Amendment_One_(1).pdf

PDF 154 KB Posted Oct 15, 2014

Attached to: Port-au-Prince - Saint-Marc Partnership
Solicitation number: SOL-OAA-14-000169
Issued by: US Agency for International Development Washington Office

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
Amendment_Two_(2).pdf	PDF	Oct 28, 2014
Attachment_J9.pdf	PDF	Oct 28, 2014
Section_I.pdf	PDF	Oct 28, 2014
WINNER_OCA_results.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Oct 15, 2014
WINNER_Subcontractors_and_grantees.xls.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Oct 15, 2014
Revised_RFP.pdf	PDF	Oct 15, 2014
local_compensation_plan.pdf	PDF	Oct 15, 2014
PauP_St.Marc_RFP.pdf	PDF	Aug 27, 2014

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Subject:	Solicitation	AID‐OAA‐SOL‐14‐000169
Amendment	Number:	One	(1)
Issuance	Date	of	Amendment	Number	One	(1):	Wednesday,	October	22,	2014
Questions	Due	Date:	Thursday,	October	23,	2014	PM	2:00	PM	EST
Solicitation	Closing	Date:	Friday,	October	31,	2014	2:00	PM	EST

Subject:	Amendment	One	(1)	to	Funding	Opportunity	Number	AID‐OAA‐SOL‐14‐000169:
Port‐au‐Prince—Saint‐Marc	Partnership	‐	Feed‐the‐Future

Dear Prospective Offerors:

The

purpose

this

Amendment

One

(1)

Solicitation

Number

AID‐OAA‐SOL‐14‐000169

update

the

contract

type,

approximate

amount,

and

submission

instructions.

This

amendment

does

not

change

the

scope

work

the

solicitation.

Questions

due

date

has

been

extended

give

all

opportunity

review

the

amendment.

Please

read

carefully

for

any

specific

instructions

and

see

attached

revised

RFP,

Local

Compensation

Plan,

Winner

Results,

and

Winner

Subcontractees.

GENERAL

1. Who is the incumbent?

Chemonics International.

2. To

ensure

parity

among

cost

proposals,

please

provide

approximate

budget

range

including

plug

figures

for

essential

budget

items

such

subawards

and

grants

under

contract,

that

all

offerors

are

operating

under

the

same

cost

assumptions.

The estimated budget range for this award is $20 to $25 million.

3. As

this

CPFF

contract,

the

contractor

respectfully

requests

that

“CLIN”

changed

“Cost

Element”

without

individual

lines

for

each

labor

category.

USAID hereby changes the contract type to Time & Materials.

4. What is the estimated start date of the contract?

The estimated start date is April 1, 2015.

5. Page 10, TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF BASE PERIODS, is cited in the RFP. Would USAID please remove this as this project has no base or option periods?

It is revised to read “Total Estimated Cost.”

6. Page

11,

Other

Direct

Costs,

written

for

T&M‐type

contract

along

with

the

mention

fixed

hourly

rates.

Would

USAID

remove

this

its

entirety

not

applicable

the

contract

type?

USAID hereby changes the contract type to Time & Materials.

7. Would

USAID

consider

inserting

language

for

the

Work

Week

days)

inclusive

short‐term

expat

consultants?

See

Section

L.7.10

for

information

work

week.

The

RFP

states

that

the

offeror

and

major

subcontractors

must

describe

their

work

day

and

work

week

policies

and

the

method

accounting

for

paid

absences

for

the

offeror

and

major

subcontractors

effect

time

award

will

remain

force

throughout

the

period

the

award.

8. Would USAID please confirm that this is a Cost‐Plus‐Fixed‐Fee completion type contract?

USAID hereby changes the contract type to Time & Materials.

9. Would USAID kindly confirm that CVs are not required for Key Personnel?

CVs should be included in the proposal for Key Personnel.

10. At

least

five

pages

will

required

fulfill

these

RFP

requirements.

May

offerors

provide

indicator

table

annex

the

proposal

that

does

not

count

against

the

page

limit?

Yes.

SECTION B

11. Section

CLINS

appears

written

for

IQC

that

includes

labor

category

the

rates

the

actual

candidates

proposed?

USAID hereby changes the contract type to Time & Materials.

12. Can USAID please clarify how additional proposed positions other than those listed in

CLINs

001‐006

fit

into

the

CLIN

structure

outlined

the

table

Section

B.5?

the

intention

that

the

total

number

CLINs

outlined

offerors

the

table

provided

under

B.5

should

exhaustive

list

all

individual

positions

the

project,

should

the

additional

CLINs

divided

into

labor

type,

e.g.

Other

Personnel

could

all

CCN

STTA

Other

LTTA

CCN?

The

offeror

should

propose

positions

the

best

manner

deems

necessary

complete

the

tasks

listed

Section

13. Would USAID consider removing the assignment of CLINs by position due to the

excessive

administrative

burden

would

create

for

both

the

contractor

and

the

government

manage

each

individual

position

CLIN?

USAID

intends

keep

this

requirement,

offerors

need

include

labor

category

rates,

descriptions

and

qualifications

for

any

proposed

positions

other

than

those

listed

CLINs

001‐006?

No,

the

CLINs

will

not

removed.

Please

include

labor

rates,

category

descriptions

and

qualifications

for

any

proposed

positions

listed

other

than

CLINs

001‐0006.

14. We recognize and embrace USAID’s initiative to develop a contract mechanism and fee

structure

which

provides

clear

incentives

around

results

while

balancing

appropriate

contractual

risk

for

both

the

contractor

and

government.

Instead

establishing

approach

the

budgeting

fixed

fee

where

fee

applied

ODCs,

fee

paid

upon

contract

completion

and

fee

reduced

depending

meeting

targets,

ask

USAID

consider

fee

structure

where

fee

recovered

either

percentage

the

allowable

costs

being

paid

invoice

based

deliverables

milestone

schedule

order

most

effectively

align

incentives

for

the

contractor

and

Government

achieve

program

results

and

cost

containment.

USAID hereby changes the contract type to Time & Materials.

15. The following RFP instructions do not provide for reasonable contractor risk mitigation, nor do they align contractor incentives to result in efficient and economical performance:

a) Section

B.5.6,

“No

profit

fee

shall

applied

other

direct

costs”;

1. If

contractors

are

only

able

recover

fee

through

loaded

labor,

the

fee

applied

loaded

labor

would

have

proportionately

higher

order

capture

overall

percentage

fee

total

estimated

costs

that

represents

adequate

coverage

risk

defined

the

profit‐analysis

factors

FAR

15.404(d)

and

not

exceed

percent

total

estimated

costs

per

FAR

15.404‐4.C4.C.

USAID’s

intention

that

fee

shall

only

recovered

invoiced

loaded

labor,

CFPP

term

T&M

contract,

for

those

offerors

whose

cost

accounting

standards

dictate

that

subcontractor	costs	be	categorized	as	Other	Direct	Costs	(ODCs),
disallowing	the	application	of	fee	on	ODCs	may	create	an	incentive
structure	for	contractors	to	propose	more	labor;	whereas	it	is	USAID	goal
for	sub‐awards	to	be	the	main	vehicle	for	spending	project	resources.

b) Section	B.7,	“Fixed	Fee	will	be	paid	upon	contract	completion”;
1. Full	payment	of	fixed	fee	upon	contract	completion	substantially

increases

contractor

risk

particularly

associated

with

the

profit

analysis

factors

contractor

costs

risk

outlined

FAR

15.404‐4(d)

(ii).

Periodic

reimbursement

fee

allows

contractors

adequately

finance

project

expenses

before

invoice

payments

and

cover

additional

costs

necessary

for

performance

the

contract

but

unrecoverable

directly

indirectly,

such

actual

costs

excess

unburdened

ceiling

daily

rates.

Furthermore,

accordance

with

FAR

52.216‐8,

Fixed

Fee,

under

cost‐

plus‐fixed‐fee

contract

the

Contracting

Officer

may

withhold

reserve

not

exceed

15%

the

total

fixed

fee

protect

the

Government’s

interest.

c) Section B.7, “Fixed Fee will be paid upon contract completion suggests a lump‐

sum

payment

the

fee,

recovered

the

end

the

contract.

However,

Section

C.4.4.1,

“If

all

organizations

are

certified/qualified

Year

Quarter

the

implementing

partner

will

continue

receive

its

full

fee

for

the

remainder

the

year”

indicates

fee

recovery

continual

basis.

d) Page

11,

States

that

profit

fee

shall

applied

other

direct

costs.

FAR

15.404‐4(a)(1),

Profit,

states

that

profit

fee

represents

“…that

element

the

potential

total

remuneration

that

contractors

may

receive

for

contract

performance

over

and

above

allowable

costs.”

FAR

Part

31.201‐1,

Composition

Total

Cost,

defines

these

costs

the

sum

the

direct

and

indirect

costs

allocable

the

contract

incurred

incurred…”

Other

Direct

Costs

that

are

allowable

under

the

contract

may

attract

fee

accordance

with

FAR

15.404‐4

and

payable

accordance

with

FAR

52.216‐7

(b),

Allowable

Cost

and

Payment,

which

will

incorporated

into

the

contract

per

Section

B.8.

USAID hereby changes the contract type to Time & Materials.

16. Section C.4.4.1 states that in Year 3, “the fee will be reduced by 25% in the second

quarter,

and

25%

each

subsequent

quarter

until

all

firms

are

certified”.

This

implies

CPFF

completion‐type

contract

which

according

FAR

16.306(d)(1)

“…requires

the

contractor

complete

and

deliver

the

specified

end

product

within

the

estimated

cost,

possible,

condition

for

payment

the

entire

fee.”

this

what

USAID

has

mind?

so,

would

USAID

clarify

this

Section

USAID hereby changes the contract type to Time & Materials.

17. Section

B.5,

CLINS

(pages

8–10),

requires

both

unburdened

ceiling

daily

rates

(CDRs)

and

loaded

hourly

rates.

This

approach

typically

used

IQC/IDIQ

contract

where

staffing

not

identified.

this

Cost

plus

Fixed

Fee

(CPFF)

contract

where

actual

costs

are

reimbursed,

the

staff

will

named,

and

EBDs

will

provided

establish

salaries,

please

advise

how

the

ceiling

rates

should

developed.

USAID hereby changes the contract type to Time & Materials.

18. Section B.5.1, Unburdened Ceiling Daily Rates (CDR), bullet c (page 9), requires daily rates yet the tables in the same section require hourly rates. Please clarify.

USAID hereby changes the contract type to Time & Materials.

19. Section B.5.1, Unburdened Ceiling Daily Rates (CDR), bullet c (page 9), requires the

Contractor

provide

loaded

hourly

rates,

which

include

indirect

costs

and

profit

fee.

This

not

typical

requirement

CPFF

contract

but

appropriate

for

Time

and

Material

(T&M)/Fixed

Burden

Daily

Rate

(FBDR)

contract.

Please

confirm

that

this

CPFF

contract

and

that

the

contractor

will

reimbursed

actual

costs

and

will

NOT

bound

the

loaded

hourly

rates.

USAID hereby changes the contract type to Time & Materials.

20. The tables in Section B.5.1 (pages 9 and 10) include “CLIN 001B Other Direct Costs.”

Please

confirm

that

the

other

direct

costs

consist

all

non‐labor

costs,

including

subcontracts

and

grants.

USAID hereby changes the contract type to Time & Materials.

21. The tables in Section B.5.1 (pages 9 and 10) include “CLIN 001C G&A on Other Direct

Costs

(see

B.6).”

the

Contractor

has

other

indirect

rates

their

NICRA

that

are

applied

some

Other

Direct

Costs,

such

subcontractor

costs,

where

should

those

cost

included

the

CLIN

structure?

Subcontractor costs should go into its own line item or CLIN.

22. Section B.5, Total Estimated Cost of Base Period, item number 2 (page 11), states, “Any

cost

elements

included

the

fixed

hourly

rates

must

not

charged

another

direct

cost.”

This

requirement

applicable

for

T&M/FBDR

contract

and

not

CPFF

contract.

Please

confirm

that

this

CPFF

contract

and

that

this

clause

does

not

apply.

USAID hereby changes the contract type to Time & Materials.

23. Section B.5, Total Estimated Cost of Base Period, item number 6, states, “No profit or fee shall be applied to other direct costs.” This requirement is applicable for a T&M/FBDR

contract

and

not

CPFF

contract.

Please

confirm

that

this

CPFF

contract

and

that

this

clause

does

not

apply.

USAID hereby changes the contract type to Time & Materials.

24. As this is a CPFF contract and thus labor categories do not apply, we respectfully request that Section B.9, Labor Changes, be removed.

USAID hereby changes the contract type to Time & Materials, therefore this section shall remain.

25. Sections B.3 and B.5 (p. 8‐11), Contract Type and Budget: Please confirm that the CLIN

breakdown

should

represent

Cost

Plus

Fixed

Fee

Term

type

contract.

Specifically,

request

that

USAID

remove

the

requirements

provide

burdened

hourly

rates

and

hours

for

each

labor

position.

also

request

that

USAID

remove

the

requirement

develop

budget

CLINS

based

labor

types

and

allow

for

budget

CLINS

based

broader

cost

types,

such

Labor,

Other

Direct

Costs,

Indirect

Costs,

Grants

Under

Contract,

Fee,

etc.

USAID hereby changes the contract type to Time & Materials.

26. Sections B.3 and B.5 (p. 8‐11), Contract Type and Budget: Assuming the contract will be

confirmed

Cost

Plus

Fixed

Fee

Term

type

mechanism,

respectfully

ask

that

the

requirements

under

Section

B.5

revised

reflect

such

contract

type.

Specifically,

request

that

USAID

allow

for

the

reimbursement

costs

accordance

with

standard

provisions

for

such

contracts,

including

but

not

limited

FAR

52.216‐7,

Allowable

Cost

and

Payment

and

FAR

52.216‐8,

Fixed

Fee.

USAID hereby changes the contract type to Time & Materials.

27. B. 4 states that the ceiling price will be determined at the time of award and that funds

obligated

will

sufficient

through

the

completion

date

award.

Would

USAID

consider

replacing

this

section

with

the

usual

Cost,

Fixed

Fee

and

Obligated

Amount

section?

No.

28. B. 5.1 a) 1 AIDAR 752.7007 is mentioned with “(See Section I)”, but this clause is only incorporated by reference. Was it USAID’s intent to include its full text in Section H instead?

AIDAR 752.7007 has been removed from Section H and is included as reference in Section I.

29. B.5

The

local

compensation

plan

mentioned.

Would

USAID

kindly

provide

copy

the

most

current

version

the

LCP?

See attached.

30. B.6, Indirect Cost rate on Other Direct Costs (ODCs). Since the awarded contract is to be

CPFF,

will

USAID

please

consider

replacing

this

section

with

the

applicable

provision

“Indirect

Cost”

which

cites

contract

FAR

clause

“Allowable

Cost

and

Payment

(DEC

2002)”,

FAR

52.216‐7,

and

specifies

the

current

indirect

cost

rates

for

each

the

Contractor’s

accounting

periods

that

apply

the

contract?

USAID hereby changes the contract type to Time & Materials.

31. In the template provided in section B.5, should grants also be a separate CLIN?

Yes.

32. Section B.5 states “Other Direct Costs necessary for the performance of work may be

authorized

the

Contracting

Officer

(CO)

case

basis”.

Can

USAID

please

provide

detail

about

the

authorization

needed

for

expending

Other

Direct

Costs

under

the

contract?

USAID’s

intention

require

authorization

for

any

Other

Direct

Costs

that

exceed

the

proposed

CLIN

001B

amount?

This phrase has been removed from the RFP in its entirety.

33. Section B.9, Labor Changes, is more typically found in an IQC type contract. Could USAID

please

clarify

the

intention

this

section?

offerors

need

include

labor

category

rates,

descriptions,

and

qualifications

for

any

proposed

positions

other

than

those

listed

CLINs

001‐006?

The

offeror

should

include

labor

categories

deems

necessary

complete

the

project

time

and

within

budget.

34. Section B.3 states that the contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF); however, the RFP

includes

several

requests

and

clauses

that

are

not

conducive

CPFF

contract.

respectfully

request

that

USAID

remove

revise

the

following

clauses

the

RFP

that

are

not

conducive

CPFF

contract:

a. Section

B.5.1.c

provides

table

requiring

offerors

provide

“loaded

hourly

rates

which

are

not

inclusive

salary,

fringe

benefits,

FICA,

indirect

costs

applicable

labor,

all

benefits

including

leave,

health

insurance,

401k,

etc.

and

profit

fee,

any.”

Under

CPFF

contract,

contractors

will

not

bill

USAID

based

loaded

hourly

rates,

but

based

the

actual

salaries

personnel

and

negotiated

provisional

final

indirect

cost

rates

(e.g.

NICRA

rates).

addition,

the

table

does	not	have	a	line	item	for	fixed	fee.	Accordingly,	we	respectfully
request	that	USAID	remove	Section	B.5.1.c,	allowing	offerors	to	submit
cost	proposals	that	are	conducive	to	a	CPFF	contract.

b. Section	B.5.1.2	states	“any	cost	elements	included	in	the	fixed	hourly
rates	must	not	be	charged	as	another	direct	cost.”	Under	a	CPFF
contract,	contractors	will	not	bill	USAID	based	on	fixed	hourly	rates
therefore	we	respectfully	request	that	USAID	remove	Section	B.5.1.2

c. Section

B.1.5.6

states

“No

profit

fee

shall

applied

other

direct

costs.”

This

requirement

appears

inconsistent

with

FAR

15.404‐

and

ADS

302.3.6.9

which

state,

inter

alia,

that

pre‐negotiation

fee

objectives

must

determined

according

structured

approach

that

considers

contractor

effort,

risk,

and

other

special

factors.

Additionally,

the

statutory

underpinnings

fixed

fee

USC10

2306(d)

and

USC

254(b)

discuss

fee

definitions

and

limitations

terms

total

estimated

cost,

which

would

include

other

direct

costs

this

case.

Given

this,

respectfully

request

that

USAID

remove

the

restriction

offerors

proposing

fee

other

direct

costs

thereby

allowing

offerors

charge

fee

that

reasonable

and

consistent

with

federal

regulations.

USAID hereby changes the contract type to Time & Materials.

28. B.5.1.2 states “Other Direct Costs necessary for the performance of work may by

authorized

the

Contracting

Offier

(CO)

case

basis.”

Given

the

anticipated

size

the

project,

would

impractical

for

contractors

request

authorization

for

all

Other

Direct

Costs

case

basis;

therefore,

respectfully

request

that

USAID

remove

this

clause.

This phrase has been removed from the RFP in its entirety.

SECTION C

29. In Sections C.1 (p. 12‐13) and C.4.4 (Result 4: Critical Capacities Strengthened, p. 32‐

33),

USAID

prescribes

that

Port‐au‐Prince

–

Saint‐Marc

Partnership

implementing

partner

will

work

with

broad

range

local

organizations

build

their

capacities

manage

all

technical,

financial,

and

administrative

aspects

future

USAID

agriculture

activities

their

own.

Among

those

the

RFP

specifies

are

several

local

organizations

that

the

Haiti

WINNER

project

supported

and

that

the

Port‐au‐Prince

‐

Saint‐Marc

Partnership

implementing

partner

required

strengthen

further

that

they

are

qualified

receive

USAID

funding

after

one

year

additional

assistance.

Given

this

requirement

and

order

provide

USAID

with

comprehensive

set

candidate

organizations

for

strengthening

(and

rationale

for

selecting

them)

requested

Section

C.4.4.1,

please

provide

all

offerors

with

the

names

the

local

organizations

that

received

technical

assistance

from

WINNER.

Please

also

provide

the

results

any

organizational	capacity	assessments	of	these	organizations	that	were	conducted	during
WINNER	implementation.

See attached.

30. In the interest of ensuring a broad pool of highly qualified candidates for key personnel,

can

USAID

please

advise

whether

specified

number

years

relevant

work

experience

will

accepted

substitute

for

the

advanced

degree

requirement

key

personnel

evaluation

criteria?

(Section

C.7.)

advanced

degree

required

for

the

Chief

Party

and

Deputy

Chief

Party.

Over

years

relevant

work

experience

will

accepted

substitute

for

the

advanced

degree

requirement

for

the

Senior

Capacity

Building

Specialist.

31. Given the emphasis on sub‐awards, which are intended to be the main vehicle for

spending

project

resources,

can

USAID

please

provide

plug

figure

used

the

budget

for

grants

and

local

subcontracts

order

increase

parity

among

offerors’

proposals?

With

respect

anticipated

resource

allocation

among

sub‐awards,

USAID

expects

that

approximately

half

will

support

one‐third

will

support

and

the

remainder

will

support

32. Could USAID be more specific about how the RFA applicant and RFP Offeror are jointly responsible for IR1, Sub Result 1.2?

The

RFA

applicant

will

work

with

the

Ministry

agriculture

the

central

level

build

its

capacity

provide

extension

services.

The

RFP

offeror

will

work

with

the

Ministry

regional

and

local

levels

provide

extension

services,

disseminate

new

technologies

and

results

research

conducted

through

the

cooperative

agreement

with

the

RFA

applicant.

33. The RFA and RFP both state (page 13 of the RFA and page 23 of the RFP) that “the

Applicant

will

work

with

the

Contractor

fully

integrate

the

Partnership

project

extension

services

and

the

Ministry

Agriculture

extension

services

the

end

the

Partnership.”

Please

clarify

what

role

the

applicant

will

play

vs.

the

contractor,

and

what

comprise

the

“partnership

project

extension

services.”

(No

project

extension

services

are

mentioned

the

activities,

outputs,

and

outcomes

listed

the

RFP.)

Please

see

response

question

four.

The

RFP

offeror

shall

propose

its

approach

for

working

with

the

successful

RFA

applicant

achieve

the

expected

results.

34. Section C.4, Project Objective and Results (page 20), states that offerers are not allowed

modify

the

four

results,

but

they

are

allowed

reorganize

sub‐results.

Please

clarify

that

offers

may

Move	a	sub‐result(s)	from	one	result	to	another	result;	and
Combine,	modify,	and	make	efficiencies	in	the	language	of	the	current	sub‐

results.

Offerors

may

move

sub‐result(s)

from

one

result

another

result,

and

may

also

combine,

modify,

and

make

efficiencies

the

language

the

current

sub‐results.

Offerors

should

exercise

caution

that

their

proposed

approach

will

clearly

and

logically

lead

the

four

results

stated.

35. Section C.5, Measuring Impact (page 36) of the RFP states, “For the purpose of

responding

this

RfP,

PMP

required.

However,

their

proposal

Offerors

shall

list

indicators

they

intend

use

(including

required

indicators

described

below),

baseline

data

for

all

indicators

(where

available/applicable),

and

annual

targets

for

the

ends

Years

and

for

all

indicators

the

extent

possible.”

Additionally,

offerors

are

required

“describe

their

general

approach

collecting

data,

including

leveraging

existing

information

systems

and

ensuring

accuracy

and

timeliness,”

and

their

“approach

monitoring

and

evaluation”

(Section

L.6,

page

99)

for

the

required

indicators

and

any

custom

indicators.

Offerors

should

clearly

present

and

discuss

sound

approach

monitoring

and

evaluation

for

this

project.

Performance

Monitoring

Plan

(PMP)

will

due

days

after

award

signed.

36. Sections C.4.1.1, Sub‐Result 1.1 (p. 22) and C.4.2, Sub‐Result 1.2 (p.23): USAID

states

that

Sub‐Result

1.1

“is

not

part

this

Request

for

Proposals.

part

the

complimentary

Request

for

Applications.”

However,

page

the

RFP,

the

required

indicators

for

Result

include

the

following:

Number	of	new	technologies	or	management	practices	made	available	for	transfer
as	a	result	of	USG	assistance

Number	of	additional	hectares	under	improved	technologies	or	management
practices	as	a	result	of	USG	assistance

Number	of	farmers	or	others	who	have	applied	new	technologies	or	management
practices	as	result	of	USG	assistance

How

does

USAID

anticipate

that

the

Partnership

implementing

partner

will

achieve

results

that

contribute

these

indicators

the

Partnership

project

not

responsible

for

activities

under

Sub‐Result

1.1?

Can

assume

under

Sub‐Result

1.2

that

“the

Partnerships

project

extension

services”

(p.

23)

and

“work

with

the

departmental

and

communal

structures

the

Ministry

Agriculture

disseminate

research

results

and

technologies”

(p.

24)

will

help

achieve

results

that

will

measured

these

indicators?

Yes. Please see response to questions four and ten.

37. C.4.2,

Sub‐Result

1.2

(p.23):

Technologies

that

will

made

available

small

farmers

under

Sub‐Result

1.1

will

the

main

determinants

affecting

performance

for

the

following

indicators:

Gross

margin

per

hectare

selected

crops

targeted

corridors

Yield

per

hectare

(for

selected

crops)

the

targeted

corridors

Value

incremental

sales

(collected

farm‐level)

attributed

FTF

implementation

Given

that

the

Partnership

implementing

partner

will

have

limited

role

the

design

and

formulation

the

specific

technologies

diffused

farmers

under

Sub

Result

1.2,

will

USAID

provide

guidance

how

offerors

should

set

targets

for

these

indicators?

The

offeror

will

disseminate

new

technologies

made

available

through

the

cooperative

agreement

with

the

successful

RFA

applicant,

but

will

not

limited

those

new

technologies.

The

successful

offeror

may

also

disseminate

new

technologies

made

available

through

the

WINNER

project

other

new

technologies.

The

RFP

offeror

should

come

with

approach

for

setting

targets

for

these

indicators

and

achieving

them.

38. Section C.4.4, Result 4: Critical Capacities Strengthened (p. 32‐33): USAID

prescribes

that

the

Port‐au‐Prince

–

Saint‐Marc

Partnership

implementing

partner

will

work

with

broad

range

local

organizations

build

their

capacities

manage

all

technical,

financial,

and

administrative

aspects

future

USAID

agriculture

activities

their

own.

Among

these

are

several

local

organizations

that

the

Haiti

WINNER/Feed‐

the‐Future

West

project

supported

and

that

the

Port‐au‐Prince

–

Saint‐Marc

Partnership

implementing

partner

will

strengthen

further

that

they

are

qualified

and

certified

receive

USAID

funding

after

one

year

additional

assistance.

Given

this

requirement

and

order

provide

USAID

with

comprehensive

set

candidate

organizations

for

strengthening

(and

rationale

for

selecting

them)

requested

Section

C.4.4.1,

please

provide

offerors

with

the

names

the

local

organizations

that

received

technical

assistance

from

Haiti

WINNER/Feed‐the‐Future

West.

Will

USAID

also

provide

the

latest

assessments

for

these

organizations

other

measure

their

current

capacity?

How

many

these

organizations

does

USAID

expect

certified

the

end

the

first

year

the

Partnership

project?

The

list

provided

response

question

The

offeror

should

indicate

how

many

organizations

may

able

certify,

based

the

information

made

available

for

these

organizations.

39. Section C.4.4.1, Sub‐Result 4.1 (p. 32‐34): USAID has stated that “An organization will

considered

certified

standard

USAID

pre‐award

survey

indicates

that

the

organization

able

manage

USAID

funding

without

any

outside

assistance.”

Will

USAID

please

confirm

that

the

survey

the

Organizational

Capacity

Assessment

Tool

(OCAT)?

so,

will

USAID

specify

what

score

represents

“passing

grade”?

this

composite

score

across

all

categories,

must

the

organization

meet

the

passing

grade

each

the

eight

categories?

The

pre‐award

survey

and

the

Organizational

Capacity

Assessment

Tool

are

NOT

the

same

thing.

There

“passing

grade”

for

Organizational

Capacity

Assessment.

40. Section C.4.4.1, Sub‐Result 4.1 (p. 32‐34): As an alternative to receiving a passing

OCAT

grade,

USAID

has

stated

that

organizations

may

meet

the

requirements

under

the

FOG

Entity

Eligibility

Checklist.

Does

USAID

anticipate

that

the

Haiti

WINNER/Feed‐the‐

Future

West

partners

will

qualified

potential

contractors

recipients

fixed

obligation

grant

awards?

Yes.

The

Port‐au‐Prince—Saint‐Marc

Partnership

will

identify

least

two

additional

local

organizations

that

can

“certified”

receive

USAID

funding

directly.

The

Offeror

will

most

likely

build

capacity

targeted

Haitian

organizations

with

the

intention

that,

beginning

Year

USAID

will

start

implement

its

agricultural

development

programs

primarily

through

smaller

awards

local

organizations.

(Section

C.4.4.1,

Sub‐Result

4.1

(p.

33))

41. Section C.4.1.5, Sub‐Result 1.5 (p. 32‐34): Does USAID anticipate that its

implementing	partner	on	the	Partnership	will	work	with	the	Haitian	Government
agencies	responsible	for	land	registration?

The

Offeror

should

outline

its

approach

increasing

land

and

crop

security

the

targeted

regions

for

both

land

owners

and

resource

users.

The

Offeror

should

determine

working

with

the

Haitian

Government

agencies

responsible

for

land

registration

part

this

approach.

42. Section C.5, Measuring Impact (p 36‐38): Many of the indicators listed under section

C.5	may	require	significant	investment	in	establishing	baselines.	These	include	but	are
not	limited	to	the	following:
Gross	Margin	per	hectare	of	selected	crops;	yield	per	hectare;
Number	of	hectares	of	agricultural	land	showing	improved	biophysical	conditions;
Number	of	hectares	under	improved	natural	resource	management;
Volume	of	soil	preserved	in	upper	watershed	areas;
Number	of	farmers	accessing	market	information;	and
Average	percentage	change	in	organizational	capacity	amongst	USAID	direct	and

indirect local implementing partners

Can	USAID	provide	information	on	the	baselines	established	under	the	Haiti
WINNER/Feed‐the‐Future	West	program	and	the	progress	to	date	against	these

baselines?

This	information	can	be	obtained	by	reviewing	the	Performance	Management	Plans,
Monitoring	and	Evaluation	Plans,	and	other	project	documentation	available	on	USAID’s
Development	Experience	Clearinghouse.	(https://dec.usaid.gov)

43. Will USAID please provide offerors with the detailed disposition list from Haiti

WINNER/Feed

the

Future

West

project

that

offerors

can

take

into

account

the

equipment

that

USAID

will

transfer

the

Partnership

program

when

developing

their

cost

proposal?

USAID is not able to publicly provide disposition lists from former projects.

44. On page 12 of the RFP, USAID states: “The proposed successor project … will build on

results

achieved

through

Feed‐the‐Future/West

(WINNER)….”

Among

the

many

results

WINNER

was

the

establishment

the

CRDDs,

yet

the

CRDDs

are

mentioned

once

the

RFP

Section

C.4.1.2,

with

reference

their

capacity

for

demonstration.

clear

from

the

companion

RFA

that

USAID

expects

the

awardee

work

with

the

CRDDs

support

their

research

and

extension

mandate.

However,

can

USAID

please

clarify

intends

the

successful

offeror

for

the

subject

RFP

propose

relevant

activities

that

involve

working

directly

with

the

CRDDs?

Yes.

The

WINNER/Feed

the

Future

West

Program

has

worked

with

local

organizations

and,

while

many

are

not

strong

enough

received

funding

directly

from

USAID,

some

may

able

receive

direct

funding

following

additional

technical

assistance.

Selected

organizations

currently

supported

the

WINNER

project

will

further

strengthened

that

they

can

receive

USAID

funding

after

one

year.

(Section

C.4.4.1,

Sub‐Result

4.1

(p.

32))

45. Page 40, C.6 states: “ADS 205.3.5 states that regardless of the acquisition mechanism,

project

teams

must

reflect

the

findings

the

gender

analysis,

which

was

conducted

for

project/activity,

the

different

components

the

solicitation

(e.g.,

the

Statement

Work

(SOW)

and

Program

Description

(PD),

project

deliverables,

key

personnel

requirements,

and

monitoring,

evaluation,

and

reporting

requirements).

Therefore

all

Offerors

should

lay

out

their

proposals

how

they

are

planning

address

the

findings

the

gender

analysis.”

the

Offeror

propose

conducting

gender

analysis

there

gender

analysis

that

was

completed

prior

the

release

the

RFP

that

Offerors

should

address

their

proposals?

so,

can

USAID

please

provide

this?

This

information

can

obtained

reviewing

the

Gender

Strategy

for

USAID

WINNER

Project

available

USAID’s

Development

Experience

Clearinghouse.

(https://dec.usaid.gov)

46. With

reference

Sub‐Result

2.1

and

will

USAID

expect

that

the

implementor

establish

all

the

watershed

governance

bodies

with

which

the

project

will

work?

some

watershed

governance

bodies

exist,

either

formally

informally,

with

which

the

implementor

should

work?

What

baseline

capacity

exists

these

bodies?

The

approach

this

sub‐result

should

proposed

the

Offeror

and

can

include

establishing

new

organizations

and/or

working

with

existing

entities.

The

Port‐au‐

Prince—Saint‐Marc

Partnership

will

work

with

stakeholders

fertile

plains

and

associated

sub‐watersheds

setting

and/or

strengthening

representative,

democratic,

accountable

and

market‐driven

sub‐watershed

governance

bodies.

These

bodies

should

build

upon

Haiti’s

existing

government

entities

involved

land

and

water

resource

management

and

should

take

into

account

other

existing

local

organizations.

(Section

C.4.2.1,

Sub‐Result

2.1

(p.

27)

47. Section C, RFP Page 25. USAID indicates the project’s responsibility to finance initial

investments	in	irrigation	infrastructure.	It	is	difficult	to	assess	the	priorities	USAID
places	on	infrastructural	investment	versus	production	and	market	improvements.
Would	USAID	consider	providing	relevant	percentage	cost	allocations	across
intermediate	results?

With

respect

anticipated

resource

allocation,

USAID

expects

that

approximately

half

will

support

one‐third

will

support

and

the

remainder

will

support

48. Section C.5, RFP page 36: Would USAID please confirm that offerors may include all indicators, baseline data, and annual targets as an annex to the technical volume?

Confirmed.

49. Section C.6 RFP page 39 details the inclusion of Grants Under Contract (GUC) for this

program;	however,	Section	B	does	not	address	GUC.	Would	USAID	consider	providing
additional	guidance	on	where	GUC	costs	should	be	budgeted?

Grants Under Contract should be budgeted in the cost proposal as a separate CLIN.

SECTION F

50. Page 45, F.2, Place of Performance, states “No relocation expenses or other travel

expenses

will

paid.”

anticipated

that

any

expatriate

long‐term

technical

assistance

proposed

offerors

will

eligible

travel

for

the

purposes

relocation

and

repatriation

accordance

with

AIDAR

752.7002,

Travel

and

Transportation,

incorporated

reference

Section

Can

USAID

please

confirm

that

all

allowable

relocation

costs

for

expatriate

project

personnel

will

reimbursed

under

the

contract,

and

furthermore

that

all

allowable

local

travel

expenses

for

expatriate

and

local

personnel

will

also

reimbursed?

accordance

with

AIDAR

752.7002,

which

states,

“For

travel

and

from

post

assignment

the

Contractor

shall

reimbursed

for

travel

costs

and

travel

allowances

travelers

from

place

residence

the

United

States

(or

other

location

provided

that

the

cost

such

travel

does

not

exceed

the

cost

the

travel

from

the

employee’s

residence

the

United

States)

the

post

duty

the

Cooperating

Country

and

return

place

residence

the

United

States

(or

other

location

provided

that

the

cost

such

travel

does

not

exceed

the

cost

travel

from

the

post

duty

the

Cooperating

Country

the

employee’s

residence)

upon

completion

services

the

individual,”

expatriate

relocation

expenses

will

not

paid.

This

clause

will

not

restrict

prohibit

allowable

expenses

incurred

for

transportation,

allowances,

shipment

effects,

and

other

costs

associated

with

the

relocation

personnel,

well

any

COR‐approved

regional

international

travel

that

will

required

over

the

life

the

project.

51. Page 46, F.4, 2nd line, since this is a standalone CPFF contract with no task orders,

would

USAID

remove

the

phrase

“…and

upon

completion

task

order

activities

for

final

reports”?

This sentence is removed.

52. Section F.6 of the RFP states that “Holidays and other non‐work days are not billable

unless

work

requested

the

Government

and

performed

these

days.”

However,

many

contractors,

our

organizational

cost

accounting

standards

and

NICRA

require

that

bill

holidays

directly

the

contract,

rather

than

absorb

the

cost

through

indirect

rates.

must

our

cost

practices

consistently

and

bill

such

holidays

directly

this

contract

compliance

with

our

CAS

and

our

NICRA

agreement

with

the

agency.

believe

that

doing

otherwise

would

require

the

approval

M/OAA/CAS,

per

the

terms

both

our

NICRA

and

the

CIB

92‐17

requirements

incorporated

reference

ADS

302.3.6.8.

respectfully

request

that

USAID

remove

this

sentence

allow

contractors

remain

compliant

with

their

CAS

and

NICRA,

the

alternative

that

USAID/Haiti

provide

contractors

with

copy

the

approval

obtained

from

M/OAA/CAS

that

permits

contractors

deviate

from

their

CAS

and

NICRA

developing

their

proposal

for

the

Port‐au‐Prince

—

Saint‐Marc

Partnership

contract.

See

Section

L.7.10

for

information

work

week.

The

RFP

states

that

the

offeror

and

major

subcontractors

must

describe

their

work

day

and

work

week

policies

and

the

method

accounting

for

paid

absences

for

the

offeror

and

major

subcontractors

effect

time

award

will

remain

force

throughout

the

period

the

award.

53. Could USAID please indicate if key personnel should be based in the primary office of

Port‐au‐Prince, as stated in Section F.3?

Key

personnel

not

need

located

Port‐au‐Prince.

However,

they

should

plan

visit

the

work

site

and

make

trips

necessary

ensure

the

project

being

completed

schedule

and

within

budget.

SECTION H

54. H.21,

FAR

52.209‐XX.

What

the

complete

FAR

clause

number

for

Representation

Corporations

Regarding

Delinquent

Tax

Liability

Felony

Criminal

Conviction?

It’s

not

published

the

FAR

yet.

There is no FAR reference available at this time. It is included in accordance with AAPD 14‐ 03.

SECTION I

55. Section

Clauses

Incorporated

Reference,

(p.

71):

Will

USAID

please

confirm

that,

pursuant

AAPD

12‐03,

AIDAR

clause

752.225‐71

will

removed

from

AIDAR

clauses

incorporated

reference,

and

that

AIDAR

clause

752.227‐70,

updated

February

2012,

will

added?

The outdated clause is removed.

56. Section I.11, International Travel (p. 76): Will USAID please confirm that, pursuant to

AAPD

14‐01,

and

confirmed

paragraph

page

the

RFP,

Section

I.11

(AIDAR

clause

752.7032)

will

amended

allow

COs

delegate

international

travel

approvals

not

included

the

award

the

COR?

Pursuant

AAPD

14‐01,

international

travel

approval

not

included

the

award

will

delegated

the

COR.

SECTION K

57. Section

K.3,

52‐205‐8

Annual

Representations

and

Certifications

(p.

84)

and

Cover

letter

(p.

1):

Will

USAID

please

confirm

the

NAICS

code

for

this

solicitation

541990

indicated

page

opposed

the

541618

code

indicated

page

84?

The NAICS code for this procurement is 541990.

58. Section

K.11,

Compliance

with

Veterans

Employment

Reporting

Requirements

(p.

91):

Will

USAID

please

confirm

that

foreign

organizations

are

permitted

leave

Section

K.11

blank,

they

are

not

subject

the

reporting

requirements

U.S.C.

4212

(d),

pursuant

FAR

52.222‐37

subpart

22.1303?

Confirmed.

SECTION L

59. Would

USAID

incorporate

FAR

52.244‐5,

Competition

Subcontracting

(DEC

1996)

into

Section

L.6,

Instructions

for

the

Preparation

the

Technical

Proposal,

requires

Small

Business

Subcontracting

Plan.

this

separate

from

the

plan

that

typically

included

part

the

cost

proposal

for

which

the

template

provided

Attachment

J.6

would

used?

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan should be included with the cost proposal.

60. Section

L.6,

Instructions

for

the

Preparation

the

Technical

Proposal

(page

98),

instructs

offerors

include

EBDs

annex

the

technical

proposal.

EBD

forms

contain

cost

information

and

thus

should

not

included

with

the

technical

submission.

Please

confirm

that

EBDs

for

key

personnel

are

submitted

with

the

cost

proposal.

Confirmed.

61. Section

L.6

(page

98)

instructs

offerors

include

four

specific

annexes.

May

the

offeror

include

annexes

other

than

those

listed

the

RFP

that

not

count

against

the

page

limit?

Yes.

62. Section L.6.2, Management and Staffing (page 99), instructs offerors to provide

references

for

key

staff.

Please

confirm

that

references

may

included

annex

the

proposal.

Confirmed.

63. To ensure parity among the various cost proposals, please provide an approximate

budget

range

including

plug

figures

for

essential

budget

items

such

sub

awards,

that

all

offerors

are

operating

under

the

same

cost

assumptions.

Please see Attachment J9.

64. Section

Instruction

Offerors

(pp.

93‐101):

The

RFP

did

not

include

instructions

for

the

Cost

Proposal

under

Section

Please

confirm

that,

light

this

omission,

USAID

will

issue

amendment

the

RFP

with

sufficient

time

for

offerors

submit

any

clarification

questions

regarding

those

instructions.

The cost proposal instructions are included in the revised RFP.

65. Section L.5, Delivery Instructions (p.99): Will USAID please indicate if there is a size limit for electronic submissions?

Proposals for electronic submissions should not exceed 25 MB.

66. Section L.6, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal (p.98): Will

USAID

please

confirm

that

the

required

overview

which

offerors

provide

brief

summary

their

overall

capacity

and

approach

meet

the

Partnership

objectives

does

not

count

against

the

page

limit?

Confirmed.

67. Section L.6, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal (p.98): Will

USAID

please

clarify

offerors

may

submit

CVs

for

key

personnel,

including

professional

references,

annex

that

does

not

count

against

the

page

limit?

Offerors may submit CVs for key personnel as an annex that will not count against the page limit.

68. Section L.6.2, Management and Staffing (p.99): Given the anticipated length of the Draft

Implementation

Plan

and

Staffing

Table,

may

offerors

submit

them

annexes

the

technical

proposal?

Yes.

69. Section

L.6.3,

Contractor

Performance

Information

(p.100):

Will

USAID

please

clarify

offerors

should

include

the

required

narrative

Small

Business

Concerns

part

the

Past

Performance

annex

separate

annex

entirely?

It should be included as a separate annex.

70. Section

L.6

requires

submission

biodata

forms

for

key

personnel

and

subcontracting

plan

part

the

technical

proposal.

These

instructions

conflict

with

Section

L.5

which

states

“Technical

proposals

must

not

make

reference

pricing

data.”

respectfully

request

that

USAID

revise

these

instructions

that

offerors

submit

Key

personnel

biodatas

and

the

small

business

subcontracting

plan

the

cost

proposal.

Key	personnel	biodatas	and	the	Small	Business	Subcontracting	Plan	should	be	included
with	the	cost	proposal.

71. Could

USAID

please

confirm

whether

key

personnel

“biodatas”

listed

Section

L.6

required

annexes

refers

resumes

CVs,

rather

than

USAID

1420

forms,

which

are

commonly

referred

biodatas

and

normally

included

the

cost

volume.

Therefore,

does

USAID

expect

see

letters

commitment

and

resumes

for

Key

Personnel

annex

the

technical

proposal?

Additionally,

could

USAID

please

confirm

that

key

personnel

resumes

are

not

included

the

page

limits

outlined

Section

L.6?

Biodatas

refers

USAID

1410

Forms,

which

should

included

the

cost

proposal.

Resumes

are

not

included

the

page

limit.

72. Could USAID please confirm whether resumes of other required personnel may be

included

annex

the

technical

proposal

and

exempt

from

page

limitations

outlined

Section

L.6?

Confirmed.

73. Could

USAID

please

confirm

whether

key

personnel

references

may

included

annex

the

technical

proposal?

Confirmed.

74. Section

L.6.3

(c)

states

“Describe

any

quality

awards

certifications

that

indicate

exceptional

capacity

provide

the

service

product

described

the

statement

work.

This

information

not

included

the

page

limitation.”

Can

USAID

please

indicate

this

information

should

therefore

included

annex

the

Past

Performance

section?

annex,

which

listed

annex

should

this

information

included?

Please include in the Past Performance section.

75. Can

USAID

please

confirm

what

sections

topics

should

included

the

two

page

Past

Performance

section

the

technical

proposal,

opposed

the

Contractors

Performance

Report‐Short

Forms

that

will

appear

annex?

See Section L.6.3 and M.1.1 of the RFP for information needed in past performance.

76. Section L.6.3(a) 2. instructs offerors to provide a description of the performance

inclusive

“Skills/expertise

required”,

among

other

items.

Given

that

this

section

not

included

the

attached

J.5

template,

should

this

information

included

under

the

Contractor

Performance

Information

the

Contractors

Performance

Report

Short‐

Form?

Yes.

77. In Section L.6.3 (3) part 1 USAID includes a reference to a “narrative summary of your

organization’s

use

small

business

concerns

over

the

past

three

years.”

Should

this

information

provided

the

body

the

Past

Performance

section

Annex?

This should be included as an annex.

SECTION M

78. Section

RFP

page

103

refers

the

“Incorporation

Core

Project

Principles”

located

Section

6.3.3

and

Attachment

J.5.

However,

Attachment

J.5

the

Past

Performance

Report

Short

Form.

Would

USAID

please

clarify

there

additional

information

about

the

core

principles

that

should

provided

additional

attachment?

It is deleted to only include Section 6.3.3.

79. Section M, RFP page 103: Would USAID please confirm that offerors may include the

Draft Implementation Plan Gantt chart as an annex to the technical volume?

Confirmed.

80. Would USAID please confirm that offerors may include additional annexes beyond those “required annexes” referred to in Section L on page 98 of the RFP?

Confirmed.

81. Section

M.1.1.3(d):

Does

the

contractor

performance

information

(Quality

product

and

service,

cost

control,

etc…)

belong

the

Past

Performance

Report

Short‐Form,

the

two

page

Past

Performance

section

the

technical

proposal,

elsewhere?

It should be included in the Past Performance section of the technical proposal.

82. Can USAID please confirm that the Past Performance evaluation factor will be weighted with more value than the Corporate Capabilities and Experience evaluation factor?

Confirmed.

83. Section M, RFP page 102‐103: USAID proposes four subfactors included in factor one

but

only

includes

three

subfactors.

Would

USAID

please

clarify

what

the

subfactors

are

included

under

Evaluation

Factor

One?

revised

read

three

subfactors

under

Factor

–

Technical

Approach,

which

include

General

Technical

Approach,

Capacity

Building

and

Approach

Monitoring

Evaluation.

All other terms and conditions of the Solicitation remain unchanged.

Sincerely, /s/

Stephanie	E.	Fugate
Agreement	Officer

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Nov 14, 2017.