Additional_ACES_Questions.pdf

1 | P a g e

1. In response to Question 123, USAID replied that ceiling rates for this IDIQ cannot be higher than the offeror’s current NICRA. We respectfully ask USAID to reconsider this response based on the guidance in the Best Practices Guide for Indirect Costing, within which USAID indicates that provisional and ceiling indirect cost rates should be “realistic and equitable.” Further, this guidance states, “Provisional rates may be less than, equal to, or, in special circumstances, more than proposed by the contractor.” Considering the seven-year period of performance of this

IDIQ, Offerors should have the flexibility to propose ceiling rates that are realistic and reasonable. Further, considering that small business primes are not required to propose ceiling rates, this response seems to create an unfair disadvantage for other than small business primes.

Response: For the purposes of the ACES RFP and the subsequent IDIQ-level contracts, Offerors may propose future ceilings higher than currently established provisional or final indirect rates. Please note the distinction between the “indirect cost ceilings” and “indirect rates.” It is true that indirect rates being billed against an award cannot be higher than current NICRA, but ceilings can be.

2. Will USAID please confirm that offerors may submit the Key Personnel CV, Key Personnel Letter of Commitment, and Key Personnel References as one combined annex? Can USAID also please confirm that information in this annex will be evaluated?

Response: Key Personnel Resume, References, and Letters of Commitment must be included as an annex. This information will be used to help evaluate the IDIQ Manager’s experience and qualifications as part of Factor One Subfactor Five.

3. Will USAID please clarify whether the Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan should be included as an annex to the technical proposal (as outlined in L.8.b on page 114), or should it be part of the cost proposal (as stated in L.9 on page 125)?

Response: USAID has removed the Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan from L.8.b. This plan must be included as part of the cost proposal.

4. In section L (a. Factor One) on page 117 it states that

Offerors must provide a narrative describing the consortium’s experience and capabilities in the technical areas described in Section C and repeated as Subfactors below.”

In Section M (a. Factor One) on page 131 it states:

“Offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which they, including any major subcontractor(s) convincingly demonstrate institutional experience and capability in implementing democracy, rights and governance activities in the technical areas described in Section C and repeated below as Subfactors.

Can you clarify that if we can present our consortium’s experience per Section L then it will be evaluated (per Section M) as part of our response to Factor One?

2 | P a g e

Response: USAID confirms that what offerors provide in response to the factors and sub-factors described in Section L will be evaluated as described in Section M.

5. With reference to the minimum qualifications for the IDIQ Manager (Section F.8), please confirm that 10 years of ACES-relevant project management experience with both for profit and non-profit implementing partners of USAID-funded programs will be counted.

Response: USAID confirms that ACES-relevant project management experience with both for profit and non-profit implementing partners of USAID-funded programs will be counted.

6. Please confirm that the reference to Attachment B.7(b) on page 118 should in fact be a reference to Section B.7(b) instead.

Response: USAID can confirm that Attachment B.7(b) is actually referring to Section B.7(b). This has been amended in the latest RFP.

7. Please clarify what type of information should be included under the Contractor Performance

Information section that is limited to two pages as past performance references shall be included as an annex as needed.

Response: Offerors must include a concise narrative describing their relevant past performance, successes, and how lessons learned in the implementation of the projects could be applied to the ACES IDIQ. Offerors must also concisely describe any quality awards or certifications that indicate exceptional capacity to provide the services that are directly related to the statement of work (Section C).

8. Please confirm that, per Section L.8.c.(d. Factor Four).i.b (on p.119), the Past Performance Information (PPI) form provided as Attachment J.8 is required only for contracts that are not included in the CPARS.

Response: USAID can confirm that under Section L.8.c.(d.Factor Four)i.b, Attachment J.8 is required for contracts that are referenced under Section L.8.c(d.Factor Four)i.a. that are not in CPARS.

9. As the past performance matrix (Attachment J.5) is not printer-friendly (the table stretches over multiple pages and some of its columns would feature disproportionally more text than other columns), please allow offerors to select a different reader-friendly format to present the information that is required in the matrix.

Response: The matrix can be submitted on paper no greater than 11x17 inches.

10. Please confirm that, based on the response to Question 100, examples from the experience of any consortium member may be included in responding to Factor One – Institutional Experience and Capability.

Response: Offerors may include examples from the experience of Major Subcontractors and Prime Offerors only for Factor One – Institutional Experience and Capability. The response to question 100 of amendment 3 allowed Offerors to present rapid response capability information for both the prime and

3 | P a g e any subcontractor in relation to Factor 3 - Rapid Response Capability. However, upon further consideration this decision has been revised. Offerors responding to Factor 3 – Rapid Response Capability may present rapid response capability information for the prime offeror and major subcontractors only.

11. Encouraging additional annexes that will not be evaluated may create unnecessary distractions for the members of the technical evaluation committee (TEC) and may also inadvertently affect how the TEC views the sections of an offeror’s proposal that should actually be evaluated.

Therefore, we suggest that USAID discourage the use of such irrelevant additional annexes and not share them with the members of the TEC.

Response: USAID has amended the RFP to no longer allow additional annexes that are not listed in L.8.b.

Instead we have increased the page limits for the Institutional Experience and Capability, Grants under Contract, and Rapid Response Capability sections. Offerors may include additional information that previously may have been included as an annex into these sections, but understand that the page limit for those sections still applies.

12. Please clarify the answer to Question 114 as this answer effectively allows offerors to use any

LOE number for all positions, which would make the fair evaluation of cost proposals impossible.

Assuming that offerors are not to change the LOE numbers in Attachment J.7, will USAID provide LOE numbers for the Information Technology Specialists or delete them?

Response: USAID has revised the Cost Matrix as part of Amendment 4, however Offerors are still responsible for providing LOE based on a 260 day work year minus any paid absence days.

13. As the “[t]he IDIQ Manager’s salary is not directly recoverable under the ACES IDIQ” (Section

F.8) and this position is never billed under task orders, please consider removing line 50 from the Cost Matrix.

Response: The IDIQ Manager’s costs may be recovered under ACES Task Orders to the extent that the IDIQ Manager provides services required under individual Task Order scopes of work.

14. Please confirm that for the positions listed on lines 14 through 47 of the Cost Matrix offerors should utilize LTTA loading, even though each of these positions is only budgeted for 16-26 days per year.

Response: Offerors must complete the Cost Matrix using unloaded rates only.

15. Many organizations load technical and administrative support labor differently. Please provide guidance about what kind of loading should be used for the positions listed on lines 46 and 47 of the Cost Matrix – technical or administrative support.

16. Please clarify what “head office” and “field office” means for the purposes of local in-county staff (lines 58 through 67 of the Cost Matrix).

4 | P a g e

Response: “Head Office” refers to offerors’ headquarters. “Field Office” refers to an office(s) a contractor would establish in a host country upon being awarded a task order. For example, a contractor may have its headquarter office in Washington DC. If that same contractor is awarded a task order for work in Serbia, that contractor would likely establish a field office(s) in that country for the purpose of implementing the task order.

17. For the purposes of accurately pricing local in-country staff, please provide unloaded total costs for 1) CCN technical staff labor per year; 2) CCN administrative support staff labor per year. In addition, as many organizations load technical and administrative support labor differently, please provide a local fringe rate as a percentage of the base salary, so that offerors could submit directly comparable proposals.

18. The revised RFP (pp.122-123) doesn’t reflect the answers to Questions 34, 35 and 42. Please revise or provide further guidance.

Responses: The RFP has been revised as part of amendment 4 to reflect the answers to these questions.

19. Section B.9 provides an opportunity for offerors to propose a ceiling rate above their current NICRA rate. Similarly, in Section L.9 (Indirect Costs) offerors are asked to propose a ceiling rate for the contract life or annual ceiling rates, which will be averaged by USAID. The answer to question 123 states that “ceiling rates […] CANNOT be higher than the current offeror’s NICRA.”

As stated in question 123, ceiling rates fluctuate and can be higher than the current NICRA rate.

Will USAID confirm that offerors can propose ceiling rates, which may be higher than their current NICRA rates?

Response: For the purposes of the ACES RFP and the subsequent IDIQ-level contracts, Offerors may propose future ceilings higher than currently established provisional or final indirect rates. Please note the distinction between the “indirect cost ceilings” and “indirect rates.” It is true that indirect rates being billed against an award cannot be higher than current NICRA, but ceilings can be.

20. We noticed that there was a change in the RFP released on fbo.gov on August 7. However, we couldn’t find any files associated with an amendment. Please clarify.

Response: On August 7, 2018 the fbo.gov notice was amended to reflect the correct closing date of October 11, 2018.

21. Item 12 in SF-33 in the revised solicitation includes the following validity period “In compliance with the above, the undersigned agrees, if this offer is accepted within 0 calendar days (60 calendar days unless a different period is inserted”. Please clarify the validity period for offers and consider a 120-day validity period.

Response: USAID has revised item 12 of the SF-33 to now show a validity period of 180 days.

5 | P a g e

22. Section L.8.b of the amended RFP, (page 114) contains the table that lists the proposal sections and the associated page limits. The table states that the Contractor Performance Information section is limited to two pages and that offerors are required to use the J.8 template (Contractor Past Performance Evaluation – Short Form) in this section. Given that offerors are required to use the J.8 template to complete 3-5 past performance references for the prime and each major subcontractor, this requirement does not appear consistent with the two-page limit for this section. We have the following related questions:

a. Can USAID please confirm that the past performance references (that use the J.8 template) should only be included in the Past Performance References annex, which doesn’t have a page limit?

Response: USAID can confirm the past performance references should be included as an annex and doesn’t have a page limit. Please reference your annexes in the Technical proposal.

b. Can USAID confirm that offerors should include a two-page past performance narrative in the Contractor Performance Information section?

successes, and how lessons learned in the implementation of the projects could be applied to the ACES IDIQ. Offerors must also concisely describe any quality awards or certifications that indicate exceptional

23. Given that the Past Performance Matrix asks for similar information to what is included in the Past Performance References, would USAID consider removing the requirement to submit this matrix?

Responses: USAID is requesting that Offerors provide both the Past Performance Matrix in addition to the Past Performance References.

24. Amendment 3, Question 80 states “USAID can confirm that [past performance references] should be provided as an annex to the technical proposal” and Question 98 states “The Proposal Elements has been amended to show that an Annex for past performance references is required.” The amended Section L.8.b (page 114) indicates that “Past Performance References” are to be provided as an annex with no page limit. However, Section L.8.b also indicates that “Contractor Performance Information” is to be included (using the format in Attachment J.8) and that it has a limit of 2 pages.

We interpret these instructions to mean that:

Offerors should include 3-5 past performance references for the prime and each major subcontractor, using the template in Attachment J.8.

These references should be included in an annex to the technical proposal that does not count against the page limit of any other proposal element.

This annex has no overall page limit.

Each Past Performance Reference is limited to 2 pages.

6 | P a g e

Please confirm our interpretation.

successes, and how lessons learned in the implementation of the projects could be applied to the ACES IDIQ. Offerors must also concisely describe any quality awards or certifications that indicate exceptional

25. Examining the RFP Section L.8.c (amended) and the relevant Questions from Amendment 3, we believe USAID wishes to receive a Contractor Performance Annex that includes three sub-sections:

1) Past Performance References

2) Quality Awards or Certifications

3) Past Performance Using Small Business Concerns (for Offerors who are not small businesses)

The Past Performance Matrix would be submitted as a separate annex, as shown in the chart on page 114 of the Amended RFP. Please confirm our understanding.

Response: Past Performance References shall be included as part of Attachment J.8 along with the past performance matrix. Quality awards or certifications shall be included as part of the three page past performance narrative. Past Performance Using Small Business Concerns for offerors who are not small businesses shall be included as an additional annex.

26. In order to demonstrate the depth of their team’s relevant expertise, please confirm that

Offerors may include relevant experience from all subcontractors in the Past Performance Matrix (Attachment J.5).

Response: Offerors may include relevant experience from major subcontractors in the past performance matrix.

27. Section F.8 (page 50) states that the minimum qualifications for the IDIQ Manager include “A minimum of two (2) years of overseas field experience working in one or more developing countries, preferably post conflict, in at least one of the technical areas listed in the preceding bullet.” Please confirm that non-resident project work would meet this requirement.

Response: “Two years overseas field experience” in this context means two years spent living and working in a developing country(ies) as a resident on work relevant to the ACES technical areas. Short-term consultancies (if that is what is meant by “non-resident project work”) to developing countries do not count as overseas field experience.

28. Section L.7 on page 117 indicates that the key personnel resume and letter of commitment are included in Factor 1. However, page 114 of the RFP indicates that the key personnel resume and letter of commitment should appear in an annex. Would USAID please clarify in what part(s) of the proposal the key personnel resume and letter of commitment should appear?

7 | P a g e

Response: Key Personnel Resumes, Letters of Commitment, and References must be included as an annex to the technical proposal. This information will be used to help evaluate the IDIQ Manager’s experience and qualifications.

29. Would USAID clarify what should be included within the two pages allocated for “Contractor

Performance Information” (Factor 4) if the past performance references are to be included in an annex?

Response: Offerors must include a concise narrative describing their relevant past performance, successes, and how lessons learned in the implementation of the projects could be applied to the ACES IDIQ. Offerors must also concisely describe any quality awards or certifications that indicate exceptional

30. We would like to share our concern with USAID’s response to Question# 123 which states that

“Ceiling indirect rates proposed for this IDIQ CANNOT be higher than the current offeror’s

NICRA.” Given that USAID issues NICRAs with provisional rates that fluctuate in the ordinary course of business, requiring offerors to accept ceilings no higher than their current provisional rates significantly increase the contract’s cost risk and creates an incentive for offerors to propose a higher fee to account for the higher risk. While we appreciate the importance of controlling costs, we believe most organizations with NICRAs maintain stable indirect rates, therefore RFP-mandated ceilings most probably will result in the government paying a premium

(through the fixed fee line item) at the task order level for no additional value or benefit as indirect rate ceilings do not necessarily result in lower costs to the government. As the RFP’s cost evaluation matrix already incentivizes offerors to propose competitive ceilings, we believe

USAID will receive a better value by removing the RFP-mandated ceilings, allowing offerors to propose “realistic and equitable” indirect rate ceilings, as recommended in USAID’s Best Practice

Guide for Indirect Costing (ADS Chapter 302).

propose future ceilings higher than currently established provisional or final indirect rates. Please note the distinction between the “indirect cost ceilings” and “indirect rates.” It is true that indirect rates

31. RFP Reference: B.9

Page Number: 16

Relevant RFP Language: Table: “Overhead Rate %; Overhead Ceiling Rate %; G&A Rate %; G&A

Ceiling Rate %”

RFP Reference: Q&A #123

8 | P a g e

Relevant RFP Language: “Ceiling indirect rates proposed for this IDIQ CANNOT be higher than the current offeror’s NICRA.”

Question: The table in Section B.9 instructs offerors to provide current overhead and G&A rates based on the current NICRA. It also provides columns for offerors to propose ceilings for overhead and G&A rates.

a. Can USAID please confirm that offerors must use our current NICRA for the Overhead

Rate % and G&A Rate % columns, and the Overhead Ceiling Rate % and G&A Ceiling Rate

% columns may be higher than our current NICRA?

Response: USAID can confirm that Offerors must use their current NICRA for the Overhead and G&A

Rate columns, but may propose higher Overhead and G&A Ceiling Rates.

b. Can USAID please confirm that offerors can insert additional indirect rates in the table as needed, based on our approved NICRA?

Response: USAID can confirm that Offerors may insert additional indirect rates as needed in the table found in section B.9 of the RFP.

32. RFP Reference: L.8.b

Page Number: 114

Relevant RFP Language: “Proposal Elements… Offerors are required to use the template provided in Section J.8.”

RFP Reference: Q&A #6

Relevant RFP Language: “To prevent confusion USAID has amended the RFP to require the use of the template provided in attachment J.8. No additional narrative is needed or requested.”

Question: Kindly note that in the Modified RFP, Section L.8.b pg. 114, the new Proposal

Elements tables calls out “Contractor Performance Information” as having a 2-page limit and is not indicated as an annex. This specific element has a “*”, and this note indicates that offerors are required to use the template provided in Attachment J.8. Then there is a separate element call out for “Past Performance Reference Annex”. Can USAID please confirm that Attachment J.8 is required for the Past Performance Reference Annex, and that Contractor Performance

Information is a 2-page narrative within the Technical narrative?

Response: As part of Amendment 4 the RFP has been revised to clear up any confusion regarding this matter. Attachment J.8 is required for the past performance references while the Contractor

Performance Information (now named Past Performance Narrative) is a 3-page narrative within the technical proposal.

33. RFP Reference: L.8.c.a

9 | P a g e

Page Number: 117

Relevant RFP Language: “Offerors must provide a narrative describing the consortium’s experience and capabilities in…”

RFP Reference: M.2.a

Page Number: 129

Relevant RFP Language: “Offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which they, including any major subcontractor(s), convincingly demonstrate institutional experience and capability in…”

Question: The Section L instructions state that offerors may present the experience and capabilities of our entire consortium. However, Section M says only the experience and capabilities of the prime and the major subcontractors will be evaluated. Could USAID amend

Section M.2.a to evaluate the experience and capabilities of the entire consortium so that we can present the full range of capabilities that our consortium offers?

Response: USAID will evaluate the experience and capabilities of the prime offerors and major subcontractors only for Factor One.

34. Questions 26, 68, 92, 118, and 157 refer to the definition of major subcontractors as those receiving 20% of the technical effort. Responses to questions 68, 92, and 118 define technical effort as at least 20% of the total prime contract budget. However, question 157 defines technical effort as at least 20% of the cost of level of effort. Please confirm that technical effort for a major subcontractor can be defined as receiving 20% of the cost of level of effort.

Response: USAID has revised the RFP to define major subcontractors as though who receive 20% of the total prime contract budget.

35. We respectfully request that the definition of a major subcontractor be defined as those receiving 20% of the technical effort for individual task orders and not as 20% of the total prime contract. Since the scope of individual task orders is currently unknown, offerors may need to call upon different consortium resources and ratios of technical effort based on the individual needs and scope of any future task orders. Requiring a major subcontractor to have at least 20% of the technical effort at the prime IDIQ contract level may unreasonably limit the way offerors use consortium resources for individual task orders. This could affect the type of program offered and may not result in the best value to USAID.

Response: USAID has revised the RFP to define major subcontractors as though who receive 20% of the total prime contract budget.

36. Question 77 indicates that offerors must complete and submit Part Eleven – Legislative

Reporting, despite having unknown information at the proposal stage regarding the value of subcontracting or specific subcontractor information. Can USAID please confirm that indicating

10 | P a g e

TBD for that information is acceptable and considered “complete.” If not, can USAID provide additional guidance on estimating these figures or provide plug figures?

Response: USAID confirm that indicating TBD for this information at the IDIQ level is acceptable and considered complete.

37. Question 79 states that USAID does not recognize electronic signatures and requests original signatures. However, since this is an electronic only submission, there is not a mechanism to submit original documents. Please confirm that scans of documents with original signatures meet this requirement.

Response: USAID can confirm that scanned documents with original signatures meets this requirement.

38. Question 123 states that ceiling indirect rates cannot be higher than the current offeror’s NICRA.

If offerors are limited to proposing ceiling indirect rates at their current NICRA, this limitation provides a significant advantage to organizations with high provisional rates compared to actual/running rates and would disadvantage organizations who have not yet submitted a NICRA adjustment. NICRA rates are either a reflection of past years’ finalized activities or a reflection of forecasted activities and costs yet to occur (provisionals). Small (or large) deviations can easily occur by unusually high or low contract volume and/or short-term issues, with offerors having very little control in adjusting their costs and/or rates.

USAID currently has a significant backlog of Incurred Cost Submission (ICS) audits and indirect rate submissions pending finalization and approval. Restricting ceiling indirect rates to the current Offeror’s NICRA favors contractors who have already obtained adjusted provisional indirect rates, and/or those who have had more recent ICS audits, and places a high burden and risk on those Offerors whose NICRA has not been recently approved.

Setting indirect rate caps at the same level as provisionals (or NICRA) limits competition by not only providing favorable circumstances to some offerors, but also by fundamentally limiting any deviation of provisional costs, which are meant to be subject to variations in market and business conditions.

Therefore, we respectfully request that USAID confirm that Offerors may propose ceiling indirect rates that are higher than the current NICRA rates in accordance with Offerors’ assessment of their financial situation and market conditions.

propose future ceilings higher than currently established provisional or final indirect rates. Please note the distinction between the “indirect cost ceilings” and “indirect rates.” It is true that indirect rates

11 | P a g e

39. Section B.9 on page 16 indicates that offerors must include current approved indirect cost rates for the prime and major subcontractor(s) in the table as part of Attachment J.7 Cost/price

Evaluation Matrix. A company’s indirect rates are widely acknowledged to be proprietary and sensitive financial information, the disclosure of which would result in competitive harm and, consistent with the Trade Secrets Act, should therefore be protected from such disclosure to third parties, (including prime contractors who may be competitors on other procurements).

Thus, we respectfully request that major subcontractor(s) indirect cost rate information not be included in any resulting final prime contract. Furthermore, we request approval to have major subcontractor(s) submit their indirect cost rates directly to USAID under separate cover for this

RFP.

Response: USAID will accept the submission of indirect cost rates directly from the major subcontractors to provide for separate cover. We ask that major subcontractors provide in their email an explanation as to what Prime Offeror they are acting as the major subcontractor for so that they may be properly paired with the appropriate Prime during our evaluation of the proposals.

40. Section L.8.b on page 114 states that offerors are required to use the template in Section J.8 for the Contractor Performance Information, as denoted by the asterisk. However, Contractor

Performance Information has a two-page limit and therefore cannot support that template for

3-5 projects in the space allocated. Please confirm that the template provided in Section J.8 is a requirement for the Past Performance References Annex, which is not page limited, and not for the Contractor Performance Information.

Response: USAID can confirm that Attachment J.8 is to be used for past performance references.

41. Section L.8.b on page 114 includes two pages for Contractor Performance Information.

However, instructions regarding this factor (d. Factor Four) on page 118 lists only instructions for the Past Performance References and use of small business concerns, which we can include as an annex per question 16 of the responses to questions. Please clarify what information is expected in the two-page Contractor Performance Information narrative.

successes, and how lessons learned in the implementation of the projects could be applied to the ACES IDIQ. Offerors must also concisely describe any quality awards or certifications that indicate exceptional

42. Section L.8.b on page 114 lists a required Past Performance Matrix to be submitted as an annex.

However, there are no additional instructions for this matrix on page 118 under item d. Factor

Four. Can USAID please clarify what information is required to be submitted in this annex and

12 | P a g e how it is distinct from the Past Performance Reference annex? Please also confirm that the information presented in the Past Performance Matrix is required for the prime contractor only.

Response: This matrix shall summarize the past performance references submitted (short forms) and shall not include projects for which the short form was not submitted. This matrix shall conform to the format and content of the Past Performance Matrix (Attachment J.5). The matrix can be submitted for both the prime offerors and major subcontractors. The matrix content shall include the following:

Contractor: Name of the prime contractor for the reference.

Activity Name: Name of the project.

Contract #: Contract or agreement number for the project. If a Task Order under an IDIQ, indicate the IDIQ number and task order number.

Start – End Dates: Start & End dates for the project. If a Task Order under an IDIQ, indicate the

Task Order start and end dates.

Obligated Amount: Total obligated amount of the contract (or Task Order). If the partner organization was a subcontractor under the agreement, list both the total contract amount and the amount managed by the subcontractor

Country: Country or region that the project was implemented in.

Client: Organization purchasing/receiving services under the contract/Task Order. If a government agency, specify the agency and office.

Local Partner Type: List the types of local partners that the contractor supported in this project.

Project Components: Mark “X” under each component that was a part of the project. Check only those services which constituted a significant component of the total LOE that the contractor was responsible for.

43. Can the Government confirm that in the Cost Proposal, under Section L.9 part 12, it is requesting the prime offeror to complete and submit as part of the Cost Proposal both Section H.43 and DD

Form 254 (attachment J.4.)? Can the Government also confirm this information is not requested for any subcontractors?

Response: USAID can confirm that prime offeror’s only must submit both Section H.43 and the DD Form

254 as part of their cost proposal.

44. Can the Government confirm that in the Cost Proposal, under Section L.9 part 11, it is requesting the prime offeror to complete and submit as part of the Cost Proposal both the bullet points detailed in L.9 Part 11 and SF LLL? Can the Government also confirm this information is not requested for any subcontractors?

Response: USAID can confirm that prime offeror’s only must complete and submit all THREE bullet points mentioned in Part Eleven of Section L.9 in addition to the SF-LLL as part of their Cost Proposal.

13 | P a g e

45. There are multiple answers to the original questions regarding what documents are required as submission in the cost proposal for the prime, major subs and other subs. To ensure clarity, can the Government kindly confirm the following:

1. Major subcontractors, as defined in the prime offeror’s cost proposal in Attachment J.3

(L.9 Part 2.a.3) must submit with the prime offer: Ceiling indirect cost rates per Att. J7 if a large business, NICRA/indirect costs, Section K, Workday/workweek, Evidence of

Responsibility, and a letter of commitment.

2. Non-major subcontractors, as defined in Attachment J3 by the prime, are not required to submit any of the cost documentation in Section L.9?

Response: USAID can confirm that major subcontractors are required to submit: Ceiling Indirect Cost

Rates, NICRA/Indirect costs, Section K, Workday/workweek, Evidence of Responsibility, and a letter of commitment. These documents are not required for non-major subcontractors.

46. The Government details that “Businesses regardless of size awarded a Task Order must budget for a minimum of 20% of the work to subcontractors or sub-grantees” in L.9 Part 6; can the

Government confirm that this will be a requirement of the resulting contract’s Task Order budgets but is not necessarily requested in Attachment J7 on the detail tab? Specifically, can the Government confirm that, regardless of the total percent of the detail budget tab it represents, the offeror should not change the plug numbers found on the “Subtotal

Subcontracts” line in the detail tab (line 128)?

Response: Offerors should not change the plug number in the details tab regarding Subcontracts. The requirement that businesses must budget for a minimum of 20% of the work to subcontractors will be required in resulting Task Order budgets.

47. The Government in the response to Question 68 had detailed that it considers major subcontractors to be performing 20% of the total prime budget; however, Attachment J3 seems to imply that determination at this time at the IDIQ level of major subcontractor is a determination made by the prime offeror. Can the Government confirm that it is not looking for budgeted figures in Attachment J7 to be identified by major subcontractor?

Response: USAID is not looking for budgeted figures in Attachment J.7 for subcontractors instead

Offerors may use the plug figures provided in the details tab for subcontracts. At the Task Order level

Offerors will be required to budget for 20% of the total cost to subcontractors.

48. The Government has detailed in response to Question 111 that offerors may adjust and change the LOE included in the Attachment J7. If the Government is doing a price analysis on

Attachment J7, allowing offerors to define the LOE and adjust it, an equitable and fair price

14 | P a g e analysis between offerors would be difficult. Can the Government confirm how specifically it is evaluating Attachment J.7 and the detailed budget?

responsible for providing LOE based on a 260 day work year minus any paid absence days. USAID will evaluate attachment J.7 and the detailed budget in accordance with section M.4 of the RFP to ensure that costs are fair and reasonable.

49. The detailed tab seems now to incentivize offerors to adjust LOE down. Would the government consider removing the detailed tab and performing the price analysis solely on the CDRs?

responsible for providing LOE based on a 260 day work year minus any paid absence days. USAID will not consider removing the detailed tab.

50. The Government has detailed in Question 123 that ceiling indirect cost rates proposed for this

IDIQ “cannot be higher than the current offeror’s NICRA.” This ensures that, should there be any change in offerors corporate structures during the life of contract, the offeror would take a loss on cost (i.e. administrative staff moving from direct billed to indirect billed, dropping direct costs but increasing indirects). Can the Government kindly consider removing this requirement and allowing offerors and major subs to propose ceiling rates over their current NICRAs?

propose future ceilings higher than currently established provisional or final indirect rates. Please note the distinction between the “indirect cost ceilings” and “indirect rates.” It is true that indirect rates

51. The Government has detailed in Question 142 that “USAID is not requiring offerors to submit historical biodata forms, DCAA forward pricing agreements, other contract order… etc.”.

However, this seems to contradict the language in the RFP. Can the Government kindly confirm what specifically it is requiring offerors to submit for L.9 Part 2.a.2?

Response: Offerors are required to submit supporting information to justify the proposed rates for each labor category. Examples of supporting information that offerors may provide are: historical biodata forms used within the past five years, DCAA forward pricing agreements, other federal contract or orders, market research support, and/or payroll records. While USAID will not require Offerors to submit all of these forms we do ask that Offerors submit the documentation that best justifies the rates that you have proposed.

15 | P a g e

52. Section H.9.d.1 details that annual merit increases are limited to 5% and inflation is limited to

3%. Are these requirements that need to be considered in the CDR matrix and Attachment J7 detailed tab? Or are these requirements only for resulting TOs? If the former, how would

USAID like offerors to adjust the CDR table and detailed tab to include these figures, as they seem to overlap?

Response: Individuals annual merit increases in addition to inflation should be factored into the budget when developing a budget for a Task Order.

53. Can USAID please confirm if the past performance matrix annex will be evaluated? Can offerors submit past performance information in the past performance matrix for all subcontractors/members of the consortium?

Response: USAID can confirm that the past performance matrix will be used as part of the evaluation under M.2.d. Offerors may only submit past performance information in the past performance matrix for major subcontractors and prime offerors.

54. Page 114 of the RFP notes there is a two-page limit for contractor performance information and offerors are required to use the template in section J.8. Page 114 also notes that past performance references are to be included as an annex with no page limit. Can USAID kindly clarify the page limits for contractor performance information and past performance references and whether these are the same or different sections?

Response: The page limit is in regards to a past performance narrative. The past performance references shall be included as an annex and is separate from the past performance narrative. The RFP has been revised to better illustrate this concern.

55. Can USAID confirm that only past performance references are allowed from the prime contractor and major subcontractors?

Response: USAID can confirm that past performance references are allowed from the prime offeror and major subcontractors.

56. In the initial Q&A, questions 3 and 28, the government describes that offerors can include a narrative to describe their consortium and management approach and illustrative experts as annexes. Can the government kindly clarify further what it would expect to see in these annexes?

Response: USAID has revised the RFP to explicitly state that only Annexes listed under L.8.b will be allowed. The page limits for Institutional Experience and Capability, Grants Under Contract, and Rapid

Response Capability have been increased to allow Offerors additional pages to include information such as a narrative to describe their consortium and management approach and illustrative experts.

16 | P a g e

57. In the initial Q&A, the government has detailed in question 101 that offerors need only present

GUC capabilities for the prime contractor. Will the government permit offerors to include other consortia capabilities in this section?

Response: USAID upon further discussion has decided that Offerors may provide GUC capabilities for the

Prime Contractor in addition to any major subcontractors.

58. Guidance in the Q&A indicates that offerors may submit additional annexes as part of their proposal, however this guidance does not appear to be incorporated into the revised RFP. In order to ensure consistent evaluation of offers, could USAID provide in the RFP instructions as to the content of any additional required or allowed annexes to the technical or cost proposals, and specify how additional annexes will be evaluated? Would information in any additional technical annexes need to be summarized in the technical proposal?

Response: USAID has amended the RFP to no longer allow additional annexes that are not listed in L.8.b.

Instead we have increased the page limits for the Institutional Experience and Capability, Grants under

Contract, and Rapid Response Capability sections. Offerors may include additional information that previously may have been included as an annex into these sections, but understand that the page limit

59. Per USAID’s guidance in response to question 130 in the Q&A, could USAID confirm that if small business offerors indicate that their offer is “restricted,” this means they will not be evaluated in the unrestricted pool, rather only for the restricted small business awards?

Response: All Offerors regardless of size will compete for the three unrestricted awards. Once the three unrestricted awards are determined all restricted Offerors that were not selected for one of the three unrestricted awards will compete for the five restricted awards.

60. As the IDIQ award does not have a budget associated with it, could USAID please confirm that prime offerors should propose as “major” subcontractors those partners whom we reasonably expect could receive 20% of a future task order budget under the IDIQ?

Response: USAID can confirm that prime offerors should propose major subcontractors that those partners expect could receive 20% of a future task order budget under the IDIQ.

61. In Q&A Response #125 (page 39), USAID notes that “contractors are allowed to count subcontractors and grantees as part of their subcontracting plan.” However, including grantees as part of the total estimated dollar value of all planned subcontracting in the Subcontracting

Plan could lead to inaccurate reporting in the eSRS system and an incorrect evaluation of a contractor’s small business utilization achievements. In accordance with Section H.34

Subcontracting Report, the contractor is required to submit semi-annual Individual

17 | P a g e

Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) in the eSRS system based on the goals established in the OSDBU approved Subcontracting Plan. The ISR report itself only allows for reporting of actual subcontracting accomplishments on subcontracts. Furthermore, Section M.6 Contracting with

Small Business Concerns of the RFP notes that these submitted ISRs will be used upon completion of contract performance by the Contracting Officer to evaluate a contractor’s actual subcontracting achievements as part of their CPARS rating. Given that inclusion of grantees as part of the subcontracting plan could create inaccurate ISR reports and could impact evaluation and future CPAR ratings, can USAID please confirm (1) that grantees should not be included in the calculation and reporting of the Subcontracting Plan and (2) that the Subcontracting Plan should only include calculations and reporting for non-profits when they are providing a service and/or product to be subcontracted?

Response: Contractors are allowed to count subcontractors and grantees as part of their subcontracting plan. The CORs will provide the CPARS rating and will have access to the ACES IDIQ contract and will be aware of the ACES requirement to count subcontractors and grantees as part of the subcontracting plan.

62. In response to Question 3, USAID states, “Offerors may include a narrative to describe their consortium and management approach as an annex, which will not be evaluated as part of the

Technical Evaluation Factors.” In response to Question 12 regarding whether offerors may include a few pages that succinctly present all consortium members (including non-major subcontractors) in the Contractor Performance Information section of their proposals, USAID states, “Offerors may present their consortia in the Executive Summary (L.8.B.5).” In response to

Question 28, USAID states that offerors may include information on their consortia and illustrative experts and anything else they deem important in the annex.”

a. Could USAID please confirm whether offerors may include information on their consortia in an annex, in the Executive Summary, or in both an annex and the Executive Summary?

Response: USAID has amended the RFP to no longer allow additional annexes that are not listed in L.8.b.

Instead we have increased the page limits for the Institutional Experience and Capability, Grants under

Contract, and Rapid Response Capability sections. Offerors may include additional information that previously may have been included as an annex into these sections, but understand that the page limit

63. Question 78 asked about where to include certain “quality awards or certifications that indicate exceptional capacity to provide the service or product described in the statement of work.” In response, USAID states, “Offerors may include the awards of partners in this annex.” It appears that this requirement, L.8.c.(d Factor Four)ii, is now located on page 119, but the text has remained the same.

18 | P a g e

a. Could USAID please confirm that an offeror may include information under this requirement related to any member of its consortia, including, but not limited to, the prime contractor and major subcontractors?

Response: USAID has revised the RFP to show that quality awards or certifications requested under

L.8.c.(d Factor Four) ii are only to be provided for Prime Offerors and Major Subcontractors.

b. If offerors may include information about non-major subcontractors’ quality awards in response to L.8.c.(d Factor Four)ii, will this information be evaluated?

Response: Please see USAID’s response to part A of question 63.

c. If offerors may include information about non-major subcontractors’ quality awards in response to L.8.c.(d Factor Four)ii, should this information be included in the same or a separate annex from Contractor Performance Information?

Response: Please see USAID’s response to part A of question 63.

64. In response to Question 100, USAID confirmed that “offerors may present rapid response capability for both the prime and for any subcontractors.”

a. Could USAID please confirm whether information for non-major subcontractors may be included in response to Section L.8.c (Factor 3 Rapid Response Capability), or whether any such information may only be included in an annex, in the Executive Summary, or in both an

Annex and the Executive Summary?

Response: Upon further consideration the decision to allow for rapid response capability information for non-major subcontractors has been revised. Offerors responding to Factor 3 – Rapid Response

Capability may present rapid response capability information for the prime offeror and major subcontractors only.

b. If offerors may include rapid response capability information for non-major subcontractors in the Rapid Response Capability section of the Technical Proposal, will this information be evaluated?

Response: Please see USAID’s response to part A of question 64.

65. USAID’s responses to Questions 3, 12, 28, 78, and 100 appear to create an inconsistency in the treatment of information regarding non-major subcontractors, allowing an expanded opportunity to present non-major subcontractor consortia members’ qualifications only when they have relevant rapid response capability and/or have received quality awards.

Comparatively, offerors whose consortia non-major subcontractors have strengths related to

19 | P a g e other evaluated factors appear to have no opportunity to present these strengths. Would USAID consider -

a. Allowing offerors to present information about all members of their consortia, including non-major subcontractors, for each evaluated section of the Technical Proposal?

Response: USAID has revised the RFP as part of Amendment number 4 to remove the ability for Offerors to present Rapid Response Capability Information and/or received quality awards for non-major subcontractors. This information must only be presented for the Prime Offerors and Major

Subcontractors.

b. Eliminating the presentation and evaluation of information for non-major subcontractors in the Technical Proposal sections for Factor 3 Rapid Response Capability and Factor 4

Contractor Performance Information?

Please see the response to part A of this question for the answer.

66. In response to Question 27, USAID states, “USAID will only evaluate the factors described in

Section L.” In response to Question 28, USAID states, “USAID will only evaluate the factors described in Section M.” While the factors described in Sections L and M appear to be identical, Section M provides additional detail regarding criteria that will be used to evaluate each factor.

a. Could USAID please confirm that the information regarding evaluation in Section M is controlling for purposes of evaluating offers?

Response: USAID can confirm that what is explained in Section M is how offerors are going to be evaluated.

73. On page 118 of the revised RFP, USAID uses the following language in Section L’s instructions for

Factor Four: “The offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself, the contractor teaming arrangements, if any, and each major subcontractor…”. Please clarify what USAID means by “contractor teaming arrangements” in reference to past performance of the prime’s consortium.

Response: A prime contractor’s “teaming arrangement” is the same as a prime’s consortium.

74. The ACES RFP and Q&A demonstrate a welcome commitment to expanding small business opportunities.