Pre-SolicitationQAforLUResponsesPosted.April.17.2017.docx

Pre-solicitation Q&A Ref: SOL-OAA-17-000012

1. Should there be continuity for the value for small business set asides (Section F. 6.(b)(6)(a)) and the value requirement for Task Order response requirements (F.6.3(ii))?

Answer: The value for small business set-asides may be adjusted to $5,000,000 in the solicitation.

2. The proposed RFP requires all bidders to submit a Volume II of the Technical Proposal to respond to the ILRG Task order, with a $30 million ceiling (Attachment J.4) and a scope designed for large implementing partners beyond the manageable interests of potential small business bidders. USAID may want to reconsider requiring small businesses to respond to the ILRG Task Order or include an additional Task Order targeted for small business partners or some other required content to demonstrate technical understanding of issues.

Answer: All offerors, including small businesses, are required to respond to the ILRG Task Order as part of the STARR II Technical Proposal. As with any offeror, small businesses are welcome to build consortiums in order to draw from the expertise or experience of other offerors.

3. Section B.5(e) on page 9 indicates that fee must not be applied to grants under contract (GUC). Could USAID please clarify the following:

a. To minimize the cost of money to offerors, will missions be required to utilize a letter of credit for all GUCs?

Answer: Prime contractors may apply for a Letter of Credit (LOC). Once the LOC is set up, it can be used with all task orders requiring GUCs.

b. To minimize other grants management expenses that offerors typically cover with fee, will USAID include a Limitation of Contractor Liability clause in the IDIQ?

Answer: FAR Clause 52.246-25, Limitation of Liability - Services, is incorporated by reference in Section I.1 of the pre-solicitation.

c. If the risk mitigation measures in a and b may not be considered, would USAID please allow offerors to propose a separate ceiling for grants fee and apply this fee to GUCs in the task order budget?

Answer: Fees will not be applied to GUCs.

4. Section B.6(b) on page 9 indicates that offerors must recover IDIQ management costs as part of their indirect costs. Section L.8, Part 2, IDIQ Program Manager Cost on page 164 states, “Offerors must specify in their cost proposal how central management costs will be charged. The Offeror may include the costs for this central management as part of their indirect costs, or may charge percentages of the individual’s effort under task orders to the extent the functions are allocable to the particular task order.” Could USAID please confirm that offerors may propose how IDIQ management costs will be charged?

Answer: The solicitation will be modified to reflect that offerors must recover IDIQ management costs as part of their indirect costs, as specified in Section B.6(b).

5. In Section B.6.1, Table 1 on page 11, 11 of 13 labor categories include three levels, but it seems unlikely that junior-level professionals would be engaged for most of the technical labor categories. Further, we have noted that several other IDIQs include primarily mid and senior level labor categories. We respectfully request that USAID consider removing the junior level for all technical labor categories and leave it only for the following administrative labor categories: General and Administrative Specialist, Monitoring and Evaluation/Knowledge Management Specialist, and Administrative Support Specialist.

Answer: Historically, salary approvals have been requested for junior-level positions. Publishing CDRs will reduce the contract administrative burden.

6. Regarding the instructions provided for the technical proposal in Section L.7(b) on page 158, is USAID willing to allow a smaller font size for graphics, tables, and text boxes as long as the font is readable?

Answer: The solicitation will reflect that graphics and tables may use a smaller font size, but not less than 10 point.

7. Section L.7 (b) on page 158 lists appendices to be included in the technical proposal. Should there be one combined appendix for Technical Volumes I and II or one appendix per volume? Some appendices are clearly unique to a specific volume (e.g., Past Performance for Volume I and Staffing Plan for Volume II). However, other appendices could apply to both volumes (e.g., Management Plan and Management Structure Organizational Chart[s]). If there should be only one appendix, how should offerors separate content between the IDIQ and the task order?

Answer: The solicitation will specify separate appendices for documentation to be included in Technical Volumes I and II.

8. Section L.7(b) on page 158 states, “All information from appendices must be referenced in the technical proposal and summarized and be included in the annex.” Did USAID intend to say, “All information from appendices must be referenced and summarized in the technical proposal?”

Answer: The language in the solicitation will be changed to read: All information from appendices must be referenced and summarized in the technical proposal.

9. Please define the elements that USAID expects to be included in the Past Performance Matrix listed in Section L.7(b) on page 158.

Answer: The required elements for Past Performance are stated in Section L.7(c)(3) on pages 160-161.

10. Sub-factor 1.1 – Technical Expertise on page 159 states that offerors will be evaluated on capabilities as they relate to activities described in Section C. Section C states that the contractor “must possess demonstrated ability …” in 80 distinct bulleted items. With a 15-page limit for the totality of Volume 1, there is insufficient space to demonstrate capacity to carry out 80 separate tasks. Would USAID consider changing the evaluation criteria to require demonstrating capacity in technical sub-areas (e.g., policy and law, institutional capacity building and information dissemination, and participatory land use planning) without having to demonstrate detailed capacity in 80 bulleted tasks?

Answer: The evaluation criteria in the solicitation will be modified to require demonstrating capacity in each of the technical areas outlined in Section C.

11. Section L.7(c)3, Past Performance on page 160 states, “The offeror … must provide performance information for itself, the contractor teaming arrangements, if any, and each major subcontractor (one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost) in accordance with the following: (1) List in an appendix to the technical proposal up to five (5) of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal.” Please clarify what USAID means by “contractor teaming arrangements.”

Answer: Past performance requirements are in accordance with ADS 302mbh.

12. Section L.7(d) Sub-factor 4.2 – Management Approach for the task order on page 161 notes, “the Offeror must describe personnel proposed to fill the Key Personnel positions indicated in Section F.6…” However, Section F.6 covers ordering procedures not key personnel. The table on page 166 (under the cost proposal instructions) specifies two key personnel: Chief of Party and Land Tenure Specialist. Please clarify that these are the only two key personnel required for the task order.

Answer: The solicitation will reflect language that requirements for Key Personnel positions are provided in Section F.8. The two key personnel stated are the only ones required for this task order. However, as mentioned in the pre-solicitation, offerors are free to propose additional key personnel.

13. One item in the list of acceptable supporting information for labor rates provided in Section L.8, Part 2(a)(3) on page 163 is “historical biodata forms used (within the past five years).” Would USAID also please consider accepting current biodata forms as supporting information for labor rates? This is particularly relevant for consultants who have worked with other contractors and might not have access to their historical forms or those who have not completed a biodata form in the past five years.

Answer: Biodata forms must provide current and historical information.

14. Please clarify the time period for which offerors are to program work, e.g., for the initial four priority countries through three years or through the entire five-year period (including option years). For budgeting purposes, should offerors anticipate programming work for the additional countries when they are not yet known and funding beyond the base period is uncertain?

Answer: Offerors must propose for the entire five-year period of performance for the ILRG Task Order, including option years.

15. Please confirm that offerors are only required to fill out the Contractor Performance Report-Short Form (Attachment J.2) for projects that are not in CPARS.

Answer: Past performance information must be included for all recent and relevant references (within the past five years). Additionally, for all contracts not in CPARS, provide a list of contact names, job titles, mailing addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, explanation of relevance to the proposed acquisition and a description of the performance.

16. May offerors include quality awards and certifications in the past performance appendix?

Answer: Yes.

17. To maximize inclusion of small business partners, can offerors present expertise and capabilities of all partners, not just major partners, in the corporate/institutional capability section?

Answer: Offerors may present expertise and capabilities of all partners.

18. Does USAID expect the IDIQ technical proposal 15-page limit to include a narrative on past performance? Or are offerors to present past performance information only in the appendices?

Answer: Yes, a narrative will be expected in the IDIQ technical proposal.

19. Regarding the LOE table for the ILRG Task Order provided on page 166, could USAID please clarify the following:

a. Is the LOE listed per position required or may an offeror adjust the LOE to correspond with its proposed technical approach?

Answer: As stated in the pre-solicitation, “Offerors are encouraged to propose their own labor mix to fit their technical approach.”

b. If the LOE cannot be altered, could USAID please clarify whether the numbers are absolute or whether offerors that recover paid absences via fringe benefits may adjust the LOE to represent the same proportion? For instance, if an offeror typically budgets 230 days per year for a full-time home office position, instead of 100 days for GIS Specialist in Year 1, may the offeror budget 100 days * 230/260 = 88 days? If the numbers are absolute, could USAID please explain how it will account for paid absences in the evaluation of offerors’ task order budgets?

Answer: As noted in the table, the LOE is illustrative. Offerors are encouraged to propose their own labor mix. In accordance with ADS 302.3.5.7, it is not possible to provide a cost estimate in a competitive solicitation for a term for cost-reimbursement contract. Illustrative LOE are provided to enable offerors to estimate costs.

20. Section L.8, Part 2, Part II, Grants under Contract on page 168 states that no indirect costs or fee shall be applied to GUCs. Could USAID please confirm that indirect costs may be applied to GUCs if this is explicitly included within an offeror’s disclosure statement and NICRA?

Answer: Terms and conditions of NICRAs will be respected.

21. Regarding Section L.8, Part 9 on page 170, the item heading references “major subcontractors” but the description states that letters should be signed by each subcontractor. Could USAID please clarify whether offerors should submit letters of commitment from each subcontractor or only from major subcontractors?

Answer: Offerors should submit letters of commitment for each major subcontractor.

22. Regarding Section L.8, Part 10 on page 170, could USAID please confirm that the subcontract information should be provided for the task order only?

Answer: Yes.

23. The Pre-solicitation and the SOW for the ILRG Task Order do not provide a funding range or estimate for the work to be done under the ILRG Task order. Given that ILRG will require work in four core countries, with the potential to work in 10–14 countries, we request that USAID provide offerors with additional funding information or guidelines regarding the number of countries to be assisted under ILRG so that bidders are able to propose realistic and comparable offers.

Answer: IAW ADS 302.3.5.7 and FAR 16.306(d), it is not possible to provide a cost estimate in a competitive solicitation for a cost-reimbursement term type contract. Illustrative LOEs are provided to enable offerors to estimate costs.

24. Attachment J.1, ILRG Task Order specifies work in four countries initially (Mexico, Mozambique, Nepal and/or Zambia), reaching up to 10 countries over the life of the task order. Can USAID provide guidance on country phasing?

Answer: This guidance may be provided in the RFP.

25. It is unclear whether the IDIQ and the task order will be scored separately or whether the technical score for the task order will be included as part of the IDIQ evaluation. Please clarify.

Answer: The technical evaluation for the task order will be clarified in the solicitation.

26. Section M2, Volume II on page 175 includes the following evaluation criterion: “The clarity, feasibility, and effectiveness of the components and sequencing of work, and appropriateness and feasibility of the accompanying results framework, targets, indicators, and outputs.” To address the sequencing requirement, would USAID allow offerors to submit a Gantt chart as an additional page in the technical proposal?

Answer: Offerors may submit a Gantt chart as an attachment to the technical proposal. Attachments do not count towards the page limit.

a. Since the new USAID E3 Office of Land and Urban (LU) is named as the cognizant operating unit for the STARR II IDIQ, please clarify if the STARR II IDIQ is intended to be the main vehicle for procuring services in both portfolios (Land and Urban) or if other IDIQs (existing or planned future ones), will focus on Urban issues, while the STARR II IDIQ will focus on traditional Land Tenure and Resource Rights, as is the case with the current STARR IDIQ. In other words, will the STARR II IDIQ become the primary contracting vehicle for E3/LU to procure services across its land and urban portfolios?

Answer: The STARR II IDIQ is intended to be the Land and Urban Office's main vehicle for land and resource governance-related activities.

b. Please clarify if USAID anticipates using the STARR II IDIQ to procure urban and local governance services, especially considering that the USAID Making Cities Work (MCW) IDIQ’s ordering period expires in September 2019.

Answer: The STARR II IDIQ is intended to address land and resource governance-related activities that may occur in urban and rural areas.

c. The draft solicitation for the STARR II IDIQ requires a two-volume Technical Proposal, with Volume 2 being the Integrated Land and Resource Governance (ILRG) Task Order (TO). According to the USAID Business Forecast, this is a $50M-$99.99M opportunity. Given that the draft solicitation anticipates setting aside up to three IDIQ contracts for small business concerns, and in light of the extensive resources required to respond to a TO of the nature and size of the ILRG TO, USAID may want to consider requiring small business offerors to respond to a smaller illustrative TO (or case Study) or actual TO, in lieu of responding to the ILRG TO. This was the case for the recent USAID RFP for the Power Africa Expansion (PAE) IDIQ, for example.

Answer: All offerors, including small businesses, are required to respond to the ILRG Task Order as part of the STARR II Technical Proposal. The Business Forecast has been updated with the correct range.

27. The RFP it states “Note: A page in the technical proposal that contains a table, chart, graph, etc., not otherwise excluded below, is subject to the page limitation.” (Pg. 158, sub-para b)”. Can one use a smaller font size for graphics and tables?

Answer: The solicitation will reflect that graphics and tables may use a smaller font size, but not less than 10 point.

28. Would USAID be able to provide a budget ceiling estimate for the ILRG Task Order?

Answer: IAW ADS 302.3.5.7 and FAR 16.306(d), it is not possible to provide a cost estimate in a competitive solicitation for a term for cost-reimbursement contract. Illustrative LOE are provided to enable offerors to estimate costs.

29. Would USAID be able to indicate whether any of the technical areas of assistance will be reserved for SB set-aside IDIQ holders?

Answer: No specific technical areas of assistance will be reserved for small businesses.

30. Please clarify how the evaluation of the two Technical Volumes (I and II) will be weighted, if they are at all? I.e., is Volume I weighted more than Volume II, or equally?

Answer: Volume I is more important than Volume II in the evaluation of the IDIQ contract and will therefore is weighted more heavily than Volume II.

31. On Pre-Sol page 158, USAID describes the organization of the technical proposal, but an Executive Summary is not included. Would USAID please confirm that there will be an Executive Summary included as part of the Technical Proposal and that it will not count against the page limit?

Answer: An Executive Summary will be a requirement for the Technical Proposal and it will not count against the overall page limit.

32. On Pre-Sol Page 162, it states that the Offeror may propose up to two additional Key Personnel positions with justification. Can USAID please clarify how Key Personnel evaluations will be weighted if additional staff are proposed beyond the required two?

Answer: All proposed staffing will be evaluated in whole under the Management Approach evaluation factor.

33. Based on our analysis, the number of pages allocated to the Technical Proposal is not commensurate with the level of detail requested in both Volumes I and II of the Technical Proposal. Would USAID kindly consider increasing the page limit to a minimum of 20 pages for Volume I and 15 pages for Volume II?

Answer: This will be considered.

34. Would USAID consider excluding pages that contain full page graphics, tables or charts?

Answer: No. Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentations beyond those sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal in response to this Request for Proposal (RFP).

35. On Pre-Sol Page 157, USAID defines a Major Subcontractor as receiving 20% of the budget or providing a prominent part of the technical effort. Given that 20% is at best, highly indicative at the IDIQ stage, can USAID provide guidance as to what the definition of a “prominent part of the technical effort” constitutes?

Answer: Prominent part of the technical effort depends on the prime contractor’s technical approach.

36. Would USAID permit Offerors to highlight the Corporate Capabilities of all consortium partners, and not only major subcontractors in Volume I of their Technical Proposals? The current language would preclude highlighting most US-based small businesses, for example, as providing 20% of total task order budgets could constitute a large volume of work relative to the size of most US Small Businesses. In addition, consortium partners often have specific capabilities that makes them highly technically relevant but not rise to the standards described in the pre-solicitation.

Answer: Offerors may present expertise and capabilities of all partners.

37. If certain labor categories under the IDIQ are assigned a daily rate value of zero dollars, would USAID please explain how Offerors are instructed to apply those values to the ILRG task order?

Answer: Offerors are required to propose unburdened ceiling daily rates for all labor categories/ groupings set forth in Section B.6.1. Offerors are to propose rates for the Task Order in accordance with the IDIQ. In other words, for any given labor category, offerors may propose a rate lower than the ceiling, but not higher.

38. Regarding the ILRG Task Order, in order to allow for comparable cost proposals between Offerors, would USAID provide plug figures for the following line items: Travel, Transportation & Per Diem; Equipment and Supplies, Communications, Subcontracts/Consultants; Allowances; Other Direct Costs? Providing plug figures for these line items will result in more comparable cost proposals that limit Offerors to changes in Labor, Indirect Costs and Fixed Fee for the purposes of evaluation.

Answer: Cost proposal requirements will be revised.

39. Does USAID intend for the LOE table on page 166 to be the actual labor budget for the ILRG task order?

Answer: The LOE in the RFP are illustrative. Offerors are encouraged to propose their own labor mix. IAW ADS 302.3.5.7, it is not possible to provide a cost estimate in a competitive solicitation for a term for cost-reimbursement contract. Illustrative LOE are provided to enable offerors to estimate costs. Please note the LOE table will be revised for the RFP.

a. If USAID does intend for the LOE table to be the labor budget for ILRG, would USAID please clarify how Offerors are to budget daily rates for each position?

i. Is USAID requesting offerors to complete the LOE table with the daily rates from the Labor Category table on page 11 of the pre-solicitation?

Answer: Offerors are required to propose unburdened ceiling daily rates for all labor categories/ groupings set forth in Section B.6.1. Offerors are to propose rates for the Task Order in accordance with the IDIQ. In other words, for any given labor category, offerors may propose a rate lower than the ceiling, but not higher.

ii. Most if not all positions under “Host Country Staff – Country 1” and “Country 2” are typically filled by Cooperating Country National (CCN) staff. Should offerors budget these positions as CCN staff? If so, from what country’s Local Compensation Plan should offerors use? The differences in labor costs between the four countries given in the task order are substantial.

Answer: The LOE table will be revised.

iii. If Host Country Staff are all intended to be budgeted with expatriate rates from the IDIQ, would USAID confirm that Offerors will not be held firmly to the LOE table in the implementation of ILRG?

Answer: The LOE table will be revised.

b. If USAID does not intend for the LOE table to be the labor budget for ILRG, would USAID clarify how Offerors can anticipate the resulting budget for ILRG to be structured?

Answer: The table on page 165 of the pre-solicitation provides the summary budget for the ILRG Task Order.

c. Does USAID anticipate the successful Contractor to have country offices as part of ILRG immediately upon award? If so, which countries? Would USAID please offer guidance as to what budget assumptions Offerors should use when budgeting for such costs?

Answer: Additional guidance will be provided in the RFP.

40. Would USAID provide Offerors with its Key Personnel qualifications, if any, for the ILRG task order?

Answer: Key Personnel qualifications will be included in the RFP.

41. Does USAID have a preferred head office location for the ILRG task order?

Answer: The offeror must fulfill its contractual obligations and maintain effective communication with USAID staff and is thus free to choose a head office location that allows the offeror to do so.

1 | Page