1131PL25RDM11136 A0003 PWS.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

1131PL24RDM11136 A0003

1131PL

N/A

AFUA SERWAH-ASIBEY

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The purpose of this amendment, A00003 is to:

1) Provide responses to questions received by the end of the cutoff period, Wednesday, August 6, 2025. Responses to the questions are written in "bold"; and

2) Provide updates,written in highlight, to the PWS (Performance Work Statement).

Office of Acquisition Management United States Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) 1101 Wilson Boulevard, Stuite 1100 Arlington, Virginia 22209

SAME AS BLOCK 6

2025136

1131PL25RDM11136

1 6 2

See Blk 16C

INSTRUCTIONS (Back Page):

Instructions for items other than those that are self-explanatory, are as follows:

Item 1 (Contract ID Code). Insert the contract type identification code that appears in the title block of the contract being modified.

Item 3 (Effective date).

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

For a solicitation amendment, change order, or administrative change, the effective date shall be the issue date of the amendment, change order, or administrative change.

For a supplemental agreement, the effective date shall be the date agreed to by the contracting parties.

For a modification issued as an initial or confirming notice of termination for the convenience of the Government, the effective date and the modification number of the confirming notice shall be the same as the effective date and modification number of the initial notice.

For a modification converting a termination for default to a termination for the convenience of the Government, the effective date shall be the same as the effective date of the termination for default.

For a modification confirming the contracting officer's determination of the amount due in settlement of a contract termination, the effective date shall be the same as the effective date of the initial decision.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Item 6 (Issued By). Insert the name and address of the issuing office. If applicable, insert the appropriate issuing office code in the code block.

Item 8 (Name and Address of Contractor). For modifications to a contract or order, enter the contractor's name, address, and code as shown in the original contract or order, unless changed by this or a previous modification.

Items 9, (Amendment of Solicitation Number - Dated), and 10, (Modification of Contract/Order Number - Dated). Check the appropriate box and in the corresponding blanks insert the number and date of the original solicitation, contract, or order.

Item 12 (Accounting and Appropriation Data).

When appropriate, indicate the impact of the modification on each affected accounting classification by inserting one of the following entries:

(2) Accounting classification Net decrease $

Include subject matter or short title of solicitation/contract where feasible.

Item 16B. The contracting officer's signature is not required on solicitation amendments. The contracting officer's signature is normally affixed last on supplemental agreements.

(i)

NOTE: If there are changes to multiple accounting classifications that cannot be placed in block 12, insert an asterisk and the words "See continuation sheet".

Item 13. Check the appropriate box to indicate the type of modification. Insert in the corresponding blank the authority under which the modification is issued. Check whether or not contractor must sign this document. (See FAR 43.103.)

Item 14 (Description of Amendment/Modification).

Organize amendments or modifications under the appropriate Uniform Contract Format (UCF) section headings from the applicable solicitation or contract. The UCF table of contents, however, shall not be set forth in this document.

Indicate the impact of the modification on the overall total contract price by inserting one of the following entries:

(i) Total contract price increased by $

(ii) Total contract price decreased by $

(iii) Total contract price unchanged.

State reason for modification.

When removing, reinstating, or adding funds, identify the contract items and accounting classifications.

(g)

(h)

When the SF 30 is used to reflect a determination by the contracting officer of the amount due in settlement of a contract terminated for the convenience of the Government, the entry in Item 14 of the modification may be limited to --

(i) A reference to the letter determination; and

(ii) A statement of the net amount determined to be due in settlement of the contract.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) BACK

(1) Accounting classification Net increase $

Solicitation Number: 1131Pl25RDM11136 Title: Global Critical Minerals Definitional Mission

1.We need more clarification on the travel requirements to accurately estimate the travel costs.

Could you provide more specific details on the locations of the required travel?

RESPONSE: We estimate that the Contractor would travel to Host Country (ies) up to five

(5) times, with each trip lasting up to approximately seven (7) business days, to meet with prospective grantees and other relevant stakeholders from the sector. USTDA anticipates that most demand would be in the Sub-Saharan Africa and Indo-Pacific regions; however, the Contractor should build flexibility into its travel budget to accommodate requests for travel to any USTDA-eligible region.

2. Several of the countries mentioned in the solicitation (e.g., Democratic Republic of Congo, Ukraine, and Mauritania) have U.S. State Department warnings to either not travel or reconsider travel. Should we assume travel to one or all of these countries is expected as part of the DM travel requirements?

RESPONSE: Yes, travel to one or more of these countries may be part of the DM;

however, current safety conditions would be taken into consideration prior to any potential travel.

3. If travel to the above locations is required, will the U.S. Government provide security for the contractor when travelling, or should we estimate the cost of a security detail and transportation for the staff travelling?

RESPONSE: The U.S. government would not provide security. Please estimate this cost, although it should be noted that all travel would not be to countries requiring security.

4. Given that most mining project feasibility studies involve undeveloped mines, is travel to exploration sites required?

RESPONSE: Travel to exploration sites is possible. The itinerary for meetings and site visits would be discussed prior to any potential travel.

5. Chile was mentioned as a possible travel location. Is USTDA open to fund grants in high-income countries such as Chile?

RESPONSE: USTDA is pursuing potential flexibility to consider projects in high-income markets. If directed by USTDA, in exceptional circumstances, projects in high-income countries may be considered by the Contractor.

6. Is USTDA open to fund grants in Peru? In the past, USTDA has not been open to projects in Peru due to tax complications for grants. Has this changed?

RESPONSE: If directed by USTDA, projects in Peru may be considered by the Contractor.

7. Will USTDA require travel to potential U.S.-located offtake smelters/refineries to verify the technical viability of the U.S. facility to process the minerals or impure metal (or metal compound)?

RESPONSE: If applicable, yes.

8. Can TDA advise whether the successful offeror on this opportunity would be precluded from bidding on follow-on engineering contracts related to identified projects resulting from this activity?

RESPONSE: The successful offeror would be precluded from working on any projects they have vetted as part of this DM. See Section D.1.11. Impartiality.

9. Can TDA provide an indicative budget range or not to exceed amount for this activity?

The project profile in D.1.5. references several countries; could TDA clarify whether these will be the locations of the 10 projects, or will other countries also be included?

RESPONSE: No, USTDA cannot provide an indicative budget or not to exceed amount.

The countries mentioned in Section D.1.5. are examples for background purposes only. The projects will be in any USTDA eligible country (and in exceptional circumstances, high income or otherwise ineligible countries). Offerors can refer to USTDA Annual reports for historic contract award amounts for Definitional Missions and Desk Study Series at USTDA.gov/reports-and-resources/.

10. We note the nationality requirements outlined in Appendix III. Can TDA please clarify whether it is acceptable for a US-owned multi-national firm with offices overseas to include non- USC/LPR employees in its proposed staffing to enable us to draw on the expertise of our staff in other countries?

RESPONSE: Yes, this is allowable for up to 30% of the contract value where specialized, unique experience of staff in other countries is required or would increase the quality of work, including both target countries (countries where projects are being sourced) and in exceptional circumstances third party countries. The PWS Attachment III will be amended to allow this exception.

Scope

11. Geographic Scope: The solicitation title in the Synopsis (1131PL25RDM11136) is "Regional Africa - Global Critical Minerals Definitional Mission," while the SF-1449 and Performance Work Statement (PWS) refer to a "Global" mission. Could the Government please clarify if the scope is global with a priority on Africa, or if the primary focus is limited to a specific region?

(Ref: Synopsis, pg. 1; SF-1449, pg. 1; PWS D.1.5, pg. 21)

RESPONSE: The scope is global, not limited to Africa or with a specific focus on any region, although the largest demand is expected to be from Africa and the Indo-Pacific.

vpringle Highlight vpringle Highlight

12. Technical Scope: The PWS (D.1.5) lists a wide range of technical areas, from mineral exploration and processing to new technologies like AI and seabed mining. To help offerors propose the most relevant expertise, could the Government indicate if there is a rank, weighting, or prioritization among these technical areas? (Ref: PWS D.1.5, pg. 21)

RESPONSE: As we cannot predict future demand, and the definitional mission is designed to help guide our funding, we cannot provide a weighting at this time. USTDA’s current pipeline includes mostly terrestrial mining and processing projects in the exploration, resource validation, pre-feasibility and feasibility stage, but access to expertise in areas such as AI and seabed mining may be required depending on demand and priorities.

Contract and Pricing Structure

13. Pricing FFP CLINs: CLINs 0001-0004 are Firm-Fixed-Price per "Each". Given that the complexity and Level of Effort for each report may vary significantly based on the project, how does USTDA envision offerors developing a single fixed price per report? Would the Government consider a tiered pricing structure (e.g., for simple vs. complex reports) or provide a notional mix of project types for pricing purposes? (Ref: SF-1449, pg. 2; PWS D.1.2, pg. 18-19;

Attachment III)

RESPONSE: USTDA does not plan to consider a tiered pricing structure. If the questioner could provide in their opinion a short description of simple vs complex USTDA could potentially suggest which one more reports would lean towards, although this is not guaranteed as projects will be identified in the future.

14. Deliverable Quantity: The PWS (D.1.2) states the quantities for Initial Assessments (10) and Project Reports (8) are "not-to-exceed ceiling figures and not actual figures". For pricing purposes, can the Government provide a guaranteed minimum number of reports that will be ordered under CLINs 0001 and 0002? (Ref: PWS D.1.2, pg. 18-19)

RESPONSE: USTDA cannot provide a guaranteed minimum number of reports, the exact number will depend on demand. That said, as this is a global DM, we are expecting to, and confident that we will, utilize all slots and potentially add additional ones.

15. Deliverable Acceptance: Payment is contingent on "government acceptance" of deliverables. To ensure a clear and objective standard, could the Government please define the specific, objective criteria that will be used to determine acceptance of an Initial Assessment, Project Report, and Market Report? (Ref: PWS D.1.7 & D.1.8.1, pg. 23-28)

RESPONSE: Descriptions of the deliverables and expected contents are included in the PWS and Attachment 1. The Government will have final say on acceptance, although opportunities to revise and correct reports will be provided.

16. Travel Budget (CLIN 0005): For the Cost-Reimbursable travel CLIN 0005, are offerors expected to propose their own Not-To-Exceed (NTE) value? If so, what assumptions should be made regarding the number and location of trips? Alternatively, will the Government provide a plug number for the travel NTE for all offerors to use for evaluation purposes? (Ref: SF-1449,

pg. 2)

RESPONSE: Yes, offerors should propose their own Not-To-Exceed value. See response to Question 1 for further travel guidance.

17. Optional CLINs (CLINs 0006 & 0007): These unfunded options may be exercised up to two years from award. Will the Government permit an economic price adjustment for these FFP optional CLINs if they are exercised more than 12 months after the contract award date to account for inflation and changes in labor rates? (Ref: SF-1449, pg. 2; PWS D.1.2, pg. 18)

RESPONSE: The Government may adjust these unfunded options based on current conditions of the time, but a price adjustment would not be guaranteed.

Evaluation and Administration

18. Evaluation Criteria: The technical evaluation ratings (E.7.1, Table 1) distinguish between "Good" ("thorough approach") and "Outstanding" ("exceptional approach"). Could the Government provide more specific examples of the characteristics or evidence that would elevate a proposal from "Good" to "Outstanding"? (Ref: E.7.1, Table 1, pg. 64)

RESPONSE: The Government cannot provide examples. In general, an exceptional approach would demonstrate deep understanding of the sector, US interests, and gaps that USTDA could fill.

19. Missing Attachments: The PWS references "Attachment X" (D.1.6.2.h) and "Attachment XIII" (D.1.6.5). These attachments are not included in the solicitation package. Could the Government please provide these attachments or confirm that they are not required? (Ref: PWS D.1.6.2.h, D.1.6.5, D.2, pg. 22, 23, 30)

RESPONSE: Please use Attachment VIII for these items

20. Conflicting Submission Instructions: The PWS provides different submission email addresses for deliverables. Sections D.1.7.1-D.1.7.2 direct some reports to the COR, while D.1.7.3-D.1.7.4 direct others to finalreports@ustda.gov. Could the Government please clarify and consolidate the submission process for all deliverables? (Ref: PWS D.1.7.1-D.1.7.4, pg. 24- 28)

RESPONSE: Please follow the instructions in the PWS, all initial reports and project reports should be directed to the COR, the market report and final report should be directed to finalreports@ustda.gov, with COR having reviewed and giving direction to submit a final version.

21. We do see the PDF sample price sheet but want to confirm that this is the format you require. (c) Offeror(s) shall complete and submit the Price Proposal spreadsheet workbook enclosed in this solicitation. 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). There is no page limitation for the Price Proposal.

RESPONSE: Yes, please use the enclosed workbook.

22. Past Performance Information: Given the global reach and diversity of the SOW, it is advantageous to the government for offerors to partner with other firms to ensure the entire SOW is adequately met. Therefore, would the USTDA please consider allowing offerors to include subcontractor’s past performances in addition to their own.

RESPONSE: Yes, the government is willing consider subcontractor’s past performance in addition to prime contractor.

23. Personnel eligibility: Given the global reach and diversity of the SOW, it is advantageous to the government to allow offerors to include non-U.S. citizen and non-U.S. permanent residents who have unique expertise and knowledge on critical minerals and industry in specific regions around the world. Therefore, would USTDA please consider allowing offerors to use non-U.S.

citizens and non-U.S. permanent residents to support fieldwork or technical assignments outside of the United States on this contract.

RESPONSE: See response to similar question and amendment to PWS. In essence, yes, up to 30% of contract value.

24. Section E.5.d: "The Offeror is encouraged to use specific examples, as applicable, to illustrate technical capabilities as it relates to the Performance Work Statement (PWS), as well as experience developing successful healthcare infrastructure sector projects." Would the government please consider removing the healthcare infrastructure sector projects requirements?

Given this RFP is about critical minerals, this requirement does not seem relevant. If the government intends to keep this requirement, could it please explain how it is relevant to the RFP requirements?

RESPONSE: Healthcare infrastructure is most definitely NOT required for this contract,

25. We would like to request clarification on the Past Performance References (PPRs): Will the status of completion of the projects affect the positive weight of the reference itself? For example, will a positive reference of a completed project weigh more heavily than an equally positive reference of an on-going project?

RESPONSE: No, completed projects will not automatically weigh more heavily than on-going projects, although the details of each project will be considered.

26. Pricing clarification: Please confirm that the firm fixed price quantities should follow the prescribed payment schedule quantities of 10 initial assessment reports, 8 full project reports, 1 market report, and 1 final report. Please also clarify whether optional quantities listed (5 additional initial assessments, 2 additional project reports) should or should not be priced.

RESPONSE: Yes, this is confirmed, optional quantities should also be priced but clearly delineated from the non-optional budget.

27. Citizenship Requirements: Could USTDA please confirm whether the Nationality Requirements outlined in Attachment III of the PWS are intended to reflect the 80/20 U.S.

personnel guideline under applicable authorities such as the Build America, Buy America Act or other relevant federal directives? We want to ensure our understanding is consistent with U.S.

government policy regarding the participation of non-U.S. personnel in technical assistance efforts.

RESPONSE: This section has been updated, please refer to the new PWS version.

28. Geographic Prioritization: Could guidance be provided on which countries or regions are currently prioritized for USTDA-supported mining-related grant funding outside the United States?

RESPONSE: Please see answers to previous questions on geographic scope.

29. Sectoral Emphasis: Are there particular sectors within the mining ecosystem (e.g., extraction, processing, logistics, enabling technologies) that USTDA would like offerors to emphasize in their technical approach?

RESPONSE: USTDA is bringing on the Definitional Mission contract to help USTDA prioritize among these sectors, so the offerors suggested prioritization would be appreciated keeping in mind USTDA’s mandate as well as national need to secure supply chains of critical minerals.

30. Travel: Given the many variables each offeror might consider with respect to travel (locations, length of stay, number of travelers, insurance requirements, whether local resources are allowable, etc.) would USTDA provide a plug number for travel expenses within the required cost proposal?

RESPONSE: See answers to previous questions on travel, USTDA cannot provide a number.

31. Key Personnel: Are key personnel required to be named as part of the proposal? If so, is it up to the offeror to propose the number of key personnel and labor categories?

RESPONSE: Please name key personnel where possible, it is up to the offeror to propose the number of key personnel and labor categories. Given the breadth and scope of this contract, it is understood that not all key personnel can be named, but a description of resources and expertise to draw on would be helpful.

32. Grant funding amounts: Does USTDA have any indication on expected award amounts for the applicant grant funding under this DM? Page 59, Doc page 60, Section E.5 RESPONSE: USTDA cannot provide an indicative amount.

33. RFP states two separate volumes. VOLUME I(a) and VOLUME II, is the (a) an error? Page 59, Doc page 61, Section E.5

RESPONSE: Yes. This is an error, there is no VOLUE I(b).

34. Section (d) mentions healthcare infrastructure, should we include these credentials to the proposal? Page 22, Section D.1.2(h)

RESPONSE: No this was an error, Healthcare is not included in this DM.

35. What is Attachment X? Page 23, Section D.1.6.5

RESPONSE: Error – should be Attachment VIII

36. What is Attachment XIII? Page 23. Section D.1.6.5

RESPONSE: Error – should be Attachment VIII

37. (c) and (f) are duplicative.

RESPONSE: Thank you for flagging.

38. Is travel limited to Project Reports and the Market Report? Not initial assessments. Page 23, Section D 1.6.4

RESPONSE: Travel would not always be for specific reports; but could be for groupings of reports or to source proposals, or for the market report. Travel could relate to initial assessments but would not be for each one.

39. Will USTDA identify the projects for the initial assessments, and can a single project report encompass activities or impacts across multiple countries?

RESPONSE: Yes. USTDA will identify the projects for all reports, although the DM will also be able to suggest projects that it comes across during travel/conversations. Depending on the project a single report could cover multiple countries, although in the sector it seems unlikely, and would not cover multiple distinct activities. For example, a project report could cover mining operations, associated infrastructure, and offtake identification for a specific operation, but would not cover two unrelated mining projects in the same country.

40. Are past performances for commercial limited to US contracts?

RESPONSE: No, non-US contracts can be considered.

41. Is there a standard definition you are using to identify emerging markets?

RESPONSE: USTDA eligible countries are either low or middle-income as defined by the World Bank.

42. Is the contract FFP, CPFF, TM? Cost Volume mentions SF 1449 which is for commercial products that are usually FFP. However, Attachment VI references job titles, wages etc which are not unusually reviewed on a FFP. Page 50

RESPONSE:

All reports submitted by vendors will be firm fixed price (FFP).

43. Will USTDA provide all background materials and contact information along with its request for an initial assessment? Page 24. Section D.1.7.1

RESPONSE: Yes

44. Does USTDA intend to make the Market Report public?

RESPONSE: No

45. Can USTDA provide guidance on the geographic priorities for the Definitional Mission to help guide partnering and staffing decisions? For example, 50% sub-Saharan Africa, 25% LAC, 25% Rest of World?

RESPONSE: See previous responses.

Cost

46. Can USTDA please provide a budget range or ceiling for this solicitation?

RESPONSE: NO

47. Can USTDA please provide a range for the deliverables cited in Section D.1.2. SCOPE OF WORK, specifically:

RESPONSE: USTDA cannot provide a cost range. Please refer to PWS for a description of the level of effort.

Initial Assessment – estimated range Project Report – estimated range Market Report – estimated range Final Report – estimated range

48. Can USTDA please confirm that offerors should use Attachment 4 Budget template to develop their budget as part of the cost proposal?

RESPONSE:

Attachment 4 is a sample for offerors to use in justifying your pricing. Show your level of effort.

49. Can USTDA clarify the specific countries to be included in the scope of the Definitional Mission?

RESPONSE: All USTDA eligible countries will be included in the DM.

50. What is the expected level of effort per country?

RESPONSE: Level of effort is by report and project, not by country.

51. Can you confirm the number of investment opportunities that must be profiled in Task?

RESPONSE: One investment opportunity would be evaluated in each report, if an initial report found a project to be viable, it would then move to full report.

52. Are any specific stakeholders or ministries expected to be engaged in each country?

RESPONSE: This will depend on the project, there is not specific engagement requirement.

53. For Task 7 (Blended Finance), should financial modeling or deal structuring be included in the level of effort, or is a high-level feasibility analysis sufficient?

RESPONSE: This contract helps to vet projects for USTDA feasibility study grant funding, so financial modeling or deal structuring of the project itself is not necessary.

54. Is fieldwork or in-person travel required, or will virtual stakeholder engagements be accepted due to security/logistics?

RESPONSE: Fieldwork or in-person travel is not required for every project, but travel is expected when requested by USTDA.

55. Can USTDA clarify the expected timing and duration of the fieldwork phase?

RESPONSE: Clarified in earlier response on travel.

56. Can the Government confirm if resumes are required for all proposed personnel or just key roles?

RESPONSE: Key roles are sufficient, but additional resumes are helpful.

57. Is there an incumbent for this opportunity?

RESPONSE: No

58. Would it be possible to share a ballpark amount for this project?

RESPONSE: No

59. Does the 10-page technical proposal limit include or exclude the Executive Summary, which is listed as both "not evaluated" and limited to 1 page in the exempted documents section?

RESPONSE: Not included in 10-page limit.

60. Can USTDA confirm whether the Past Performance evaluation will consider only the experience of proposed key personnel, or whether corporate past performance is also evaluated, even in the absence of past performance?

RESPONSE: Key personnel should have relevant experience, corporate past performance can be submitted and considered.

61. Can USTDA clarify the relative importance weighting between technical factors and Past Performance within the non-price evaluation, since both are listed as separate factors but combined are "significantly more important than cost/price, or should offerors assume equal importance?

RESPONSE: Assume equal importance.

62. Does USTDA have minimum qualifications (education, certifications, years of experience) for the key personnel roles outlined in Section E.5(d), particularly Project Manager and Subject Matter Experts in critical minerals?

RESPONSE: USTDA does not have minimum qualifications.

63. Are there any restrictions on utilizing U.S. permanent residents (as opposed to citizens) for fieldwork or travel under this award, particularly given the requirements in PWS Section D.1.6.4?

RESPONSE: No.

64. For pricing purposes, should offerors assume all five international trips will be utilized, or should we propose our recommended travel approach based on our technical methodology?

RESPONSE: For pricing purposes include all five international trips, but they may not all be utilized, please propose the recommended travel approach in the proposal.

65. What level of primary research (stakeholder interviews, surveys) versus secondary research does USTDA anticipate for the Market Report deliverable?

RESPONSE: USTDA does not have a prescribed methodology; however, USTDA would anticipate a fairly even balance of primary and secondary research.

66. Should the optional items (Additional Assessment Reports and Additional Full Project Reports) be priced identically to the base quantities, or may offerors provide LOE-based estimates with assumptions?

RESPONSE: Advise to price identically as optional reports may not be utilized and price changes can be discussed at the time.

67. Should the optional items (Additional Assessment Reports and Additional Full Project Reports) be priced identically to the base quantities, or may offerors provide LOE-based estimates with assumptions?

RESPONSE: Same as above.

68. Does USTDA have a preferred methodology or set of tools (e.g., IRIS, CII) for completing the Project Risk Screening deliverable under Section D.1.4 and Attachment VII, or should offerors propose their own methodology?

RESPONSE: Please provide own methodology.

69. To support LOE estimation and work planning, can USTDA confirm the potential number of projects currently in USTDA's pipeline for critical minerals that might be assessed under this

DM?

RESPONSE: USTDA expects to use all proposed reports over the course of the contract, but it would be on a rolling basis.

70.Can you provide guidance on expected destinations/regions for travel, whether multiple countries might be visited in a single trip, and any restrictions currently affecting travel?

RESPONSE: See previous responses. Multiple countries could be visited on a single trip, where appropriate.

71. Can USTDA clarify the programmatic or performance conditions that would trigger the exercise of optional work under CLIN 0006 (Additional Assessment) and CLIN 0007 (Final Report Presentation)? (Section: Market Report Timing)

RESPONSE: This would be dependent on project pipeline, timing, and availability of USTDA funding.

72. The Market Report is due within 90 days of award, but Initial Assessments and Project Reports are assigned on a rolling basis. Should the Market Report incorporate findings from early assessments, or is it intended to be completed independently? (Section: Team Composition Restrictions)

RESPONSE: The Market Report can; however, it’s not required to include findings from early assessments.

Section D 73.. Section D.1.5: Can USTDA provide their list or definition for "critical minerals"? Is the scope of this DM limited to the minerals listed in this solicitation (copper, cobalt, lithium, nickel, graphite, titanium, zinc, and rare earth elements), or might the Contractor be asked to review proposals dealing with other minerals, such as those found on the USGS list of critical minerals from 2022, the DOE list of critical materials from 2023, or the various minerals highlighted in recent Executive Orders, such as EO 14241 and 14261?

RESPONSE: The Contractor will likely be asked to review proposals dealing with other minerals, USTDA uses the DoE list of critical materials from 2023, but will focus on those most relevant to national security, those that are not found in sufficient quantities in the U.S., and those whose supply chains are most vulnerable to disruption.

74. Section D.1.5: Will the winning Contractor be asked to evaluate proposals which might increase foreign production of minerals which are also produced in the U.S., or for which known reserves exist in the U.S.? For example, copper is mentioned in the solicitation, although the U.S.

is in the top 10 countries for volume of copper produced per year, and the U.S. is also an exporter of raw copper.1

RESPONSE: The Contractor could be asked to evaluate such proposals.

75. Section D.1.5: Is there a specific list of priority countries for this DM? Should bidders assume that the countries listed in this section are all focus areas for this DM or potential host countries where the DM contractor may be asked to travel to?

RESPONSE: See previous responses on travel.

76. Section D.1.5: Noting the references to Chile, a high-income country – will the Contractor be asked to review proposals from high-income countries, and does USTDA anticipate being able to fund grants in Chile or other high-income countries arising from this DM?

RESPONSE: See previous responses.

77. Section D.1.5: Should bidders demonstrate that their key personnel have any particular foreign language skills, or experience working in any particular countries or regions?

RESPONSE: Experience working in relevant regions and countries is a plus, as are relevant language skills.

78. Section D.1.5: Does USTDA already have a pipeline of proposed projects/activities ready for the Contractor to begin reviewing as part of Initial Assessments?

RESPONSE: Yes

79. PWS D.1.6 NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT AND KICKOFF

In this section it states “After signing the Non-Disclosure Agreement, the Contractor shall contact USTDA’s COR to schedule a meeting or call to discuss details of the Contract assignment. The COR shall provide the Contractor with names and addresses of the potential project sponsor(s), other pertinent entities to contact in the United States and overseas, and any other relevant details or proposals that may impact the design and/or evaluation of the proposed activity(ies).After reviewing these materials, contact the COR at (703) 875-4357 to discuss initial observations and raise any questions or concerns about the proposal and the Project. At this time, USTDA will provide the Contractor with additional guidance on the Agency’s requirements for the preparation of TOR and budget.” Please clarify if this task is part of one of the firm-fixed price CLINs or an additional task that the contractor will be asked to complete. If it is an additional task, would USTDA be open to adding another CLIN for this task?

RESPONSE: This meeting is considered part of the initial assessment or full project report and is not always required. The meeting is a short one with the purpose of providing details to the contractor about the proposed project, discuss any initial thoughts and then begin the assessment. It is not a major milestone.

80. Under the section “To execute this requirement, the Contractor shall:” number 3. States “If requested by the COR, travel to Host Country(ies) up to five (5) times, with each trip lasting up to approximately seven (7) business days, to meet with prospective grantees and other relevant stakeholders from the sector.” This save requirement is in PWS D.1.6.4 Host Country Travel.

Please clarify if the labor for this task is part of Cost Reimbursable 005 CLIN or an additional task that the contractor will be asked to complete so it is clear were to provide the additional labor for this task. If it is an additional task, would USTDA be open to adding another CLIN for this task?

RESPONSE: This is part of CLIN 0005.

81. Infrastructure Risk Screening – Section D.1.4. Please clarify if USTDA will provide any existing environmental, geophysical, and climate risk datasets for Infrastructure Risk Screening, or if it is the Contractor’s responsibility to source these independently?

RESPONSE: USTDA will not provide datasets.

82. Offtake Analysis – Section D.1.5. Please confirm if the analysis of potential offtake arrangements should focus exclusively on U.S. buyers/ or could it also include regional and international buyers where such arrangements could still lead to U.S. export opportunities?

RESPONSE: While it will depend on the project, these arrangements could include regional and international buyers where there are still U.S. benefits.

83. Equal Access to U.S. Companies – Section D.1.3(b). Will “equal access” be determined solely by host country procurement regulations, or should the Contractor also assess actual procurement practices and competitive conditions?

RESPONSE: Please also assess actual procurement practices and competitive conditions.

84. Given USTDA’s focus on the feasibility study stage, will the scope of projects be limited to early-stage projects, or will more advanced-stage project also be considered eligible?

RESPONSE: The scope of projects could include anything up to financial close – including front end engineering and design, or other project preparation work past the feasibility stage but before financial close.

85. Will the Contractor have input into the selection/shortlist of projects for the initial assessment phase?

RESPONSE: Yes, if the contractor has suggested projects or believes a project to be untenable, even before the initial assessment phase.

86. Are Subcontractors required to be registered in SAM?

RESPONSE

Yes. Prime contractors have to track validity of subcontractors according to their registration in System for Award Management (sam.gov).

87. For the purposes of preparing the budget, should we assume a total of 5 trips over the life of the project (ref. page 20, section D.1.3, #3 - If requested by the COR, travel to Host Country(ies) up to five (5) times, with each trip lasting up to approximately seven (7) business days, to meet with prospective grantees and other relevant stakeholders from the sector)?

RESPONSE: Yes

88. Page 61, part (d) states “The Offeror is encouraged to use specific examples, as applicable, to illustrate technical capabilities as it relates to the Performance Work Statement (PWS), as well as experience developing successful healthcare infrastructure sector projects.” Could you please confirm whether the intended phrasing was 'experience in developing critical minerals, energy, and bulk transport.

RESPONSE: Yes. Correction has been made. See question #24.

89. Page 63, Volume II: Price. While the Price Sheet has been posted on SAM.gov, we do not see the accompanying Price Proposal spreadsheet workbook included. We would be grateful if this could be uploaded in the system at your earliest convenience.

RESPONSE

Attachment 4 is a sample format for vendors to prepare Volume II, Price.

90. Attachment III: Sample Price Sheet appears to include only the direct labor cost proposal figures. Is there a separate form or section where other direct costs should be included?

RESPONSE

You can modify Attachment III to show level of effort (LOE).

91. We understand that responses should be submitted in two separate volumes. Should these be submitted within the same email or as separate emails?

RESPONSE

Use same email

92. Please confirm if there are any specific formatting requirements for the proposal (e.g., font type/size, margins, line spacing).

RESPONSE: No formatting requirements, no comic sans please.

93. Please confirm the anticipated contract start date.

RESPONSE: As soon as possible

94. Please confirm if there is a cost estimate or baseline budget associated with this RFP that bidders should consider when developing proposals.

RESPONSE: See previous replies.

95. Kindly clarify if there is a limit to how many resumes can be submitted in the proposal, or if bidders can define and propose their team structure/ labor mix, positions, and the key and non-key personnel in accordance with their methodology and the PWS. Given the limited time remaining to incorporate clarifications received from USTDA into a responsive proposal, RESPONSE: No limit to resumes, please define and propose team.

96. Resources Provided: Can USTDA provide more detailed information on the resources (data, personnel, tools) that will be available from USTDA or the project sponsor and what will the contractor need to source independently?

RESPONSE: The project sponsor will provide information regarding the project, proposed scope of work, and depending on the project may provide various assumptions, financial models, relevant legal frameworks, local information and information about their personnel, but the amount of information will vary depending on the project sponsors capability, the stage of the project, and experience. There is no specifically required data other than a reasonable amount to make a determination on eligibility for USTDA funding.

97. Site Visits: Are there any specific requirements for site visits to the project locations, or will these be optional based on the contractor's discretion?

RESPONSE: There are no specific requirements. However, site visits will be based on USTDA’s discretion in consultation with the contractor.

98. Expected Volume of Work: Can USTDA provide any estimation on the expected number of projects or assessments to better plan the workload and staffing?

RESPONSE: See previous responses.

99. Budget Ranges: Could USTDA provide any predefined budgetary ranges or constraints for each assessment and report to help with cost estimation?

RESPONSE: See previous responses.

100. Feedback and Revisions: What frequency and format will USTDA provide feedback on submitted reports, and will there be opportunities for revisions before final approval?

RESPONSE: USTDA will provide feedback in email, comments on the document, and by video call, until the project report is approved. There will be opportunities for revision.

101. Project Performance Forms: Should they be submitted directly from our client to you at

USTDA?

RESPONSE:

Past performance reports will be sent to contractproposals@ustda.gov and a courtesy copy to the contract specialist, vpringle@ustda.gov.

102. Section E.5, E.6, E.7: Would the Government please consider revising Sections E.5 (Instructions for Submission), E.6 (Evaluation Factors for Award), and E.7 (Evaluation Approach) to provide greater clarity regarding expectations for proposal content? As currently written, these sections emphasize different requirements, and it is unclear whether offerors are expected to address every element of the PWS (Section D.1). This lack of clarity could lead to inconsistent interpretations and potential disparities among proposals. More specific guidance on the required content, structure, and level of detail would help ensure the Government receives multiple fully responsive and competitive bids within the 10-page limit.

RESPONSE: We will take this into consideration for future solicitations, offerors are expected to address every element of the PWS.

mailto:contractproposals@ustda.gov mailto:vpringle@ustda.gov

103. Pricing: Would the Government please clarify whether it expects offerors to propose using a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) or Time-and-Materials (T&M) pricing structure? The solicitation does not clearly state the desired contract type, which affects how offerors will structure their cost proposals and associated assumptions.

RESPONSE

All reports are firm fixed price.

104.

Past Performance Information (first submitted on 8/1): Given the global reach and diversity of the SOW, it is advantageous to the government for offerors to partner with other firms to ensure the entire SOW is adequately met. Therefore, would the USTDA please consider allowing offerors to include subcontractor’s past performances in addition to their own?

RESPONSE

SEE RESPONSE #22

105. Personnel eligibility (first submitted on 8/1): Given the global reach and diversity of the SOW, it is advantageous to the government to allow offerors to include non-U.S. citizen and non-U.S. permanent residents who have unique expertise and knowledge on critical minerals and industry in specific regions around the world. Therefore, would USTDA please consider allowing offerors to use non-U.S. citizens and non-U.S. permanent residents to support fieldwork or technical assignments outside of the United States on this contract?

RESPONSE

SEE RESPONSE #23

106. Section E.5.d (first submitted on 8/1): "The Offeror is encouraged to use specific examples, as applicable, to illustrate technical capabilities as it relates to the Performance Work Statement (PWS), as well as experience developing successful healthcare infrastructure sector projects." Would the government please consider removing the healthcare infrastructure sector projects requirements? Given this RFP is about critical minerals, this requirement does not seem relevant. If the government intends to keep this requirement, could it please explain how it is relevant to the RFP requirements.

RESPONSE

Replacement of “healthcare” is “mining and processing.” See question #24.

107. In Section D.1.3, the RFP states, "If requested by the COR, travel to Host Country(ies) up to five (5) times, with each trip lasting up to approximately seven (7) business days, to meet with prospective grantees and other relevant stakeholders from the sector." Would USTDA please clarify if this is up to five trips in total, or up to five trips for each Project?

RESPONSE: 5 trips total, not all projects will not require specific travel.

108. In Section D.1.2, the RFP states that the initial assessment reports should include 3-5 pages of recommendations, whereas Section D.1.3 and Section D.1.7.1 state that the total length of the initial assessment reports is 3-5 pages; would USTDA please clarify the requirement on total page length for the initial assessment reports?

RESPONSE: 3-5 pages total, although these may include additional basic project information provided by the project sponsor that exceeds 5 pages.

109. Please confirm that USTDA expect that the eight project reports to be developed will be down selected from the 10 initial assessments. If USTDA anticipates that the project reports be separate and distinct from the initial assessments, how will the targets be identified?

RESPONSE: Usually, a project will proceed from initial assessment to project report, but in some cases a project may be sufficiently advanced, and/or obviously strategic and meeting USTDA’s criteria that an initial assessment is not required and would move directly to project report at USTDAs discretion.

110. Could USTDA please provide guidance as to how bidders should budget for travel given the global remit of this engagement and the uncertainties outlined in Section D.1.3 ("If requested by the COR, travel to Host Country(ies) up to five (5) times, with each trip lasting up to approximately seven (7) business days, to meet with prospective grantees and other relevant stakeholders from the sector."). These unknown variables compound to create a wide potential variation in costs. To promote transparency and ease financial comparisons between bidders, would USTDA consider providing uniform "plug" numbers for (i) assumed total days travel and

(ii) direct travel expenses, thereby promoting greater transparency and ease of comparison between bidders?

RESPONSE: Please see responses to previous questions on this matter. We understand the variability but cannot provide plug numbers.

111. Should bidders assume that the travel activities mentioned in the RFP will be associated with the production of the project reports, rather the initial assessments? Or both?

RESPONSE: Likely project reports, although not exclusively.

Solicitation Number: 1131PL25RDM11136

SECTION D – ANY CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS OR ATTACHMENTS

D.1. PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS)

GLOBAL CRITICAL MINERALS DEFINITONAL MISSION

D.1.1. OVERVIEW

The U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) supports the development of overseas infrastructure projects that advance the shared strategic interests of the United States and its overseas partners. These projects offer opportunities for the export of trusted U.S. solutions, including technology, goods, and services that support U.S. jobs.

USTDA is the U.S. government’s first mover on critical infrastructure projects overseas.