Transcript: Pre-Bid Conference on the Agriculture Reconstruction and Development for Iraq (ARDI) RFP
June 17, 2003
MS. PETERSON: Good morning. My name is Dana Peterson, and I am with the Asia and Near East Bureau here at USAID and serving as the deputy reconstruction adviser for Iraq.
It is my pleasure to welcome you this morning to the Pre-Bid Conference for our Agriculture Reconstruction and Development Program for Iraq.
As you know, the requests for proposals for this program was announced on June 4th. This morning's session is an opportunity to highlight how this program fits within the overall reconstruction portfolio for USAID, as well as to respond to questions in the audience.
I should highlight that actually this is being broadcast live on the web, as well, for those who are unable to participate physically here, and we will ensure that a transcript is available on the entire proceedings as well.
I would like to briefly describe our overall reconstruction portfolio, as well as highlight some factors that will be important to consider in preparing any response to this solicitation. My colleagues will elaborate on technical issues and respond to various inquiries as well.
We presume that many of you have already visited USAID's web page/website and looked at our overall reconstruction portfolio. As you know, USAID is undertaking vital work in restoring economically critical infrastructure, including the power sector, major transportation routes, water and sanitation systems, and important public buildings such as schools and health facilities.
We are addressing the delivery of essential social services, particularly health and education. In this effort, we are working closely with U.N. organizations, such as UNICEF and WHO. We are helping to improve the efficiency and accountability of government, focused at the local level, and helping to expand economic opportunities throughout Iraq. This agriculture program is one of the primary components of the latter objective.
USAID has been undertaking reconstruction efforts in meeting the objectives I've just mentioned since around mid-April. The President declared the cessation of major combat just a little over six weeks ago. We encourage all bidders to review USAID's web page, which highlights our key implementing partners, the priority sectors for our support, and our implementation efforts to date. We do a public fact sheet that is updated at least twice a week, and that highlights what implementation efforts we have undertaken in humanitarian relief and reconstruction.
In terms of setting a context for our implementation efforts, bidders should recognize that work has been, and will be, undertaken with close coordination with coalition military forces. Security remains a concern and challenge for implementation. It is a highly fluid situation in-country and implementers will need to demonstrate flexibility and adaptability.
That said, there are clear benchmarks within the requests for proposals, and USAID's implementing partner is expected to achieve those benchmarks. It is important that we deliver on our commitments and deliver quickly. We want to support Iraqi-led initiatives and capacities and ensure Iraqi ownership in all program interventions.
We would also like to draw upon international expertise and anticipate the bidders will seek to establish a well-coordinated consortium of internationally acclaimed institutions, with substantial experience and extensive international ties.
Bidders should be aware that there will be upcoming IMF and World Bank assessments and that other donors are engaged in this sector and related sectors--Australia being a primary donor. My colleagues can speak more to this as well.
In terms of USAID's structure in the field, USAID will operate like a standard aid mission. Lou Luck is our mission director, and he currently has approximately 25 staff focused on reconstruction, as well as a number of staff addressing humanitarian relief through our Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, Office of Food for Peace and Office of Transition Initiatives.
USAID is part of the overall Office of Coalition Provisional Authority headed by Ambassador Paul Bremer, with USAID comprising approximately one-third of the overall reconstruction effort for the U.S. Government.
Before turning this conference over to my colleagues, I would like to highlight that this session is focused solely on the solicitation for the Agriculture Reconstruction and Development Program for Iraq. We are not addressing other Iraq reconstruction procurements in this session, nor are we in a position to speak to broader administration policies with respect to Iraq.
If there are any press questions, there will be a representative from our Legislative and Public Affairs Office Available with whom you can speak at the end of this session.
I would like to now introduce my colleagues who are here with me today. Mr. Ray Morton, Larry Paulson and John Wilson are agricultural specialists here at USAID and can speak to the technical issues with respect to this proposal or this solicitation and Ann Quinlan and John Griffin are with our Office of Procurement.
I'd actually like to first turn this over to Ann Quinlan to set the context.
Thank you.
MS. QUINLAN: Actually, if I'd come a few minutes earlier, I was going to tell Dana that I really didn't have too much to say. I actually have not, to be honest, I haven't seen a copy of the RFP yet because Charles Mosby is handling it in Iraq, and I just got back today and haven't had a chance to look it over. So I really will be here just to answer general questions that I can, and any that I can't answer, we are going to have them all answered at some point and sent out to you all. So we will make sure that all of your questions and answers are answered.
That's about it.
MS. PETERSON: Actually, I should highlight, if technology supports us, we are in a position to call Charles Mosby, who is the contracting officer out in Kuwait City. But what we would like to do is take as many of the questions and respond to them as we can with colleagues here, and then maybe in the remaining 10 or 15 minutes of our time together we can put a call into Charles, and he can address some of the more detailed, specific field-related questions.
I'd now like to turn this over to Ray Morton.
Thank you.
MR. MORTON: Good morning. My name is Ray Morton. I'm a senior policy adviser with the Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade Bureau. I'm in the Office of Agriculture.
I would like to introduce Larry Paulson, who also works with me in the same office, and John Wilson, environmental officer from the Asian-Near East Bureau.
I'd like to ask you, if you wouldn't mind, quickly--I know this takes up time--but it's important that you know who is here, I think. So I'd like you to spend, just stand up and please give us your name, your organization you're with, please.
[Attendees introduced themselves off microphone.]
MR. MORTON: Is there anyone else? Yes, sorry, Dave.
MR. : [Off microphone.] David [inaudible].
MR. MORTON: Good morning to all of you. Of course, I need to sort of repeat what Charles normally would say, which is that this pre-bidders conference is an option that we exercise for a number of reasons, and it is conducted under kind of a restricted format. It's an opportunity for us to clarify any misunderstanding or to add new information that will be available to everyone. It's also an opportunity for you to make contacts and get to know each other. Particularly for this project, we're hoping that you'll have an opportunity to build some strong relationships when you submit your proposals.
The way we're going to do this, I learned from Charles Mosby last time we did this, is we're going to go through the questions in the order in which they were received, and some of them will be repetitive. There are 44 questions all together. A lot of them deal with information that was in the RFP, and then there are a number of questions that deal with more general issues such as how do we eat and other things like that.
So, then, when we finish the 44 questions, then we'll take questions from the floor. There will be many times, when you ask questions, that we do not have the answers, but we will find the answers, and they also will become part of the document that is posted on the web.
So I'll begin.
First of all, there also is a sheet going around that we'd ask you to make sure, a sign-up sheet, just so we keep track of who is here. It is on one of these legal pads.
First QUESTION: Are there any surveys or data available on the type, condition and manufacturers of farm equipment and implements?
None that we're aware of. We have anecdotal evidence, but it cannot be substantiated.
Question No. 2: Are there surveys, maps or data available on the terrain, vegetation, canals, et cetera, in the separate areas of the country?
Yes. We're not quite sure of their accuracy, but there are some excellent background publications that have been prepared by FAO. You may want to comment later.
Question 3: Is there any data available on the size, location, type and utilization of farms, farm products and farm product storage facilities?
Yes, for all except the last; the farm production storage facilities. FAO, again, has some information on that.
Question No. 4: How is USAID defining permissive area that was discussed in the RFP?
Well, we took a crack at this, but here goes. This has been blessed by Charles, who's out there living for a month now, so we'll see how it sounds. A permissive area is an area--it sounds like a midterm question--a permissive area is an area that has been formerly determined by the coalitional provisional authority--I'll refer to it as the CPA from this point forward--to be secure to the point that development activities can be planned, implemented and monitored by the prime contractor, subcontractors and grantees.
No. 5: What is the time estimate for when Iraq's permissive areas will be determined? When will bidders know where these areas are and when they can be entered?
The supreme authority here is the CPA. USAID does not have a schedule.
Question 6: Can we use cell phones, other type of communication? MCI has set up a local Baghdad cellular communication. International connectivity is still only via satellite phone. Issues related to telecommunications structure are still being discussed within the U.S. Government.
Question 7: When will communications outside Iraq be operational?
We don't know.
Question 8: Will we have contact names and numbers for USAID representatives, et cetera, in country?
The awardee will have contact names for USAID representatives. Some of them were given to you by Dana, both in the field and in Washington.
No. 9: How do we work with other groups in the country who are also redeveloping the Iraqi agricultural sector, such as the Australians who have been brought in to assist?
Well, you might want to ask that question of the representative from the Australian, and Netherlands, and some of the other groups that are represented here today, but the official answer is the awardee will have coordination between donors, NGOs, public international organizations and advisory team leaders of the Iraqi Government ministries is the responsibility of the CPA.
Recently, a program review board was established to coordinate all development activities in Iraq. USAID does not have--we do have some knowledge of its operating authority and program responsibilities, and Dana can give you some information on that.
Do you want to do it now?
MS. PETERSON: As questions--
MR. MORTON: Okay. As questions arrive.
No. 10: Who coordinates which other groups and teens are working in a zone in Iraq at the same time?
The CPA.
No. 11: A comment and then a question. We plan to put our headquarters in Kuwait City and work from there to begin with. Is there a problem with this?
USAID program contractors and grantees are expected to have operations headquartered in Baghdad.
No. 12: Will we be able to travel across the borders easily?
Answer: It depends on how you define easy. What--USAID employs a mission support contractor that has been helpful in assisting our contractor staff in Baghdad in navigating the paperwork necessary for border crossings. Talking with other people, it is complicated.
Once beyond the learning curve, contractors are taking the lead in arranging their own immigration and visa arrangements.
No. 13: Can military bases or Bechtel's facilities be used as housing sources during the assessment period?
Answer: Program contractors may be helpful in providing leads, but count on having to make your own housing arrangements once in the region.
No. 14: What would be our source for food, water, medicines, evacuation?
AFCAP, which I don't know what the acronym stands for--Air Force Contract Augmentation Program--the contractor receiving the award will receive a comprehensive orientation on these life-support issues at the time of award.
No. 15: Comment and then a question. Section B-3, Estimated Cost, Fixed Fee and Obligated Amount, Page 3 of the RFP. The total budget is built up by a budget for works. I assume that that means activities and a fixed fee--$37 million plus $3 million--available for reimbursement of allowable costs incurred by the contractor in an amount of $2 million. From which part of the total budget is this latter amount coming and for what type of reimbursable activities will it be destined?
Answer: Two million dollars is simply the amount of money the U.S. Government will fund up front at the time of contract award. Think of it as a down payment. It funds any reimbursable activity under the contract plus fee.
No. 17: Section F-2, Period of Performance, Page 22. Is it correct that the proposal and associated budget is to be submitted for the contract period of one year only and does not take into account possible contract extensions?
We got some new information back on that this morning, but the answer is the $40 million, independent estimate for the base period, one year, is the only amount that's there, but contractors, as I recall in the answer, what Charles has said, is that they are to prepare their program for Years 2 and 3 as well, including the budget, correct? Thank you. Including the pricing.
Did I say that correctly?
I'm sorry. I missed 16.
No. 16: Section B-3, Estimated Cost, Fixed Fee, and Obligated Amount, Page 3. The fees--are the fees of the subcontractor also part of the fixed fees of $3 million?
Yes. Your entire subcontractor's will be listed as one line item in your overall budget.
Now, we move to 18: Section C-5-1, Initial Planning, Page 16. The text states that the contractor will establish a core technical team. Will such a team include long-term, as well as short-term technical specialists? Which budget will cater for the fees of these core team specialists?
Well, there were two questions. The first question, will a team include long- and short-term specialists? Probably, but this is the offerer's decision.
Question B: Which budget will cater for the fees of these core team specialists? This is the offerer's decision. However, the intention is that the prime does.
No. 19: Section L-2, Dunn's Registration. Maybe somebody can explain what this is. Page 65. Are possible subcontractors and interested vendors, as well as a consortium, C-3 Page 8, obliged to obtain the Dunn's registration? If yes, at what stage in the process should they register to be included a proposal for short listing?
All U.S. vendors, whether proposing to be primes or subcontractors, should already have Dunn's registration or be working towards that end.
Question 20: Section H-10, Security Requirements, Page 36. Clarification of how to obtain and maintain a facility--I hope you're not worried that you're missing things here because everything that is said, including the Comcast, plus, I guess in the written, too, will be on the web. So the main thing is listen. If there's something you don't understand, then ask a follow-up question. I'll keep going, then.
Let's see, we're on Question 20, correct? Section H-10, Security Requirements, Page 36. Clarification of how to obtain and maintain a facilities clearance. Facilities clearances shall be required for vendors with access to classified information or controlled facilities.
Our answer is that we have no information whether such access is necessary for ARD. You'll clarify that later. Make a note of that. Section 20 we'll clarify later.
Question 21: Permissive Areas. I have to read every question, so that some of them are redundant.
Presolicitation notice states that the implementation of this program will only take place in permissive areas. We would like to know the geographic locations of these permissive areas and which percentage of the approximately 5 million hectares, cultivated and irrigated, are covered by these permissive areas. What is the forecast for August 2003?
First question, well, we would like to know, too.
Second question, what is the forecast for August 2003? Check with the CPA.
Question 22: Impact Assessment. Can it be reasonably well assumed that many data describing the existing situation have been lost? How will the assessments be made? You recall in the RFP it talks about the one month, and then the four assessments after that. How will the assessments be made, where baseline data and referential information are lacking? This is the offerer's decision.
Question 23: Supplies of key agricultural inputs. Planting seeds and materials, fertilizer and crop protection chemicals are urgently required to support the fall 2003 planting season. Which rules and regulations for these imports will apply? Which procedures will have to be followed to comply with international standards on phytosanitary requirements? Are there preferences for the import for sowing seed produced in the region?
Question A, which dealt with which rules and regulations apply, already specifies that the 935 geographic code applies. You recall that that means that commodities may be procured in the United States, the cooperating country--I believe sanctions have been lifted--and worldwide, excluding foreign policy-restricted countries, and there's a list of them. They include North Korea and other places.
B, that question dealt with which procedures have to be followed to comply with international standards on phytosanitary requirements. I'll add to that things like AID's own regulations regarding pesticides if they were to be used.
Rules and regulations for imports should comply with international standards and sanitary/phytosanitary requirements. An example would be for seed, if they exist, and if they do not compromise the accomplishment of ARD's objectives. In other situations, there may be no minimum international standards, but there may be industry standards or good-practice standards. An example of it would be tractors or laboratory equipment.
However, the contractor's assessments after ARD begins should include specifications to enable USAID to determine if value will be received and will accomplish the intended outcome on time.
So it's a lot of good judgment here.
The preference, the third question, are there preferences for the import of sowing seeds produced in the region?
Based on our experience, the preference for improved seed would be to purchase or facilitate the purchase of high-quality seed that was grown by Iraqi farmers, assuming that it was, that it accomplished the purposes of the project. The rapid restoration and establishment of agricultural markets is a high priority of the U.S. Government and other Governments and of this particular proposal. Ultimately, this is an offerer's decision.
Question 24: Supplies of building materials and machineries for construction purposes. Which rules and regulations apply for the import of cement, building materials and equipment for construction work, assuming that there may be a lack of capacity and stock locally.
Awardee would be referred to our logistic support contractor, who can provide turnkey Customs clearance assistance wherever you're importing from.
No. 25: As best I can tell, this RFP includes no agricultural machinery, only irrigation systems; is that correct?
Answer: No.
Obviously, other field and laboratory equipment would be necessary, structures as well, for agricultural processing; for example, the ARD text only provided examples.
Answer: This is the offerer's decision.
No. 26: What types of machinery are currently in use in Iraq and what are AID's plans to improve the mechanization of Iraqi agriculture and horticulture?
First question, not known. We don't know with enough precision to tell you.
Final answer: Offerer's decision.
No. 27: I note that the geographic code is 935. If my memory serves me correctly, that means that it is open to bids from almost any country; is that correct? If so, why?
Refer to Question No. 23, when we talked about what Geographic Code 935 was. It's the United States, cooperating country and any other country, except the ones that are excluded.
No. 28: Is the budget to be submitted for one year or one year and a two-year--and two-year extension years?
We answered that Question No. 17.
No. 29: Is the estimated $40 million for one year or three years?
It's for fiscal year 2003.
Question No. 30: Section B-3 provides an estimate of the $40 million, while Section J provides an estimate of $30 million. Please explain the discrepancy.
Forty million dollars is correct for fiscal year 2003.
Question No. 31: On Page 86, Attachment 4, Resume Format. It is stated that each consultant should list other selected international consulting assignments with a primary emphasis on housing and shelter programs, as specified in Section C. Please clarify.
Well, you're looking at a standard resume format that was copied from another RFP. We should have changed it, but didn't. But it's the format that should be of interest to you. We're dealing with agriculture and not housing and shelter.
No. 32: Is military training still required before sending consultants to Iraq?
Yes, training is still required for anyone coming to the region for more than 14 days continuously.
Question 33: Where will USAID's point of operation be in Iraq? Where will the project's head office be set up?
The answer to all of that is Baghdad.
No. 34: For e-mail transmission of the proposal, may the documents be submitted in Adobe Acrobat, PDF format?
Answer: USAID prefers Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel.
Question 35: On Page 68, it is stated that the technical proposal shall be typed 10 characters per inch. Does this mean any font in 10-point size?
Answer: This is Charles' answer. Whichever pleases your eye, but I have bad eyesight, so, you know--these guys have glasses, so keep it in mind, but I guess it's 10.
Question 36: Job orders. Will the core consortium members be able to implement job orders?
Yes, if they are subcontractors. The prime may also, with USAID approval, in accordance with conditions specified in the RFP, as explained subsequently by the USAID mission.
We just took care of this, Charles and I just communicated on this a few minutes ago. There will be the following paragraph that will be inserted, and I'll be glad to explain this in a follow-up question session if you want.
USAID Baghdad or Iraq may prepare and request approval from the administrative contracting officer for an exemption to permit ARD contractor or an ARD subcontractor or grantee to design and implement ARD activities if one of three conditions are met:
The design entity possesses a predominant capability for the specific activity mentioned;
Two, and/or the selection of separate entities for design and implementation of an activity jeopardizes the ability of USAID to accomplish its related grant objectives or receive its deliverables or expected outcomes of ARD.
So that was with job orders, No. 36.
No. 37: Irrigation Equipment. The RFP mentions that irrigation system components and repairs C-4.4 results will be paid for under the infrastructure construction project. The definition of irrigation system components is clearly represented in Footnote 2, in Section C-6. There is no mention of irrigation equipment rehabilitation.
Are all equipment repairs, rehabilitation supposed to be carried out under the ARD budget or will this be included in the infrastructure/construction contract?
Answer: All activities proposed by the offerer must be funded under the budget of ARD. There is no alternate or supplemental source of funding for any ARD activity.
Question 38: Section B-3, Page 3. Paragraph A lists an aggregate contract of $40 million, while on Page 51, the budget breakdown totals $31 million and lists the total of $30 million. Please reconcile the numbers and advise of any revisions to the budget breakdown by CLIN.
There are no, remember, it's an illustrated budget, not the budget. That's the offerer's decision. And I've already answered the question. We are talking about fiscal year 2003, and the answer is 40.
Question 39: The geographic code listed on Page 35 is 935. Can this be expanded to add the host country or is Iraq still considered to be on the restricted list?
We've answered that question in 23.
Question 40: On Page 36, H-9. The requirement to attend a training session at Fort Sill is listed. In addition, the requirement exists to deploy within 14 days after contract signing. Are we to assume that during the two weeks following contract signing, the start-up team will be trained? And, if so, are the costs related to this training included in the project budget or outside the project budget?
Answer: You assume correctly that the training requirement remains and that staff will be expected to mobilize immediately after contract signing. USAID will provide the costs for the training separately unless other arrangements are negotiated.
Question 41: On Page 36, Section H-8, defines the payment guidelines for former Iraqi civil service. Is it possible to hire Iraqi citizens that are not formal civil servants and enter into an employee/employer relationship on this project?
Answer: Program contractors operating in Iraq are already proposing and hiring local nationals that are not former civil servants and may enter into employee/employer relationships with them on this project. Section H-8 was inserted as a method of handling this.
Question 42: Section C. It is apparent that the project management technical assistance is funded through CLIN 5. Will the technical assistance required to perform the assessment to develop the job orders be funded through any other CLIN?
Answer: Technical assistance may be funded in any amount under the three main elements of ARD; that is, Sections C-3-1 through C-3-4. It's, again, offerer's decision.
No. 43: Do any other CLIN's--that's Contract Line Item--do any other CLIN's, other than CLIN 6, include grant funds?
No. No.
Question 44: Will members of the contractors consortium, including the prime contractor, be allowed to implement job orders?
All job orders will be issued by the prime contractor. The contractor makes business decisions as to the subcontracting arrangements necessary to accomplish the objectives of the job order; of course, in consultation and with approval of USAID.
Those are the 44 questions.
Now, if I've made any grave transgressions here, maybe we should take care of some of those. Refer to the question, though, so they know, and it'll become part of the record if I misspoke.
MS. PETERSON: I would just like to clarify on a few issues, and I actually didn't note, sorry, which question it referred to, but there were a few questions related to where it was expected, that would be the headquarters.
And while Baghdad would be the headquarters office, we should highlight that some of our implementing partners are looking at regional offices. And in terms of the structure of the coalition provisional authority, there are offices in al Hilla, Basrah, and up North in Irbil area.
So I think there is recognition of the value in ensuring nationwide coverage, and the offerer, the bidders would need to look at what is the most cost-effective way to achieve the objectives in terms of the management structure in the field, et cetera.
In terms of permissive areas, given how fluid the situation is in-country, it is difficult to sort of specify various geographic areas at this point in time. I think, in terms of preparing proposals, one should assume universal sort of implementation efforts around the country, and then once award is made, there would be a thorough briefing with the implementing partner on what is realistic in terms of implementation. But for your own budgeting and planning purposes, I would assume universal implementation.
And then in terms of the security requirements, the RFP does note that there is the potential for the prime to need to have access to classified information, thus, requiring a facilities clearance.
However, in looking at subrelationships and reaching out to international partners, et cetera, the prime would need to determine whether the subs may also need to have access to classified information. If so, then there are obviously restrictions and requirements on which firms would be eligible. But it's assumed that a range of work can be implemented in an unclassified manner. So I hope that helps clarify.
And I know Ann wanted to clarify on Question 35 as well.
MS. QUINLAN: Yes, I just wanted to make a comment about the font size that was mentioned. That is a requirement for a minimum font size, so you can't have a font size any smaller than that. For the readability, that's the reason why we demand at least a 10. And in terms of whether to use a larger font size, it's up to you, but of course it is going to affect how much material you can get in the total number of pages allowed in the proposal.
MS. PETERSON: So, if we can, why don't we open this up to questions. And, again, given that this is broadcast live on the web as well, we will need to have people come and speak into the microphone there. Please, and if you could, identify yourselves again when you ask the question.
QUESTION: I'm Dan Brown with Development Alternatives.
Did I understand you correctly that we're now to propose Option Year 2 and Option Year 3 as part of the package? Do you have any target funding levels for those years?
MS. PETERSON: Do you want to answer that or you?
You've spoken with Charles about this. Can you answer?
MR. MORTON: [Off microphone.]
MS. PETERSON: Can you repeat your question one more time, too, just so we can make sure, and then we can also when we call Charles.
QUESTION: Yes. The question now is you are now, well, to confirm that you are now requesting a Year 2 and a Year 3 cost proposal, as well as program proposal. And in that regard, do you have any funding levels determined yet for those years?
And then as a subset question to that, would we be allowed to propose implementation projects in the first year that would extend into the option years or do we have to propose only implementation programs that have a deadline that end in 12 months?
MS. PETERSON: In terms of the latter question, this is envisioned, at this point, to be a 12-month program, and then those two are one-year options, but this is a 12-month program, so that should be the focus. And my understanding, in looking at funding levels for Year 2 and 3 was that those would be based on the Year 1, but we will be able to confirm that, hopefully, with Charles if we can call him.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. PETERSON: Thank you.
Please.
QUESTION: Dion Love from the Australian Embassy.
I just have a follow-up question to that in relation to Years 2 and 3. Understanding that this is probably ultimately a question for the Congress, more than anything, to decide, I would just like to know if there are any instances of a project that was anticipated to extend for two or three years, not actually getting the funding to extend. Can we assume that that project will extend beyond the first year?
And my second question is what is the anticipated split between technical advice and procurement of supplies, if that's available?
Thank you.
MR. MORTON: [Off microphone.] What is the last part of your question?
QUESTION: What is the anticipated split between technical advice and procurement of supplies?
MR. MORTON: [Off microphone.] [Inaudible.]
MS. PETERSON: For those viewing from the web, the answer to the last question on the split between technical advice and procurement of supplies, it is the offerer's decision.
In terms of the extensions, et cetera, again, at this point, we are focused on the 12 months, and depending upon possibility of future available resources, what Iraqis prioritize and request for assistance, et cetera, there are many factors that would come into play for continued engagement, but at this point, the focus is on the 12 months.
Please?
QUESTION: Mohammed Sayed [?] with the American Kurdish Center.
Being from Iraq, I think I know the problems. The primary, number one problem is soil salinity, probably all of you know. So how would you put the priority? Because in the Northern region, the Kurdish region, it's mostly [?] agriculture, and the middle and South is mostly irrigation.
Of course, with the irrigation system, you need a drainage. Now, if this would involve establishing a new drainage system or using the currently available drainage system? Because, as you probably know, to put up a new system is going to be very costly, the drainage system to cover all of the arable land in the middle and South.
And if you use just the currently what is available, of course, this is not going to I think meet the demand or our expectations. So there definitely would be greater costs involved. So how do we put priorities for this project?
Thank you.
MS. PETERSON: Thank you.
MR. WILSON: Thank you. John Wilson.
We understand that salinization of soils is a tremendous problem facing the agriculture sector in Iraq. We have, in this proposal, opportunities for rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructure. It is something we would expect you to attend to, but it is the offerer's decision.
MR. MORTON: Please avail yourself of the microphone.
QUESTION: Patricia [?] from the Iraq Foundation.
I wanted to ask if the solicitation covers the restoration of the marshlands. And, if so, does the bidder need to demonstrate knowledge of the marshlands?
MR. MORTON: At this point, the proposal does not address the rehabilitation of the marshlands. We are attending to that in a separate action.
QUESTION: Richard Rozlowski [ph], ABC Poland, and also ScanAgri Denmark.
Can foreign companies be subcontractors to more than one proposal? That's the first question.
And do, I assume foreign companies do not have to have this Dunn's registration or do they?
MR. MORTON: If I knew what it meant, I could answer that question.
MS. PETERSON: Maybe, Ray, you can address the first part and then the Dunn's registration from colleagues in the Office of Procurement.
MR. MORTON: This is an issue that we dealt with when we also dealt with the other country. What we tried to do in the Pre-Bid conference there is try to impress upon the folks that came to that conference that what we are trying to do here is to ensure that we have any number of very good proposals that fall within a competitive range.
This is a consortium, so there is the prime contractor responsible for the overall direction and implementation of the project, and then the prime, I assume that the primes will then, those of you that are going to bid as primes, will put together a consortium that factors into your technical proposal so that we can, so that whoever evaluates the proposal can track the technical approach that you've taken with the management approach and so forth.
So what we--there is no way that we can enforce what I'm going to ask you to do, but we would rely upon your professional integrity that to allow the subs and the primes to work across with each other. So that, for instance, the last thing we want is for a prime to lock up a sub and then that prohibits that sub from talking with other primes or being approached by other primes.
Likewise, the subs should feel--so the subs should, therefore, feel free to move around and talk with other potential primes.
On the other hand, the primes, when it comes to actually discussing the RFP, are going to come to the point where they may feel compelled to release information to a potential sub to convince that potential sub that that sub should be involved with that prime.
So it's sort of a professional decision that you all are going to have to make. In other words, from the standpoint of the prime, you don't have to release proprietary data, like your cost units and so forth, to a sub, but you should feel free, and the sub should feel free to talk with each other or with primes and to find out where the good marriage will occur with respect to the proposal.
Did I make myself clear? I know it's rather confusing. What we were trying to do was to create an atmosphere where people felt like they could move around in the proposal preparation stage without feeling that they had to sign up with the first prime that they spoke with.
So are there any follow-up questions on that?
Yes?
QUESTION: Richard Rozlowski, again.
MS. QUINLAN: Yes, I just wanted to clarify the point on the Dunn's number. It's only required for primes and not for subs.
QUESTION: Just to clarify, then, if you're a foreign company, and you enter an arrangement with a prime contractor, are you defined as a sub or are you defined as part of a consortium? Is there a difference?
MR. MORTON: I got distracted.
MS. PETERSON: I'm sorry. I didn't hear.
MR. MORTON: You want to know--let's rephrase the question. Would you stand and just rephrase it again. We've already got it on tape, so you can do it back there.
QUESTION: Is there any difference in being part of the consortium and being a sub? Is this two different things or it's the same thing?
MR. MORTON: It's the same thing. The consortium is the format in which you work. The prime will have to set up different relationships with the contractor, the part of their consortium that they're going to contract with, and a different relationship with the one that they're going to issue grants to.
Please? If you don't mind, I'll ask you to come up to the microphone. Is that microphone okay?
QUESTION: [?] Farms.
For this first year or at least the current proposal, is the emphasis only going to be in rehabilitating the current agriculture infrastructure and crops or will you also look at introducing new crop types, new kinds of agriculture and maybe export agriculture that requires less arable land, like nurseries, in vitro culture, seed plants, rather than pure agriculture that produces food for--I know that was an emphasis in the proposal, initially, but thinking long term, with the lack of arable land, there are other types of agriculture that may be more beneficial.
MR. MORTON: I could elaborate on that, but I think that you have some good ideas, so this would be an offerer's decision.
QUESTION: Mohammed Kasim [ph].
The entire system has collapsed in Iraq, and clearly the one-year focus means getting the next crop in and out. What are you doing about things like credit, reconstruction of--urgent reconstruction of irrigation systems that have been tanked out or bombed out, and where are these funds coming from, and is this already programmed or is this going to be another two-year waiting list?
MR. MORTON: I would refer you to the RFP which lists the four elements of the project. Notice that the RFP is divided into an emergency phase and then intermediate development phases. But with respect, you know, there are opportunities for--I'm just repeating what's in the RFP--but there are opportunities for technology development, market development, infrastructure that's important for agriculture, as well as rural financial services.
Rural financial services include whatever the offerer feels will accomplish the results that are listed on this page.
QUESTION: Within the $40 million?
MR. MORTON: Within the $40 million. And let me just speak a little bit about these results. There are copies of this you can get on the way out. This is just a repeat out of the RFP. These are indicative or illustrative results. They allow the offerer to have some targets to work from. They are our best estimates of what we think, one, is needed; two, can be accomplished; and, three, provides a return on our investment.
As you recall in the RFP, the awardee has to submit a work plan within the first month I believe it is and a plan for the assessments. So we would assume that a year from now or six months from now that these will look different, but they are there to provide a starting point for your proposals.
The other issue that I'll mention that I think I need to clarify is, you know, you almost got to it--I think you were going to--Mr. Kasim--I thought you were going to mention you needed, we talked about this year's crop, this year's agricultural cycle of the fall and winter planning. When USAID prepared this RFP, we had full expectations that we would have had this conference several months back.
So I think to keep everybody on the same page, it's important to tell you that you follow what's in the RFP. You may know yourself that the window for addressing issues in the summer season has closed, but you should take the RFP for what's in it literally.
Clear on that? Okay.
QUESTION: Hi. I'm Barbara Blair from CYBAstaff America, also the Educational Services of CBYAstaff America.
My question is how are you handling the woman-owned business contract award, and will that come from the contract directly or does that come from a prime vendor?
MS. QUINLAN: Could you just clarify the question a little.
QUESTION: Yes. Is there an award or a set-aside for woman-owned businesses?
MS. QUINLAN: No, there's not an actual set-aside for women-owned businesses, but that is one of the classes in the small business subcontracting plan that the offerer should be addressing, but not a specific set-aside, no.
QUESTION: So how would you go about that?
MS. QUINLAN: I mean, if you are a woman-owned business, I would just suggest contacting some of the firms that are planning on bidding them and let them know of your firm's expertise, and in that way just let them know how valuable your services would be to the contract.
QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.
MS. QUINLAN: I'll just mention one thing. Ray just showed me in the RFP there's actually an amount of 14 percent in the RFP that is going to be allocated to small and disadvantaged firms and also women-owned. So, like I said, there is some encouragement of the use of small businesses, including women-owned, and you should market your firms abilities to the primes.
QUESTION: Barbara Drudi [ph] of the American Kurdish Center.
I had a question. Where you were speaking about Australia as being one of the prime donors to agricultural reconstruction, and the World Bank and the IMF doing assessments, does USAID have a plan, at this point, for coordinating with other governments that are planning to contribute AID money? And should we be keeping that in mind or contacting outside partners beyond the U.S. at this point?
MS. PETERSON: There are numerous donor coordination efforts taking place, and we have a number of different countries represented in Iraq, and we're coordinating both at the headquarters level, as well as in the field.
In terms of reaching out to other countries, it's been assumed that, per the provisions in the RFP, that proposals will address international consortia, seek to draw upon international expertise in submitting their proposals and defining what work they will undertake.
Does that help address your question?
QUESTION: [Off microphone.]
MS. PETERSON: I'm sorry. If you could come--sorry--
QUESTION: Thank you. That partly does, but part of the question is, when money is being made available by other governments to do what you say it is doing with American money, how will that get connected up with the projects being proposed here?
MS. PETERSON: My colleagues have indicated that the Australians are planning to provide around $40 million to support the agriculture sector as well. I guess what's assumed is, per the provisions in the RFP for the independent estimate of costs for year one, that is based on likely available resources from USAID and the U.S. Government.
In terms of work with other donors in that, it would probably relate to ensuring complementary effort with other interventions that they are undertaking as well.
Does that help address the question?
QUESTION: [Off microphone.] [Inaudible.]
MS. PETERSON: Sorry, just to clarify, it's 40 million Australian dollars for the support by Australia. Thank you.
Please?
QUESTION: Dave Garms from IFDC.
A follow-on question to Barbara's question, and that is--I don't want to put words in her mouth--but I think what she might have been getting at is, in other countries, there's some kind of a donor coordination mechanism. Like in Afghanistan, there's a very active donor coordination mechanism that is extremely effective. And so the question is do we see anything like that evolving in Iraq, with perhaps the World Bank taking the lead or some other international organization taking the lead with such a group meeting periodically and coming up with an inventory of what other donors are doing and publishing in that, and that makes it much easier for various organizations to then contact the right people and facilitate communication and coordination. So that's my follow-up question, is if we see something like that evolving.
Thank you.
MS. PETERSON: Yes, we do. And there are going to be preparatory meetings in New York at the end of June, in looking at donor coordination efforts and how that will evolve, and I think everyone recognizes the value in that.
In the interim, there is what is called a humanitarian information center out in the field and a web page called www.agoodplacetostart.org. That has a number of assessments on that web page. It highlights what's being undertaken by other donors, and that may be a useful resource to at least get a sense of what others may be doing.
In addition, with USAID's daily fact sheet that is available on our web, we have tried to capture what other donors are contributing to the relief and reconstruction effort in Iraq. So those are some other ways in which you can gather that information. But in terms of a more formal system for donor coordination, that is evolving and is recognized as valuable.
QUESTION: Tom [?], Louis Berger Group.
Two questions. Can we assume there are no prohibitions on working with former state-owned enterprises?
And, secondly, is a six-day work week permitted?
Thank you.
MS. PETERSON: Okay. Please.
MR. MORTON: State-owned enterprises--
QUESTION: Former state-owned.
MR. MORTON: Yes, former state-owned enterprises. This is a market-led approach. I don't think any firm decision or policy paper or assessment or report has been prepared that categorically says that all state-owned enterprises will be privatized.
On the other hand, I think if you are referring back to the RFP, one can clearly see that the intention of USAID's assistance is to restore, rebuild or build new markets or any markets that clearly allow for private-sector growth as the best engine for economic growth and social growth overall.
So there may be ways in which former state-owned enterprises, the resources of those, human resources or physical infrastructure can be used, but that's up to the offerer's decision, but I want to be absolutely clear about this, in that the intent of the U.S. Government is to get markets moving.
Did I answer that question, Tom? Yes.
Oh, work week. I don't know what the deal is on that. It's actually seven days, but--
[Laughter.]
MS. QUINLAN: I believe I saw it in the RFP, and of course, right now, with your question, I can't seem to find it, but I'll clarify that for you.
MS. PETERSON: I was going to try and also call Charles, but, please, if people have additional questions, we will also be over here trying to contact Charles Mosby in Kuwait City.
Ray, if you want to stand here to field additional questions.
QUESTION: Good morning. Nathan Klein, Sibley International.
I'd just like to confirm what the small business size standard will be for this project. I believe the RFP listed $5 million, but I believe that all related mix codes have been adjusted within the past year to $6 million, and I'd just like to confirm which number USAID will be using.
Thank you.
MS. QUINLAN: I'll double check on that, too, and get back to you. I mean, if it has been changed in the last year, of course, it's going to have to go with the more recent number, and we'll check on that.
QUESTION: I'm Jim Maxwell from ARD.
Given the security requirements, will long-term personnel have to be U.S. citizens?
MR. MORTON: No. Do long-term personnel have to be U.S. citizens? No. Nor do, just to be absolutely clear about this, do subs have to be U.S. companies. I think we wanted to make that clear. That was an issue. This is full and open competition. I don't know if we stressed that, but this is like the other contracts in other countries, this is full and open competition.
MS. PETERSON: If I can just clarify, if there are key personnel that are envisioned to be in a position to receive classified information that will need to, those individuals will need to be U.S. citizens. But in meeting the other objectives of the contract in an unclassified manner, there would be no restrictions.
I'm going to continue to try to call.
MR. MORTON: Any other questions?
Clarification, John?
MR. WILSON: I did want to clarify, on the marshland issue, we are not expecting--we removed the marshland rehabilitation element from the proposal a while ago, but the area which the marshlands inhabit is a very important agricultural area. So I think, concurrently, we would welcome work in that area. It's not necessary, but it's also not excluded. I just wanted to clarify that.
MS. PETERSON: I'm sorry. The technology is not supporting connecting with Charles, but we can continue to field questions that you were envisioning asking him, and we can make sure a response comes back on the web page.
One thing, I just wanted to follow up on the question related to Years 2 and 3 in the cost proposals providing funding levels, in the communication that we received from Charles this morning, he highlighted that offerers are pricing option periods, two one-year options, separately, using a format identical to the base period.
So I hope that provides some clarity on that one question.
But are there any additional questions at this point?
[No response.]
MS. PETERSON: Okay. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, the Pre-Bid Conference was concluded.]
Back to Top ^
|
