones required in Section L.7.4 C.2) Staffing, on page 114 for the specified countries?

Answer: Yes, but offerors may not submit the same resume for more than two positions in the technical volume. Please note that USAID’s preference is that offerors demonstrate a breadth of relevant personnel with experience and skills to meet the requirements in Section C of the SWIFT IV IQC.

27. Question: Can Host Country Nationals be proposed for key positions in the illustrative countries if they meet or exceed the expected qualifications?

Answer: No. For the purposes of the SWIFT IV evaluation, USAID would like to see non-

HCN staff for those three positions.

28. Question: RFP page 117 says there is no maximum page limit to the budget proposal, but page 170 of the illustrative case study says the ―cost proposal‖ is limited to 5 pages (excluding budget spreadsheets). Perhaps page 170 intended to say the

―illustrative case study budget proposal is limited to 5 pages?‖ Please clarify expectations.

Answer: The reference on page 170 in attachment J.11 refers specifically to cost notes for the illustrative case study budget.

29. Question: (Ref. M.2, page 122) If a Contractor cannot include past performance in the matrix (because all work has been done in other countries to date), where else in the proposal can past experience and capabilities be written? It seems the only place to include it is in the Technical Proposal, Part I (Approach to Transition

Programming), (B) Corporate Capabilities. There is limited space here. (Ref.

M.2 (d) (3), page 125) Can capabilities such as quality of services, timeliness of performance, business relations, etc. be included even if a specific past performance is not included in this section?

Answer: As stated in M.2(d), the past performance evaluation will only focus on relevant performance in the selected sub-IQC. Offerors are free to utilize examples from other countries to provide demonstrated evidence of Corporate Capabilities or support their proposed technical approach. However, that information is to complement those elements and ideally will largely draw upon the past performance provided in L.7.5.

30. Question: Is the IQC manager the only position for which USAID is requiring references?

Should these references appear as an annex to Part I?

Answer: The references can be included as a separate page with the resume for the IQC manager. The reference page will not count toward the page limit for that resume.

31. Question: Page 107 of the RFP includes a list of required annexes/figures for Part I of the proposal submission. Should all of the annexes/figures appear at the end of the narrative document, or should they be incorporated throughout the narrative as appropriate?

Answer: All annexes should be included at the end of each Part of the proposal.

32. Question: Are additional annexes allowed?

33. Question: The RFP states that letters of commitment are required for partners in both the technical and cost proposals. Can USAID confirm that this is correct?

Answer: Letters of Commitment from the partner organizations should be included in the Annex of the technical proposal as per L.7.1(c), page 106 of the RFP.

Letters of Commitment (Subcontractors) should be included in the cost proposal as per L.8.2 (8), page 120 of the RFP.

34. Question: Please confirm resumes need to appear in the Annex of the Technical Proposal, and not within the body of the 30 page technical narrative.

Answer: Yes, resumes should be included in an annex.

35. Question: Please confirm that all proposed personnel are for a specific role and cannot assume two different roles. For example, can the Start-Up Team Leader under the case study also be the Chief of Party?

Answer: For the purposes of this evaluation, the offeror should propose a separate candidate for the Start-Up Team Leader position.

36. Question: Please confirm that the list of personnel roles below is what you are asking to be proposed for a responsive proposal:

(1) IQC Manager (Key Personnel)- page 113

(2) Case Study Chief of Party-page 108

(3) Case Study Senior Operations Manager-page 108

(4) Case Study Regional Program Manager-page 108

(5) Case Study Start-Up Team Leader-page 109

(6) Sub IQC A Ethiopia Chief of Party- page 114

(7) Sub IQC A Ethiopia Senior Operations Manager

(8) Sub IQC A Ethiopia Regional Program Manager

(9) Sub IQC A Peru Chief of Party

(10) Sub IQC A Peru Senior Operations Manager

(11) Sub IQC A Peru Regional Program Manager

(12) Sub IQC B Bahrain Chief of Party

(13) Sub IQC B Bahrain Senior Operations Manager

(14) Sub IQC B Bahrain Regional Program Manager

(15) Sub IQC B East Timor Chief of Party

(16) Sub IQC B East Timor Senior Operations Manager

(17) Sub IQC B East Timor Regional Program Manager

Answer: If the offeror is applying for both IQCs, the list of personnel above is correct. If an offeror only wishes to submit a proposal for one of the two sub-IQCs, they would not need to submit for the illustrative countries for which they are not submitting a proposal.

37. Question: Please clarify whether experience for the Management Team need to cover the past three years (page 114) or past five year (page 108)?

Answer: Per the amendment, USAID has changed the reference on Page 114 to five years.

38. Question: Please confirm that the resume for the Management Team is three pages and for the IQC Manager up to four pages.

39. Question: On page 114, section L.7.4 subsection c.2, the RFP seems to suggest that USAID wants candidates that are employees or consultants of the Offerors when it states

―resumes of existing individuals…‖ Can USAID clarify this to be the case or may candidates be selected from the larger pool of non-offeror candidates?‖

Answer: Offerors can consider a larger pool of non-offeror candidates. USAID’s evaluation will evaluate the overall make-up of the proposed staffing per the criteria in M.2(c) part c.2).

40. Question: Please clarify whether CVs of non key staff (―other field based non-key personnel, subcontractors, home office personnel …‖ (per page 108)‖ should be included in the technical proposal submission?

Answer: CVs of non-key personnel, subcontractors or home office personnel are not required and should not be submitted.

41. Question: Please clarify whether the Letter of Commitment from partner organizations should be in the annex of the technical volume (as per L.7.1(c), page 106 of the

RFP) or in the cost volume (as per L.8.2, page 120 of the RFP)?

Answer: Please refer to the response to question 33 above.

42. Question: There appears to be no reference in either Sections L.7 (Instructions for

Preparation of the Technical Proposal) or Section M.2 (Technical Evaluation

Criteria) of any of the elements of Section C. Does OTI offer Section C of the

RFP as primarily background and reference or is the expectation that Offerors will fully incorporate Section C as part of its response within the outline and guidance provided under Sections L & M.

Answer: As stated throughout Section M, USAID will evaluate consistency with Section

C in the proposed technical approach.

43. Question: Please explain what is meant in the last paragraph on (p. 29), followed on p. 30 by, ―OTI prefers that experts are provided as an in-kind contribution to a grant activity‖?

Answer: OTI carries out most of its activities through in-kind grants under contract. As such, most STTA would be an in-kind contribution incorporated into a grant activity rather than a separate STTA non-GUC TAP activity.

44. Question: With regard to three implementation scenarios, is there a particular language capability that should be taken into account when developing approach and implementation teams?

Answer: Evaluation of the illustrative case study and the implementation scenarios does not require additional language capacity beyond English fluency.

45. Question: Please confirm whether the transmittal letter and list of acronyms does not count against the page limit.

Answer: The transmittal letter is limited to one page and will not be counted toward the page limit. The offeror may submit a list of acronyms that will not count toward the page limit.

46. Question: Please confirm the number of budgets that need to be submitted. Is it only one for the case study plus the fee (p.117), and indirect cost matrix (page 163)?

Answer: Per the amendment to the RFP, offerors should also include the Pipeline Budget

Analysis as part of the (Attachment J.16) as part of their cost proposal.

47. Question: Please confirm whether the OTI Pipeline Budget Analysis format is also part of the cost proposal submission (p. 211).

Answer: Please see the response question 47.

48. Question: Also per page 33, the attached Attachment J16 is used for the Activity Database

Guide, while per page 210, Attachment J.16 is the Pipeline Budget. Please confirm that the Activity Database Guideline should be Attachment J15.

Answer: This is a typo. Per the amendment to the RFP, we have made the change to reflect that J.15 is the Activity Database Guide.

49. Question: Please confirm the page limit for the budget notes. On page 170 budget notes are limited to only 5 pages and on page 117, no page limit is included.

Answer: Please see the response to Question 28 above.

50. Question: Is there a format for the itemized budget per page 170?

Answer: There is no itemized/detailed budget template. The offeror must utilize its own templates to provide detailed costs. However, the itemized/detailed costs provided in the budget should feed into the Illustrative Budget Summary template provided in Attachment J.13.

51. Question: Page 6, Section B.5 (b) Fixed Fee Payment, states that there are two exceptions to paying the fixed fee. Only one exception is listed in B.5 (b)(1). Please clarify.

Answer: Per the Amendment, Page 6, Section B.5 (b) Fixed Fee Payment of the solicitation has been change to reflect that one (1) exception applies to paying fixed fee.

52. Question: Page 43, Section D.3, states: ―The Contractor shall develop a broad Branding implementation plan (BIP) and Marking Plan (MP) for the IQC.‖ Section L of the

RFP does not require the BIP and MP as part of the proposal submission. Please confirm that the branding implementation plan and marking plan is not required for the IQC proposal submission.

Answer: No BIP or MP is required as part of the proposal submission.

53. Question: Page 46, Section F.4, states: ―Contractor shall submit the following deliverables.‖

Pages 47-48 provide a table of deliverables or outputs. Please confirm that these deliverables are for the IQC and are not for any individual task order.

Answer: Yes, these are IQC level deliverables.

54. Question: Page 103, Section L.6 (d), states: ―All pages must be sequentially numbered‖.

Please clarify whether or not pages of the technical proposal annexes must be sequentially numbered, and whether or not the cost proposal’s pages must be sequentially numbered.

Answer: Annexes should be included as annexes at the end of the technical volume with reference to specific annexes in the proposal. Therefore, all pages of the technical volume will be numbered sequentially. Cost proposal pages prepared specficially for this RFP should be sequentially numbered; however, representations and certifications, biodatas, and other supporting documents can be included as annexes.

55. Question: Page 105, Section L.7.1 (a), states: ―While Part I may be identical for both sub-

IQCs, offerors should submit Part I binders for each sub-IQC‖. Page 106, Section

L.7.1 (b), states: ―Offerors submitting a proposal for both sub-IQCs should only submit one Part I section along with two Part II sections.‖ Could USAID please answer the following:

a) Does USAID expect to see identical Part 1 sections for each sub-IQC or do offerors have the opportunity to tailor Part 1 relative to the geographic focus of each sub-IQC?

b) If Part I is identical, should offerors only submit one set of copies for the Part I section along with two Part II sections if they choose to bid on both sub-IQCs?

Or should the offerors submit two sets of binders with an identical Part I if applying for consideration for both sub-IQCs?

Answer: If they wish, offerors may tailor the Part I sections for each sub-IQC. If the offeror submits the same Part I for both sub-IQCs, they should note that on the cover page for the Part I binder. That said, offerors should only propose one IQC manager even if they are bidding on both sub-IQCs.

b) Please refer to the response to question 4 above.

56. Question: Page 106, Section L.7.1 (c), Annexes/Figures for Part I, includes a symbol (+) after bullets 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. However, no key is included to explain the symbol.

Please clarify the meaning of the symbol.

Answer: Please refer the amendment to the RFP.

57. Question: Page 106, Section L.7.1 (c), Annexes/Figures for Part I, requires letters of commitment from partner organizations to be presented as part of the technical proposal submission. However, page 120, Section L.8.2 (8), requires letters of commitment from subcontractors to be presented as part of the cost proposal submission. Please clarify if organizational letters of commitment from subcontractors should be submitted as part of the cost proposal.

Answer: Please refer to the response to question 33 above.

58. Question: Page 106, Section L.7.1 (c), Annexes/Figures for Part I, lists a pipeline budget analysis requirement for the Scenario 1 as described on page 110. However, page

103, Section L.6 (c), clearly states that ―Technical Proposal must not make reference to pricing data.‖ Please clarify if the case study scenario 1 pipeline budget analysis should be submitted as part of the technical proposal.

Answer: Please refer to the response to question 46 above.

59. Question: Page 107, Section L.7.2 a.1)i (a), requires a one page activity flow chart that is

Not included in the total page count. Page 106, Section L.7.1 (c), Annexes/Figures for Part I, does not list the activity cycle flow chart as one of the deliverables submitted as an annex to the technical proposal. Please confirm that the Activity Cycle Flow Chart can be submitted as an annex to the technical proposal.

Answer: Please refer to the response to question 8 above.

60. Question: Page 116, Section L.7.6 Activity Manual refers to See Section M.2 (e). However, Section M of the RFP is missing a description of the evaluation criteria M.2 (e).

Could USAID/OTI please provide criteria M.2 (e)?

Answer: Please refer to the response to question 2 above.

61. Question: Page 161, Attachment J.9 – The Past Performance Matrix appears to be missing a column towards the end of the page. Please confirm that no categories are missing.

Answer: The amendment to the RFP includes a new version of J.9 on 11x17 paper with the final column.

62. Question: Page 170-171, Attachment J.11, SWIFT IV SOW, as presented in Section C.3(c), includes Training as one of its TAP components; however, the case study only includes GUC, STTA, and DDGS. Could USAID/OTI please clarify whether

Training is included in the TAP component for the case study? If yes, could

USAID/OTI please provide a plugged figure for Training?

Answer: Training is not included as a TAP component in this case study. Therefore, no plug figure is provided.

63. Question: Pages 170-171, Attachment J.11, #4(c) specifies the Ramp-up Option will start in

Month 9 and continue thru Month 27, which translates into 19 months total.

#8(b) states ―Regional programming for an office in Historic City would enter close-out along with the rest of the task order.‖ Should the extra three months for closeout be added to the 19 months above, for a total of 22 months? Attachment

J.13 specifies 24 months for the Ramp-Up Option column, which conflicts with the above assumptions. Can USAID provide clarification about the total duration expected for the Ramp-Up option (19, 22, or 24 months)?

Answer: As part of the amendment to the RFP, USAID has edited attachments J.11 and

J.13. With regard to the Ramp-Up option, months 9-27 (19 months) is for implementation of the ramp-up phase; however, offerors should also anticipate an additional three (3) months for close-out that is separate from the close-out costs in the Phase 3 Close-Out. Therefore, the Ramp-Up option is 22 months total.

64. Question: Pages 170-171, Attachment J.11, #7 lists the cost assumptions. Could

USAID/OTI please provide specific assumptions regarding allowances for

USN/TCN LTTA and HO STTA including Post Differential, Post Allowance, Danger Pay, Education Allowance, and Living Quarters Allowance?

Answer: As part of the amendment to the RFP, we have provided additional information on cost assumptions for the illustrative case study.

65. Question: Pages 176 – 179, Attachment J.13, could the Ramp-Up column and the Phase 3

(Close-out) columns be switched to better delineate between the Core Program

(Phases 1-3) and the Ramp-Up Option?

Answer: No. Please submit the cost proposal in the format provided.

66. Question: Page 181, Attachment J.14, states there are 4 components of TAP: GUC, STTA, DDGS, and Training and pages 193-194 include bullet points about some grant types and grantees (3.1. Types of Grants and Grantees and 4. STTA). However, no information is included on training or DDGS. Could USAID/OTI please provide guidance on training and DDGS?

Answer: Offerors should provide information on how they will manage training and

DDGS activities. USAID does not plan to include additional information in the

Activity Manual Template on these two components of the TAP. Offerors should develop processes and procedures for implementing DDGS and training activities.

67. Question: Page 189, Attachment J. 14, USAID refers to Success Stories whereas in the deliverables on page 51, Section F.4, it refers to Snapshots. Could USAID please clarify which term is to be used in the Activity Manual?

Answer: Snapshot is the appropriate term.

68. Question: L.7.3. (P. 113) 3) -- Is the $1.8 million liquidity also required for small businesses submitting as a prime for the small business set aside?

Answer: Yes.

69. Question: L.7.2 (p. 108-109) Resumes for management team: Are these included in the ` page count?

Answer: Per L.7.1, the resumes for the management team are listed in the

Annexes/Figures that are not included in the page count.

70. Question: L.7.3 (p. 113) 2)-- Resume for IQC Manager: Is this resume included in the page count?

Answer: Per L.7.1, the resume for the IQC Manager listed in the Annexes/Figures that are not included in the page count.

71. Question: L.7.4 (p.114) C.2) Staffing: Are resumes included in page count?

Answer: Per L.7.1, the resumes for the management team in the Supporting Regional

Transition Programs are listed in the Annexes/Figures that are not included in the page count.

72. Question: L.7.4 (p. 114) C.2) Staffing: Offerors shall submit up to three resumes for key personnel positions for illustrative countries. Should three resumes be submitted for each of the four separate illustrative countries?

Answer: The offeror should submit three resumes for each illustrative country included in the sub-IQC. Therefore, there would be a total of six resumes in a proposal for sub-IQC A and a total of six resumes for sub-IQC B for this requirement.

73. Question: L.7.5 (p. 115) 1) Past Performance Short Forms: Are the short forms included in the page count?

Answer: Per L.7.1, the Short Forms are listed in the Annexes/Figures that are not included in the page count.

74. Question: Are offerors allowed to propose current OTI bullpenners for any of the following positions: Case Study Management Team (Chief of Party, Operations Manager, Regional Program Manager); Regional Transition Programs Key Personnel

(Chief of Party, Senior Operations Manager, Regional Program Manager); and potential STTA?

Answer: Offerors should not propose current OTI staff for the positions Implementation In

Transition Environments, the illustrative countries in the Supporting Regional

Transition Programs, or for the SWIFT IV IQC Manager.

75. Question: (Ref. B.5 (b), page 6) says there are two exceptions to paying fixed fee, but only one exception is listed. Could you kindly provide the second exception?

Answer: Please refer to the response to Question 51 above.

76. Question: (Ref. C.3 (b), page 21 and 22). Implementation and meeting dates do not appear to coincide. (Contractor may be required to deploy as quickly as 72 hours after notice of award, but start-up conference takes place on days 2-7, and start-up team deploys within 3-15 days of award.) Please clarify whether contractor may be expected to deploy in advance of a start-up meeting or before start-up team.

Answer: Deployment of the start-up team three days after award is equal to 72 hours. This is the minimum requirement that offerors must be able to meet under SWIFT IV.

USAID will provide specific requirements on start-up timing at the task order level. OTI’s typical best practice is to conduct a start-up conference prior to staff deploying; however, the specific country context may require a shortened start-up conference or deploying start-up staff prior to the completion of the start-up conference.

77. Question: Does USAID have any influence with host countries in expediting rapid legal and tax status for implementing partners?

Answer: For the purpose of the SWIFT IV proposal, offerors should assume that USAID is not able to expedite legal and tax status. In reality, USAID may be able to assist depending on the individual country context.

78. Question: (Ref. c.3 (b), page 24) No costs can be incurred in support of US Government direct-hire personnel, but the Contractor may make logistical arrangements for them. Can Contractor include a budget item for this?

Answer: No, the Contractor may not incur costs for USAID direct-hire personnel. If, for example, direct hire USAID personnel are traveling to a site visit with the OTI country representative or deputy country representative, it does not make sense for the direct hire staff member to make separate travel arrangements. Thus, the

Contractor would be expected to make the arrangements at the same time.

However, a USAID direct-hire staff member would be required to pay for his/her costs rather than having those costs billed to USAID through the task order.

79. Question: The Activity Cycle Flow Chart (p107) is not included in the list of Part I annexes on page 106. Is this document to be included as a Part I annex?

Answer: Please see the response to Question 8 above.

80. Question: Are the Start-up Organization Chart (p109) and Start-up and Implementation

Plan (p109) the same documents as the Organization Chart and

Workplan/Implementation Plan listed as Part I Annexes 1 and 2?

Answer: Please see the responses to Questions 9 and 10 above.

81. Question: On page 189 of the RFP, second bullet under item 2.10 ―Activity

Modifications/Termination‖ states that ―A no-cost extension for an activity may be approved for up to thirty (60) days…‖ Please clarify whether extensions can be approved for thirty (30) and sixty (60) days.

Answer: Per the amendment to the RFP, this has been changed to sixty (60) days.

82. Question: On page 170 of the RFP, item number 4 under the ―Cost Extension‖ section refers to ―three phases,‖ however four phases are listed. Please clarify whether the budget for the case study should include three phases or four.

Answer: The budget for the case study should be four (4) phases.

83. Question: Please confirm that the following makes a complete offer for firms bidding on both sub-IQCs:

One original and five copies of Part I;

One original and five copies of Part II for sub-IQC A;

One original and five copies of Part II for sub-IQC B; and

One original and five copies of the Activity Manual.

Answer: Please refer to the response to Question 4 above. Offerors should submit Part I for sub-IQC A and Part I for sub-IQC B separately.

84. Question: Please clarify whether the executive summary is subject to the page limit.

Answer: USAID does not require an executive summary. If the offeror decides to include an executive summary it will be subject to the page limit.

85. Question: Could USAID please provide a more detailed breakdown of the scoring criteria described on pages 121 and 122 of the RFP? Could USAID provide the points for each scoring criteria?

Answer: The criteria remain as stated in the RFP, and USAID will not provide points for each scoring criteria.

86. Question: On page 5, in section B.2, USAID writes that it plans to issue cost-plus-fixed-fee

(CPFF) task orders under the SWIFT IV IQC. Does USAID anticipate these task orders will be CPFF completion or CPFF term-type contracts?

Answer: USAID anticipates issuing CPFF completion contracts.

87. Question: On page 106, in section L.7.1 (b), USAID instructs offerors to use Times New

Roman font 11 or a similar size font. May offerors use fonts smaller than size 11 in textboxs, tables, and graphics, provided they are legible?

88. Question: Could USAID confirm that the non-direct hire USAID personnel mentioned on page 24 of the RFP will be hired by USAID and not under a SWIFT IV task order contract?

Answer: Non-direct hire USAID personnel are USAID employees, and SWIFT IV contractors will not hire those staff directly.

89. Question: On page 42, section C.3(1), USAID mentions success stories. Are success stories synonymous with the snapshots described on page 51 of the RFP?

Answer: Please refer to the response to question 67 above.

90. Question: Are SRSes, with participation of U.S.-based staff, ever done on a semi-annual basis?

Answer: Yes, but this is on country-by-country basis. Typical programs only hold one

SRS per year with U.S.-based staff, so offerors should assume that this is the case for the purpose of this RFP.

91. Question: Page 24 of the RFP: Is the contractor expected to cover meal and incidental expenses for USAID personnel during travel?

Answer: No. As stated on page 24, ―Under no circumstances will the contractor provide direct cash payments or reimbursements to USAID personnel.‖

92. Question: USAID refers to OTI/NapaMaka as both a project and a program. Which term should offerors use?

Answer: This is the OTI/NapaMaka country program, and thus should be referred to as a program.

93. Question: On page 168, the RFP states, ―A cash economy functions using dollars brought into the country by international donors, and costs are often inflated five to ten percent in dollars.‖

a. Do the dollars refer to US dollars?

Answer: Yes

b. Should the contractor assume that USAID will grant the contractor the required approval to make payments in NapaMaka in US dollars or will the contractor be limited to making payments in NapaMaka in the local currency?

Answer: The offeror is responsible for explaining their assumptions under the case study based upon the information provided and based upon their corporate policies and capabilities.

c. As prices in dollars are inflated, does this mean that when payments are made in US dollars prices are higher making it preferable for the contractor to operate in local currency?

Answer: The offeror is responsible for explaining how they will handle the context presented in the case study approach.

94. Question: On page 189, the RFP states that ―A no-cost extension for an activity may be approved for up to thirty (60) days without USAID approval to complete activity close-out.‖ Is the period 30 or 60 days?

Answer: Please refer to the response to Question 81.

95. Question: Could USAID please upload the PowerPoint and other presentations given during the pre-solicitation conference?

Answer: Yes. Copies are included with this amendment.

96. Question: Does USAID/OTI have a standard procurement threshold that should be used in the procurement process flow chart?

Answer: The offeror should use their corporate procurement policies and procedures consistent with USAID rules and regulations.

97. Question: Could USAID please send updated hyperlinks for the document referenced in the footnote on page 51?

Answer: The new hyperlink is http://transition.usaid.gov/stories/submit.html.

98. Question: On page 106, under ―Annexes/Figures for Part I,‖ USAID lists ―Case Study –

Work/Implementation Plan.‖ Is this the same annex as the ―Start-up and

Implementation Plan‖ described in Section C on page 109? If not, could USAID provide additional guidance on what the Case Study – Work/Implementation

Plan entails?

Answer: Please refer to the response to Question 9 above.

99. Question: On page 107, i.a, USAID writes that the Activity Cycle Flow Chart is not included in the total page count. This chart does not appear in the list of annexes excluded from the page count on page 106 of the RFP. Please confirm that this chart may be included as an annex.

Answer: Please refer to the response to Question 8 above.

100. Question: On page 111, USAID asks offerors to submit a brief proposal of no more than three pages on the steps offerors would take to meet OTI’s request, as outlined in scenario three. Offerors are also asked to provide ―two sample ideas for submission to OTI for initial activities in Historic City.‖ Must the description of the two sample ideas be within the three-page limit of the proposal?

101. Question: Should the proposal requested on page 111 of the RFP contain cost information?

Or is it assumed that all relevant information would be captured in the overall sample task order budget?

http://transition.usaid.gov/stories/submit.html

Answer: No, there is no separate cost proposal for Scenario 3. The ramp-up option should be budgeted based upon the assumptions set-forth in the sample task order budget; however, USAID will consider the realism of the response to Scenario 3 based upon the proposed cost for the Ramp Up option.

102. Question: May offerors submit as an annex on 11x17 size paper an organizational chart that shows the staffing structure during the ramp-up phase of the project?

103. Question: On page 167 USAID refers to the Makanapan government. Does USAID mean the government of NapaMaka?

Answer: Yes. This should say NapaMakan. Per the amendment to the RFP, this has been changed.

104. Question: Please confirm that offerors are not required to submit bio data forms for personnel named in the illustrative case study budget.

Answer: As part of the cost proposal, offerors should submit biodatas for proposed named personnel and should provide sufficient information on unnamed personnel to allow USAID to analyze cost assumptions for the sample case study.

105. Question: Page 170: Should the contractor assume that the NapaMaka TAP will not include funding for training activities as no plug figures have been provided for this element of the TAP?

Answer: Please refer to the response to Question 62 above.

106. Question: In Attachment J.13, ―Illustrative Budget Summary for Case Study,‖ the number of months shown under the Ramp-Up period is 24. On page 170, number four, USAID writes that Phase 3 of the program (the Ramp-Up Option) lasts between months 9 and 27 of the program. Please confirm which is correct.

Answer: Please refer to the response to Question 63 above.

107. Question: On page 172, does the MakaNapan per diem scale refer to the per diem scale for

NapaMaka?

Answer: Yes. This has been changed in the amendment to the RFP.

108. Question: Are contractors requested to develop a full detailed budget to back up the $3.5M mentioned in the description of scenario one on page 110 of the RFP? Or should offerors present only the pipeline analysis?

Answer: The pipeline analysis should be based on the illustrative case study budget reflecting how an offeror will operate on a reduced initial obligation.

109. Question: Would USAID like full budget details showing the cost for scenarios two and three described on page 110 of the RFP?

110. Question: Considering OTI’s preference for no subcontractors as indicated in the RFP

Footnote #13 (p.108), and in accordance with FAR 19.702(b)(3),stating that a subcontracting plan is not required if all task orders will be performed entirely outside of the United States and its outlying areas, would CO consider removing the subcontracting plan requirement (L.8.2(5), p. 118)?

Answer: No. There will likely be some work, albeit very limited, conducted in the United

States from an offeror’s home office. Therefore, the large business offerors are required to submit a subcontracting plan and should identify appropriate mechanisms to utilize small and disadvantaged business subcontractors.

111. Question: The Government contemplates Cost Plus Fixed Fee Task Orders under this IQC.

Will task orders be term or completion or both?

Answer: Please refer to the response to Question 86 above.

112. Question: Page 106, Section L.7.1 (c), lists Annexes/Figures for Part I. Please confirm that the annex/figure titled Case Study – Work/Implementation Plan is the same as the Start-up and Implementation Plan referred to on page 109, Section L.7.2.iii.

c), Start-up and Initial Implementation Plan.

113. Question: Page 105, Section L.7.1 (a), General Instructions for Submission of Technical

Proposals states that ―While Part I may be identical for both sub-IQCs, offers should submit Part I binders for each sub-IQC, they should clearly specify on the cover sheet for which sub-IQC it is submitted.‖ Page 106, Section L.7.1 (b), Length and Format, states that ―Offerors submitting a proposal for both sub-IQCs should only submit one Part I section along with two Part II sections.‖ Please clarify whether offerors submitting proposals for both sub-IQCs should submit one or two Part I sections even though Part I may be identical for both IQCs.

Answer: Please refer to the response to Question 4 above.

114. Question: Page 116, Section L.7.6, Activity Manual refers to Section M.2 (e). However, Section M.2.(e) is missing from the RFP. Please clarify how the Activity Manual will be evaluated.

Answer: Please refer to the response to Question 2 above.

115. Question: Page 163, Attachment J.10 indicates that overhead is not applicable to Grants with Letter of Credit and Grants without Letter of Credit. However, in cases where a.) offerors have approved overhead rates applicable to subgrants (for example, through USAID-issued NICRA) and b.) offerors do not have a separate

G&A pool broken out from their approved NICRA, please confirm the application of the approved overhead rates can and should be applied to subgrants.

Answer: Offerors should provide indirect rates consistent with their USAID-approved

NICRA agreement. Please note, offerors should not include indirect rates, fixed fees, or grants management fees in the amount budgeted for grants or non-GUC

TAP activities. The plug figures for the TAP should represent unburdened dollar amounts that are entirely available for TAP activities.

116. Question: Page 189, 2.10., Activity Modifications / Termination states that ―A no-cost extension for an activity may be approved up to thirty (60) days without USAID approval to complete activity close-out.‖ Please clarify whether this is 30 or 60 days.

Answer: Please refer to the response in Question 81 above.

117. Question: The pre-proposal conference notes indicated that the conference presentation slides as well as the list of attendees would be posted on FedBizOpps, however they have not been uploaded yet. Could you please make these documents available to offerors?

Answer: Yes. Per the amendment to the RFP, these are attached.

118. Question: Ref: D.3.(b) (page 43) ―The Contractor shall develop a broad branding implementation plan (BIP) and Marking Plan (MP) for the IQC to describe how the program deliverables will be branded.‖ Are we correct that offerors are not required to submit a branding implementation plan (BIP) and Marking Plan (MP) with this proposal?

Answer: Please refer to the response to Question 52 above.

119. Question: Ref: L.6 (page 103) ―(d) Number of copies. An original and five (5) copies of the

Technical Proposal are required. An original and two (2) Copies of the

Cost/Business Proposal are required. The original of both the technical and cost proposals should be unbound and two-hole punched at the top. Hard-copies shall be single-sided and submitted in three-ringed binders. All pages must be sequentially numbered, and evaluative factors must be separated by a tab or colored divider page.‖ Does the requirement for all pages to be sequentially numbered include the Cost Proposal? Given that offerors will be submitting indirect cost information, Section K Representations and Certifications and other documents that will require signatures and will be in PDF format for not only themselves as Prime Contractor(s) but also Subcontractors, would USAID consider waiving the sequentially numbered requirement for the Cost Proposal submission?

Answer: Please refer to the response to Question 54 above.

120. Question: Ref: L.7.1(a) (page 105) ―While Part I may be identical for both sub-IQCs, offers should submit Part I binders for each sub-IQC, they should clearly specify on the cover sheet for which sub-IQC it is submitted.‖ Ref: L.7.1(b) (page 106)

―Offerors submitting a proposal for both sub-IQCs should only submit one Part I section along with two Part II sections.‖ Could USAID clarify whether offerors submitting proposals for both sub-IQCs should submit one set of Part I binders or two sets of Part I binders?

121. Question: Ref: L.7.1(b) (page 106) ―Cover letter (not to exceed one page), table of contents, and dividers are not included in this page limitation.‖ May offerors also include a list of acronyms that does not count against the 30 page limitation?

Answer: Please refer to the response to Question 45 above.

122. Question: Ref: L.7.1(c) (page 106) ―Annexes/Figures for Part I: Case Study –

Work/Implementation Plan‖ Ref: L.7.2.a.1).iii.c) (page 109)

―Start-up and Implementation Plan… is not included in the total page count.‖

Are we correct that the Case Study – Work/Implementation Plan listed on page

106 and the Start-up and Implementation Plan listed on page 109 are the same

(i.e., offerors are required to submit only one implementation plan for the case study in Part I)?

123. Question: Ref: L. 7. 1(c). (page 106)

―Annexes/Figures for Part I Case Study – Work/Implementation Plan+

Case Study – Organizational Chart+

Case Study - Resumes for Management Team (maximum 3 pages for each individual)

Case Study – Grant Cycle flow chart+‖

Are the ―+‖ signs intended to refer to something? If so, could USAID please clarify?

Answer: Please refer to the response to Question 56 above.

124. Question: Ref: L.7.2.a.1).i.a) (page 107) ―Activity cycle flow chart… This chart shall not exceed one (1) page, can be submitted on paper no greater than 11x17 inch, and is not included in the total page count.‖ The Activity Cycle Flow Chart is not listed under the Annexes/Figures for Part I on page 106. Could USAID clarify whether offerors should include the Activity Cycle Flow Chart as an unnumbered page in the Part I proposal or as an Annex for Part I?

125. Question: Ref : L.7.2(a)1(ii), (page 108) ―Offerors shall include a narrative description of the capabilities and experience of the proposed Management Team (Chief of

Party, Operations Manager, and Regional Program Manager) and an explanation of their proposed staffing approach…The proposed staffing structure should account for all personnel functions (per Attachment J.8) required in the SWIFT

IV NapaMaka case study without being overly burdensome….Offeror’s shall submit three resumes for the Management Team required in the case study.‖ In addition to the Management Team (Chief of Party, Operations Manager, and

Regional Program Manager), could USAID clarify if offerors should submit resumes for other personnel functions in Attachment J.8?

Answer: As stated in L.7.2 a.1), the only other resume that…