Final_PWS.pdf

U . S . T R A D E A N D D E V E L O P M E N T A G E N C Y

SUBJECT: COMBINED/SYNOPSIS SOLICITATION: Southeast Asia Aviation Sector

Desk Study Series

SOLICITATION NUMBER: 1131PL-17-R-DS31135

ISSUANCE DATE: May 30, 2017 CLOSING DATE: June 13, 2017, 12:00 Noon EST

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial item prepared in accordance with the format in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12.6 and procedures in Subpart 13.1 as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only Request for Proposal (RFP); proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued.

This solicitation is being issued In Accordance With (IAW) FAR Subpart 13.104. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the RFP respondent who is deemed responsible and is determined, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government.

This procurement is an 100% Small Business Set-Aside under NAICS Code 541690. Award is limited to U.S. Firms or U.S. individuals. Contractor and subcontractor personnel used shall be either U.S. citizens on non-U.S. citizens lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States. Contractor use of subcontractors is limited to less than fifty percent of the proposed price.

The Government intends to award one Firm-Fixed Price contract as result of this RFP.

The solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-95.

I. INSTRUCTIONS TO RFP RESPONDENTS

The provision at FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors-Commercial, applies to this acquisition with addendum as follows:

1. Proposal Due Date: Your proposal must be received no later than 12 Noon EST, June 13, 2017. Late Proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f).

2. Proposal Submission: Send your proposal by email to contractproposals@ustda.gov.

Proposals submitted by fax or to alternate email addresses will NOT be accepted.

mailto:contractproposals@ustda.gov

3. Questions Relating to This RFP: All questions concerning this solicitation should be directed to Ms. Angela Williams at awilliams@ustda.gov. The question cutoff date is 12:00 Noon EST on June 6, 2017. Please reference the Solicitation Number in the Subject Line of your email.

4. Notice Regarding Suspension/Debarment/Ineligibility: Any contract awarded to a contractor who, at the time of award, is suspended, debarred, and ineligible for receipt of contract with Government Agencies or in receipt of a notice of proposed debarment from any Government Agency, is voidable at the option of the Government.

5. System for Award Management (SAM) Database: All Contractors must be registered in the SAM database via https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ in order to be eligible for contract award. Lack of registration in SAM will make an RFP respondent ineligible for award as described in FAR 52.204-7. However, do NOT delay submission of your proposal pending receipt of a CAGE code.

6. Special Contract Requirements: This Request for Proposal (RFP) includes the following additional contract terms and conditions:

CONTRACTOR FOLLOW-ON (INELIGIBILITY): The Contractor and its subcontractors shall be ineligible to compete for, as a prime or subcontractor or otherwise, USTDA funded activities that result from this contract. USTDA reserves the right to grant a waiver, based upon FAR 9.503, if preclusion of the contractor or its subcontractors from the follow-on activity would not be in the Government's interest.

This restriction shall remain in effect for three years from the completion of this contract.

The contractor agrees to include this provision in all subcontracts to this contract.

7. Contract Clauses: The clauses at 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions-Commercial Items and 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders-Commercial Items, apply to this acquisition.

8. Responses Shall Be Submitted In Two Separate Volumes As Follows:

VOLUME I(a): TECHNICAL PROPOSAL:

**No pricing information shall be included as part of the technical proposal. All pricing information shall be included in a separate volume as noted on Page 4 of this RFP**

Technical proposal shall not exceed 6 pages in length. Font type shall be “Times New Roman, Size 12”. Proposals not in compliance with the requirement will be determined non-responsive and will not be evaluated or eligible for award.

The technical proposal shall clearly describe relevant technical background in 1) performing work in the aviation sector as it relates to the Performance Work Statement; including knowledge of project preparation priorities and funding resources for the aviation sector and Regional Experience in 2) the Southeast Asia region, preferably Vietnam and Indonesia, mailto:awilliams@ustda.gov https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ as it relates to the Performance Work Statement will be evaluated to determine the likelihood that the RFP respondent can successfully perform the contract requirements.

The RFP respondent(s) shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal and provide an adequate basis for evaluation. RFP respondent(s) are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. No material may be incorporated in the proposal by reference in order to circumvent the page limitation. Please submit the technical proposal as a searchable PDF.

The following documents are not included in the page limitation:

a. Cover Page

b. Table of Contents

c. Executive Summary: Although this section will not be evaluated, if included, it should allow technical reviewers to quickly understand the critical elements of the proposal including the most salient features of the RFP respondents’ technical vision and approach, the key personnel and capabilities to accomplish the desired results. This section shall be limited to 1 page. Any additional pages will not be reviewed.

d. Resume/Curriculum Vitae (CV): Resumes/Curriculum Vitae (CVs) submitted as part of the technical proposal are exclusive of the 6 page limitation; however, resumes/CVs may not exceed 3 pages per person. Any additional pages shall not be reviewed.

VOLUME I(b): PAST PERFORMANCE:

a. Relevant Past Performance Information:

i. For all RFP Respondents submitting a proposal:

RFP respondents shall submit a list of no more than three past performance references within the past five years, consisting of the contract number, contract type (preferably fixed-price contracts), the entity (federal, state, or local Government, or private sector) for which the work was performed, a summary of the relevant work, and the name of the person (e.g. contracting or technical) to be contacted with their address, telephone, and email address. Past performance will be considered relevant if the contract demonstrates relevant experiences that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the effort described in this solicitation.

The Government reserves the right to obtain past performance information from any available source, to include the U.S. Government’s Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and may contact customers other than those identified by the RFP Respondent when evaluating past performance.

RFP respondents are authorized to provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the RFP Respondents' corrective actions. The Government shall consider this information, as well as information obtained from any other sources, when evaluating the RFP Respondent's past performance. The source selection authority shall determine the relevance of similar past performance information.

1. For RFP Respondents WITH existing and relevant USTDA past performance (see definition of relevancy in a.i. above)

Per a.i. above, if some or all of the submitted three past performance references are from USTDA, USTDA will attempt to retrieve records for the referenced past performance effort either from the U.S. Government’s Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or from records internal to USTDA or from both. No further action is required by the RFP Respondent.

2. For RFP Respondents WITHOUT existing and relevant

USTDA past performance

Submit the Past Performance Survey (Enclosure 3) to its submitted three references (see a.i.) for completion. The references (not the RFP respondents) must return the completed survey to the email address indicated no later than the closing date of this solicitation. The RFP Respondent is solely responsible for ensuring the survey is completed and returned by the respective references on or before the deadline. Any past performance survey returned directly by the RFP respondents may not be considered. The survey includes instructions that must be reviewed and followed carefully. Responses must be typed into the provided, editable Microsoft Office Word Document Past Performance Survey (RFP Enclosure 3).

In the case of an RFP respondent without any record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) states that the RFP respondent may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The RFP respondents, in this case, shall be rated as “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)" - which is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

VOLUME II: PRICE:

Price Proposal

(a) RFP respondents shall submit a price proposal with breakdown in a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet or the attached Price Proposal Spreadsheet complete with traceable formulas. The price proposal excel spreadsheet must be accompanied with narratives (to support the price proposal) in a word document. ALL PRICE NUMBERS SHALL BE ROUNDED UP, NO

CENTS.

(b) RFP Respondent may follow the USTDA’s sample pricing spreadsheet or independently estimate theirs (accompanied with narratives) to include their total proposed mix of labor categories, labor rates (fully loaded), and labor days needed to meet all the requirements contained in the SOW.

II. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

EVALUATION FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL (The following sub-factors are listed in descending order of importance)

Sub-factor 1: Technical Experience

The RFP respondent’s relevant technical background performing work in the aviation sector as it relates to the Performance Work Statement, including knowledge of project preparation priorities and funding resources for the aviation sector.

Sub-factor 2: Regional Experience

The RFP respondent’s relevant experience in the Southeast Asia region, preferably Vietnam and Indonesia, as it relates to the Performance Work Statement.

EVALUATION FACTOR 2: RELEVANT PAST PERFORMANCE: Government's intent is to evaluate each RFP respondent's past performance - including technical performance; timeliness of performance; quality/customer satisfaction; and cost control - to determine whether the RFP respondent consistently delivered quality service in a timely manner in the past. This factor will be evaluated on the basis of relevant past performance information, including performance on contracts of a comparable nature scope and complexity to those in the current solicitation. The past performance information to be evaluated includes information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant. The information presented in the RFP respondents' proposals, together with information from any other sources available to the Government (e.g., Government-controlled Contractor performance databases and references including contractual, technical, and end-user representatives) may be considered.

In the case of an RFP respondent without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) states that the RFP respondent may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The RFP respondent, in this case, shall be rated as "Neutral" - which is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

EVALUATION FACTOR 3: PRICE: A price evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR 13.106-3 to determine completeness (i.e. all information required by the RFP has been submitted and is accurate) and fair and reasonableness. The Government may also conduct price realism for the purpose of assessing whether an RFP respondent’s unrealistically low price reflects on its understanding of the SOW requirements or the risk inherent in the RFP respondent’s approach. Price proposals found to be unrealistically low (an indication of “buy – in”) will be ineligible for award. The evaluated price will be used in the tradeoff analysis between price and technical factors to determine best value.

Basis For Contract Award: Proposals will be evaluated on the following factors: Technical, Relevant Past Performance, and Price. Award will be made, using the tradeoff source selection procedures process, to the contractor whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. The non-price factors (Technical and Past Performance) when combined are significantly more important than price. However, as technical merit of the proposals becomes more equal, price may become a determining factor.

Table 1. Technical Ratings - Technical factor and sub-factors shall be evaluated using the following adjectival ratings:

Rating Description Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

Table 2. Past Performance Confidence Assessments: Past Performance factor shall be evaluated using the following adjectival ratings:

Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the RFP respondent’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the RFP respondent will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the RFP respondent’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the RFP respondent will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the RFP respondent’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the RFP respondent will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the RFP respondent’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the RFP respondent will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the RFP respondent’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Best Value Award Determination

The Government will make an award to the RFP respondent whose proposal conforms to the SOW requirements and is determined, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the RFP respondent who gives USTDA the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed the requirements affordably. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced RFP respondent, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Contracting Officer reasonably determines that the technical superiority of the higher priced RFP respondent merits the additional price.

The Government may award based on initial proposals received, without further discussions.

Accordingly, each RFP respondent should submit their proposal to the Government using the most favorable terms from a technical and price standpoint. Pursuant to FAR Part 15.306(c), if discussions are held, the Contracting Officer shall establish a competitive range of the most highly rated proposals. If the number of most highly rated proposals exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range.

Only one award will result from this RFP. Proposals that do not address all requirements presented in the SOW may not be considered for award.

//Signed//

GARTH A. HIBBERT

USTDA Contracting Officer

Enclosures:

1. Performance Work Statement

2. Sample Pricing Spreadsheet

3. Past Performance Survey

Attachment I- 1

SECTION D – ANY CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS OR ATTACHMENTS

D.1 PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS)

SOUTHEAST ASIA AVIATION SECTOR DESK STUDY SERIES

D.1.1. OVERVIEW:

The U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) is a foreign assistance agency that delivers its program commitments through grants and contracts. The projects supported by USTDA activities represent strong and measurable development priorities in the host country and offer opportunities for the sale of U.S. goods and services. Requests for USTDA assistance are made by either public or private sector project sponsors for implementation in developing and middle income countries.

D.1.2. SCOPE OF WORK:

USTDA requires services under this non-personal services Contract to support or improve its decision-making relative to the funding of an activity in a developing or middle-income country.

The Contractor shall provide analysis and recommendations (the “Desk Study” or “DS”) to USTDA that will assess and justify whether or not USTDA should provide funding for the proposed feasibility studies, technical assistance, pilot projects or other trade capacity building activities.

USTDA intends to contract with a U.S. company (the “Contractor”) to perform a review and assessment of up to four (4) proposals for aviation sector feasibility studies, technical assistance or pilot projects in Southeast Asia and fully develop funding recommendations for the activities for USTDA consideration. The Contractor is required to evaluate whether or not the Project meets USTDA’s basic funding criteria (below). For the identified projects selected in consultation with USTDA, the Contractor is required to collect all information and documentation necessary from the project sponsors, through independent research, and from relevant entities to develop a detailed funding recommendation report including the appropriate Terms of Reference (TOR) for the activity, an appropriate budget for the TOR recommended for the activity, and confirm U.S. industry competitiveness and foreign competition for sources of supply and implementation of the project. If applicable, for any project proposal that includes a previous USTDA Grantee, the Contractor is required to review the implementation status of the prior USTDA activity and include their finding in the Final Report.

D.1.2.1. In performance of this Desk Study the contractor shall complete up to four (4) Project Activity Reports; and one (1) Final Report. For the Project Activity Reports the contractor shall conduct the following:

(1) Preliminary assessment of project viability,

(2) Evaluation of project financing/implementation,

(3) Verification of U.S. industry competitiveness,

(4) Assessment of foreign competition

(5) Preliminary environment impact assessment and climate resilience screening, and development impact assessment,

(6) Analysis of U.S. labor impact, and

(7) Terms of reference and budget review/development.

D.1.2.2. USTDA Funding Criteria:

The Contractor’s recommendations shall be based upon USTDA funding criteria, which are that the Project must: (1) be likely to receive implementation financing, (2) have a procurement process that provides “equal access” to U.S. companies; (3) represent an opportunity for sales of U.S. goods and services that is many times greater than the initial investment of USTDA assistance; (4) be a development priority of the Project sponsor and host country where the Project is located and have the endorsement of the U.S. Embassy in that host country, and (5) involve U.S. companies that are facing market entry problems and/or strong competition from foreign companies which often receive subsidies and other support from their governments.

D.1.2.3. Climate Resilience Screening:

Per Executive Order (EO) 13677, USTDA is required to consider climate resilience in its international development work. The Agency has determined that in order to be compliant with the EO, climate resilience screenings must be conducted at the project scoping stage for all feasibility studies (FS) and technical assistance (TA) activities. Accordingly, the Contractor shall conduct a climate resilience screening utilizing the guidance provided in Attachment IX.

Categorical exclusions to climate resilience screening include: all Global Procurement Initiative activities, all de minimis training grants, and all International Business Partnership Programs (i.e.

reverse trade missions, conferences, and workshops). Activities that fall into the categorical exclusions do not need to undergo a climate resilience screening.

D.1.2.4. Project Profile:

This desk study series would review up to four proposals for feasibility studies, technical assistance, and pilot project activities in the aviation sector in Southeast Asia. The Southeast Asia Regional Team anticipates receiving proposals for three aviation sector projects, two in Vietnam and one in Indonesia. These opportunities include: (1) a maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) expansion strategy in Vietnam, (2) an airline route profitability and fleet expansion plan in Vietnam, and (3) an airspace management pilot project in Indonesia. This desk study series would also allow for the review of an additional (fourth) proposal which the agency may receive in the coming months.

Vietnam:

(1) Vietnam has been working with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in order to secure a Category 1 rating.

This rating would allow airlines to fly directly from Vietnam to the United States, based upon safety and security standards are met. In anticipation of obtaining a Category 1 rating in the next year, Vietnam Airlines is seeking to optimize their route planning for flights between the United States and Vietnam. In addition, it is anticipated that the airline would need to procure additional long-haul aircraft and has requested support for a fleet planning analysis over the next decade. If successful, this technical assistance would help Vietnam Airlines optimize their U.S.-Vietnam routes, and also help plan for future aircraft procurements.

(2) Separately, Vietnam Airlines Engineering Company (VAECO), a maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) company, which is a subsidiary of Vietnam Airlines, is seeking to expand their services within the Southeast Asia region. VAECO is facing growing competition from other regional MRO providers in Singapore, Thailand and other Southeast Asian countries. As such, they are seeking assistance with an expansion strategy, particularly in attracting third-party airlines (in addition to Vietnam Airlines) to utilize their MRO services in Vietnam. As part of their expansion, VAECO would seek to partner with Original Equipment Manufacturers from the United States to provide better service to their clients.

Indonesia:

(3) Air traffic management improvements are needed throughout Indonesia to improve both the efficiency of air travel and safety. A U.S. firm has developed a cloud-based tool through which airports, airlines, and air navigation services providers can exchange operational information across flight information regions, a tool for which there is interest in Indonesia. The air navigation service provider of Indonesia seeks to pilot a tool in order to improve its air traffic management capabilities. If implemented, the tool would allow users to align their planning around disruptions and other air traffic management related events, as well as reduce costs of accessing and sharing information across countries.

A desk study contractor is need to review the above-mentioned project opportunities, develop detailed terms of reference and budgets, and confirm U.S. industry competitiveness and foreign competition. As noted, a fourth project evaluation may be included in the DS series at a later day.

D.1.2.5. Methodology:

In the course of carrying out this Desk Study, the Contractor must take the following steps:

D.1.2.5.1. After reviewing the proposals, contact the COR at (703) 875-4357 to discuss initial observations and raise any questions or concerns about the proposals and the Projects. At this time, USTDA will provide the Contractor with additional guidance on the Agency’s requirements for the preparation of TOR and budget.

D.1.2.5.2. Review the proposals in detail and, if necessary, request additional information or clarifications from the U.S. firm. A copy of any such request should be provided to the COR.

D.1.2.5.3. Deliverables:

D.1.2.5.3.1. Project Activity Report: The Contractor shall review up to four (4) proposals as identified by USTDA and provide to USTDA a Project Activity Report for each, including the following separate electronic volume to USTDA:

(a) Business Confidential Analysis and Recommendation. Each Business Confidential Analysis and Recommendation must conform to the outline found in Attachment I and provide the requested information and analysis, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by

USTDA.

D.1.2.5.3.2. Final Report:

After completing the required Project Activity Reports, the Contractor shall also prepare a single, stand-alone Final Report which is a compilation of all four Project Activity Reports, including current market information for each country(ies) and sector(s) considered under this DS. The Final Report must conform to the outline found in Attachment I and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by USTDA, provide the requested information and analysis in sufficient market detail to be useful for project analysis.The Final Report should be marked as confidential.

The Final Report shall include the TOR and budget that the Contractor has developed in coordination with the Project sponsor and U.S. firm (if applicable) for each project. If it is anticipated that the Final Report cannot be provided within four (4) months, the Contractor shall immediately contact the COR to discuss the reasons for the delay. The COR may also request the Contractor to provide portions of any of the Final Report before the submission of the entire Final Report.

The Final Report shall incorporate all mutually agreed upon material and revisions. It shall be grammatically and factually correct in all respects, internally consistent, and all statements and tables shall be clear and easily understood by a competent reader, and contain no typographical errors. Upon direction from the COR, the Contractor shall submit electronic copy of Final Report(s) to USTDA. No hardcopy submissions will be accepted. All reports must be paginated, clearly labeled, and submitted electronically in Adobe PDF format to USTDA via the following email:

finalreports@ustda.gov

The email subject line must include the title of the desk study and the project number so that it is easily identifiable. Any copies of Project proposal materials must be returned to USTDA with the submission of the Final Report.

Upon government acceptance of the Final Report, the Contractor shall submit an invoice, to

USTDA.

D.1.3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE:

The Period of Performance for this Contract shall be eight months from the date of the Contracting Officer's signature on the Contract.

D.1.4. PLACE OF PERFORMANCE:

The places of performance shall be at USTDA's Office, Arlington, VA and at the Contractor’s facility.

D.1.5. QUALITY CONTROL AND PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT:

D.1.5.1. Quality of Final Reports:

The Final Reports shall be grammatically and factually correct in all respects, internally consistent, and all statements and tables shall be clear and easily understood by a competent reader, and contain no typographical errors. The Contractor is responsible for quality control actions necessary to achieve quality in the delivery of the required services, which may include the services of a professional editor. The COR will reject a Final Report that does not conform in all respects to the Contract requirements, including but not limited to, the written quality of the Final Report. The Contractor shall correct all deficiencies at no additional cost to the Government.

D.1.5.2. Performance Assessment

1. Monitoring Performance. During the course of contract period, the COR will track Contractor’s performance. At the end of the performance period, the COR will assess the Contractor’s performance in accordance with FAR 42.15 and report to the Contracting Officer for submission to the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

(CPARS).

2. CPARS Assessment. The COR will consider all pertinent information during the preparation of the Contractor’s performance assessment. The Contractor will be afforded the opportunity to identify factual errors. The COR’s assessment is not subject to negotiation and the COR will not engage in discussions with the Contractor. Any errors identified by the Contractor will be addressed by the Reviewing Official. A copy of the final performance assessment will be available in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS).

D.1.6. CONFIDENTIALITY:

The proposals of the U.S. firm are proprietary documents and should not be distributed without permission from USTDA and the U.S. firm. The Contractor shall treat any proposal and supporting information submitted by the U.S. firm as business confidential in its entirety, unless otherwise stated in writing by the U.S. firm. The Contractor shall not include any business confidential information in the Public Market Report and shall include the following confidentiality certification in the final invoice:

“I hereby certify that the Public Market Report contains no business confidential information.”

D.1.7. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY:

This Contract is funded by the United States Government. All intellectual property generated and/or delivered pursuant to this Statement of Work shall be subject to appropriate federal acquisition regulations which entitle the Government to unlimited rights to technical data developed exclusively with Government funds. The Government may: (1) use; (2) disclose; (3) reproduce; (4) prepare derivative works; (5) distribute copies to the public; (6) perform publicly;

and (7) display publicly, the “data” in any manner and for any purpose, and have or permit others to do so (i.e., the Government may sublicense these rights to another contractor). See FAR 52.227-14(a).

D.1.8. IMPARTIALITY:

It is essential that the Desk Study be conducted with complete impartiality and objectivity and that the Contractor and its Subcontractors not obtain an unfair competitive advantage in USTDA-funded activities resulting from this Contract. In accordance with the principles of FAR Subpart

9.5 and USTDA policy, the Contractor and its Subcontractors, if any, for this Contract shall be ineligible to compete for, as a prime or subcontractor or otherwise, USTDA-funded activities that result from this Contract, unless USTDA through its Office of Acquisition Management, shall have granted a waiver, based upon FAR 9.503, that preclusion of the Contractor or its Subcontractors from the follow-on activity would not be in the Government’s interest. This restriction shall remain in effect for three (3) years from the termination of this Contract. The Contractor is responsible for including this restriction in all subcontracts under the Contract.

D.1.9. COORDINATION WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS:

The government may award other contracts for additional work not prescribed in this contract. The Contractor shall fully cooperate with such other contractors in performance of the requirement herein, and as directed by the Contracting Officer. The Contractor shall not commit or permit any act, which will interfere with the performance of work by any other USTDA Contractor.

D.2 ATTACHMENT

ATTCH/ TITLE PAGES

EXHIBIT

I Desk Study Business Confidential Analysis and Recommendation Outline

II Impact on U.S. Labor Statement III USTDA Nationality Requirements IV Required Budget Format V Task Completion Schedule VI Budget Narrative Requirements VII Guidance on Climate Resilience Screening

Attachment I

Desk Study: Business Confidential Analysis and Recommendation Outline

A. Executive Summary.

The Desk Study contractor (“Contractor”) shall provide an executive summary of the Contractor’s findings and recommendations.

B. Project Description.

The Contractor shall provide a brief description and history of the project (the “Project”). The Contractor shall describe the proposed technology from the U.S. firm to be used in the Project.

The Contractor shall describe whether the proposed U.S. solution is technically viable and/or commercially available. If the Contractor finds the proposed U.S. solution is not technically viable and/or commercially viable, the Contractor shall discuss these issues with USTDA program staff before providing a recommendation.

The Contractor shall describe relevant issues to the Project [e.g. host country and/or other stakeholders, sector, Project location, source of raw materials, infrastructure requirements, proposed technological approach, legal and regulatory framework (licenses, permits, etc.), implementation schedule, economic fundamentals (estimated capital cost, operating costs, interest expense, taxes, expected revenues, etc.), the specific objectives of the proposed activity, how the proposed USTDA activity supports the Project implementation process, and any other variables or issues the Contractor deems critical as part of a thorough activity/Project evaluation.]

C. Project Sponsor’s Capabilities and Commitment.

This section describes the Project sponsor’s commitment and capabilities to undertake the activity and the subsequent Project. The purpose is to understand the experience of the Project sponsor and any previous work undertaken by the Project sponsor in the sector. This section should also include a discussion of any potential risks of working with the Project sponsor that could delay Project implementation. This can take many forms but should at a minimum address the applicable points below:

A thorough description of the host country Project sponsor, including its structure, capabilities, operations, and decision-making ability pursuant to the Project, and

An assessment of the Project sponsor’s commitment and ability to implement the Project (e.g. the Project sponsor’s previous experience, current commitments, responsiveness, business activities, and government mandate).

D. Implementation Financing.

This section describes the Project sponsor’s plans to secure financing to implement the Project.

This can take many forms but should at a minimum address the points below:

An assessment of the overall cost estimate of the Project;

For Projects involving potential equity investment, the Project’s proposed debt-equity structure to ensure that it corresponds to the requirements of the prospective lenders (this aspect is critical to USTDA’s decision making); and

A review of the financing options for Project implementation.

The Contractor is required to contact officials from the potential financing institutions, including, where appropriate, multilateral lending institutions, Export Import (Ex-Im) Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), and private/commercial sources, to ensure that the Project sponsor(s) has adequately explored all financing options. The Contractor shall provide names and phone numbers of contacts at the potential financing institutions and summarize their comments.

The Contractor must determine the most likely source(s) of implementation financing for the Project. The Contractor must ensure that the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the activity fulfill the requirements of the most likely financing source(s).

E. U.S. Export Potential.

This section describes the U.S. export potential that may result if the Project is implemented.

The purpose is to estimate the U.S. export potential in order to justify USTDA funding for the activity. This can take many forms but should at a minimum address the points below:

The Contractor shall provide a best estimate of potential procurement of U.S. goods and services for Project implementation. This estimate should be supported by a breakdown by category and dollar value of goods and services likely to be imported for the Project and an illustrative list of potential U.S. suppliers of the goods and services for those goods and services listed as likely U.S. exports. The Contractor shall include U.S. content in their evaluation of U.S. exports, including an analysis of U.S. manufacturing and services sourced from the United States that would most likely be used for the Project. The Contractor shall cross-check the U.S. firm’s estimates of U.S. export potential with independent relevant sources, such as:

- USTDA program staff and USTDA’s evaluations data;

- The U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration;

- Industry and trade associations; and

- Outreach with other U.S. suppliers in the sector.

The Contractor shall describe how procurements are typically conducted: 1) in the sector; 2) by the Project sponsor; and 3) in the host country. The Contractor shall confirm whether there are local content requirements or procurement restrictions in this sector or for the Project and whether a local provider/distributor will be or is likely to be involved in Project implementation. The Contractor shall also list any import licensing requirements or permits needed by U.S. companies to participate and supply goods for the Project. The Contractor shall also identify any U.S.

companies already working with the Project sponsor or working in the respective sector in the host country.

The Contractor shall provide a report that summarizes its discussions with U.S. companies that provide goods or services for the Project, and their level of interest in the Project should also be included. The Contractor shall take note on not only the U.S. company’s general interest in the relevant sector or country, but also interest in the specific Project. The Contractor shall analyze how competitive the U.S. company’s goods or services would be if the Project reaches the implementation stage. To ensure no one is given unfair advantage to compete for USTDA’s funding or the Project implementation, the Contractor should be sensitive to disclosing information about the proposed USTDA activity.

The Contractor shall submit a complete list of U.S. companies and other entities contacted, with the name and contact information of individuals interviewed and their responses.

F. Foreign Competition and Market Entry Issues.

This section describes foreign competition and market entry issues in the host country. The purpose is to demonstrate why USTDA funding may be needed in order to level the playing field for U.S. companies. This can take many forms but should at a minimum address the points below.

The Contractor shall provide a discussion of the foreign competition for goods and services likely to be procured for Project implementation by category. The Contractor shall include a discussion of U.S. industry competitiveness in each category, taking into account geographic factors, host country industry capabilities, technology and licensee issues, past procurement tendencies of the Project sponsor, and how the procurement is likely to be conducted. Where relevant, the Contractor shall discuss the extent to which market entry issues impede exports and trade and how the activity will help overcome these obstacles.

G. Evaluation Strategy.

This section describes the strategy by which the Project, if implemented, should be evaluated.

The purpose is to concisely describe the baseline goals and objectives of the Project, along with any potential risks or timeline hindrances, so the actual implementation results can be evaluated accordingly. This can take many forms but should at a minimum address the points below:

Goals and objectives:

o Clearly define the goals of the Project and identify what will constitute success

Ex: For trade capacity building or legal project, any change in law as result of Project o Identify key sources for information needed to determine if USTDA’s activity attained its objective o Identify potential methods of measurement for evaluation specific to the Project Process and Timeline:

o What is the step-by-step process the Project will follow to be implemented, following USTDA’s funding?

o What is the anticipated Project development timeline? This may change, but it is important to know what the original goal is as it will influence USTDA’s evaluation effort.

o How are procurements typically conducted in the sector for this host country?

o Will there be local content requirements?

o Will a local provider/distributor be involved?

o Will there be one big procurement or several smaller ones? Will other entities be involved if the procurements are small?

Risks:

o Identify potential difficulties in measuring results and ways to mitigate those difficulties o Is any regulation needed before the Project can be developed (e.g. power purchase agreement standards)?

o Are there other entities that must authorize/approve implementation? List them according to their priority in the approval chain.

Key Leads:

o Are there US companies that already have business with the Project sponsor or in the sector? If so, what is USTDA’s added value for these companies’ ability to pursue additional business?

o Are there any companies short-listed for procurements? If so, are they short listed via direct sales, distributor, etc.?

H. Developmental Impact.

The COR shall identify at least one viable and quantifiable Development Impact Measure that will result from the Project being implemented based on the recommendations of the USTDA activity.

The Contractor shall provide the following information for each indicator identified by the COR for each activity: 1) current status, prior to USTDA’s activity and Project implementation (Baseline); 2) anticipated outcomes should the Project be implemented, based on the recommendations of the USTDA activity; 3) the anticipated timeline for the realization of these outcomes; and, 4) how such information can be measured and what sources could be utilized to determine whether the outcome was realized.

I. Impact on the Environment.

The Contractor shall provide a statement regarding the likely consequences the proposed Project may have on the environment. The Contractor shall ensure that the TOR for the activity includes, at a minimum, a preliminary review of the Project’s impact on the environment, with reference to local requirements and requirements of potential financing source(s) of the Project. The Contractor should identify potential negative impacts and discuss the extent to which they can be minimized or mitigated.

The Contractor shall conduct a climate resilience screening utilizing the guidance provided in Attachment IX and, based on climate resilience screening results, provide details, including rationale, on whether (a) an in-depth analysis is recommended; (b) an in-depth analysis is not recommended; or (c) whether or not the climate resilience screening has indicated that a proposed Project should not move forward. If in-depth analysis is recommended, the Contractor shall propose language for the TOR (see section O, #4).

J. Impact on U.S. Labor.

The Contractor shall provide an assessment of the impact of the Project on U.S. labor. The Contractor shall address the legislative prohibitions on the use of Foreign Assistance funds described in Attachment III and any implication such prohibitions may have on the activity and/or Project.

K. Qualifications.

The Contractor shall provide a review of the capabilities of the U.S. firm submitting the proposal and the qualifications of the proposed U.S. firm’s personnel.

L. Justification.

The Contractor shall provide an explanation of why USTDA’s grant funding is needed, including a description of how the Project would support U.S. government policy priorities and promote trade, how USTDA's participation would add value to the Project's development, and how the success of the Project would be measured in terms of trade capacity and development impact.

M. Recommendations.

The Contractor shall provide analysis and recommendations as to whether or not the Project meets USTDA’s basic funding criteria as defined in Section D.1.2.1 in the Desk Study Statement of Work.

If the recommendation is that USTDA should fund the activity, but in a phased approach or only if certain outstanding issues are resolved or conditions met, those phases, issues or conditions should be clearly delineated and discussed in the recommendation.

N. Contacts.

The Contractor shall provide a list of individuals contacted during the Desk Study. The list shall include the address, phone and fax numbers, and e-mail address of each individual.

O. Terms of Reference.

The Contractor shall be responsible for submitting to USTDA a Terms of Reference (“TOR”) and budget for the activity that conforms to USTDA’s requirements. This work shall entail working with the U.S. firm and the proposed Project sponsor to develop the TOR and budget for the activity using the U.S. firm’s and Project sponsor’s draft proposal as a basis. The TOR, which must be approved by the Project sponsor and the U.S. firm, shall include, at a minimum, the following:

1. Purpose and objective of the activity. This section will contain a concise statement describing the activity.

2. A technical assessment. This section will include relevant background information and analysis that is pertinent to the technical feasibility of the Project (e.g. site selection, gap analysis, data collection, comparative analysis, parameters for pilot project implementation, baseline indicators and key performance indicators, a review of any previous reports or studies related to the Project, and an assessment of technologies to be used in pilot project implementation).

3. An economic analysis of the Project. This section will include a detailed analysis on all of the costs associated with the implementation of the Project, and relevant additional economic analyses relevant to the viability of the Project. This section shall provide all relevant information pertaining to the economic analysis of the Project (e.g.

a cash flow analysis, analysis of market conditions, raw material availability, supply agreements, off-take agreements, competing alternative methods of achieving the same or similar Project objectives). This analysis should also include the internal rate of return under a variety of different assumptions (e.g. different interest rates, depreciation, licensing fees, and import duties).

In addition, in order to provide the Project sponsor with sufficient information to responsibly implement, manage, and maintain the Project for the duration of the investment, this section will provide a Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) as part of the overall Project cost estimate. The LCCA shall examine the total initial capital costs to plan, design, develop, and build the Project, and also shall include a detailed analysis of the costs associated with the medium-term and long-term operation of the Project, which includes maintaining the facilities, equipment, and other assets financed as part of the Project. Such costs include, but are not limited to, warranties, operation, maintenance, acquisition, installation, refurbishment, and disposal costs that could be encountered throughout the life of the Project.

A financing plan for the Project. This section shall provide an analysis on the different types of financing (e.g. equity, debt) available for Project implementation.

This section will assess whether or not potential public and private financing organizations (e.g. the World Bank, relevant regional multilateral development banks, Ex-Im and OPIC) are interested in providing financing for Project implementation.

This section shall include a financing plan and a financing strategy, including several approaches to securing financing for the Project based on discussions with the Project sponsor, potential lenders and potential financiers. This section shall outline the rationale for the financing plan and financing strategy and shall take into account a number of relevant factors (e.g. timing, interest rates, and potential financing terms).

This section shall also provide a recommendation for the most effective financing sources for the Project.

This section shall include a sensitivity analysis of the return on investment (ROI). The sensitivity analysis shall account for the cost recovery indicators based on different assumptions for key Project variables, such as electricity tariffs, sales volumes, capital and operating cost estimates, and interest rates and investment requirements.

If sources of financing are not yet confirmed, this section shall identify the potential sources of financing. The U.S.