Attachment IV A00001 PWS - Pages 18 thru 57 Responses.pdf

Solicitation Number: 1131PL25RDS11055

Title: Regional Sub-Saharan Africa: Desk Study Series: Energy Sector and Critical Minerals

SECTION D – ANY CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS OR ATTACHMENTS

D.1. PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS)

DESK STUDY FOR REGIONAL SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: ENERGY SECTOR AND

CRITICAL MINERALS OPPORTUNITIES

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. The

Agency funds the upfront technical and design work that accelerates infrastructure development and helps projects attract financing. This includes project preparation activities such as feasibility studies, technical assistance, pilot projects, and front-end engineering and design studies.

D.1.2. SCOPE OF WORK

USTDA requires services under this non-personal services Desk Study (DS) contract to support its decision-making relative to the funding of activities, such as those identified in the Overview section above, to support the energy and critical minerals sectors.

USTDA intends to contract with multiple U.S. companies (“Contractor”) to provide a total of up to ten (10) “Preliminary Evaluations” of proposals for energy sector feasibility studies, technical assistance activities, or pilot projects in Africa; up to twelve (12) “Project Reports” with fully developed funding recommendations for activities for USTDA funding consideration; and up to twelve (12) concept note consultations. At the direction of USTDA, the Contractor may travel domestically or to Africa for in-person meetings to assess project proposals. The Contractor shall not proceed with any travel associated with the contract without the direction and written authorization of USTDA.

USTDA plans to contract up to three (3) U.S. companies to carry out the total requirements of this multiple award contract. In the performance of this contract, each Awardee will be required to complete at least one (1) Preliminary Evaluation and one (1) Project Report. USTDA reserves the right to make the final determination on which activities merit consideration for the

Preliminary Evaluations and Project Reports. The Contractor shall not proceed with any of the

Preliminary Evaluations or Project Reports without the written authorization of USTDA. Each

Contractor shall provide one (1) Final Report in cumulation to USTDA.

For each Preliminary Evaluation the Contractor shall:

(1) Summarize the proposed project and request for USTDA assistance

(2) Assess at an initial level whether the request meets USTDA’s basic funding criteria (see

Section D.1.3.)

(3) Recommend whether the project merits further consideration in a Project Report

For each Project Report the Contractor shall:

(1) Assess whether the request meets USTDA’s basic funding criteria (see Section D.1.3);

(2) Develop and recommend the appropriate Terms of Reference (TOR) for the activity;

(3) Develop an appropriate budget for the TOR recommended for the activity.

For concept note consultations, the Contractor shall:

(1) Review the concept note and available project documents as provided by USTDA;

(2) Respond to questions posed by the Regional Team regarding the viability of the proposed technical solution or market opportunity via email or virtual call.

For the Final Report the Contractor shall include:

(a) All projects reviewed during the course of contract performance;

(b) All Project Reports, including the TOR and budgets the Contractor has developed in coordination with the Project Sponsor and U.S. firm for each project;

(c) A brief explanation for any activity(ies) or project(s) that were reviewed and were not recommended for USTDA funding.

The Final Report, unless otherwise directed by USTDA, shall be labeled clearly on every page as

“Business Confidential” and shall be treated accordingly per sections D.9, “Confidentiality,” and

D.10, “Intellectual Property.”

The Contractor will not be paid for reports that are not approved or completed.

The actual number of deliverables/reports against this contract is dependent on the availability of suitable projects. Therefore, not all deliverables may be required or be possible and the figures provided for the Project Reports are not-to-exceed ceiling figures and not actual figures. The Contractor shall only invoice for work/deliverables completed. Any unexpended funds will be de-obligated from the contract at close-out.

D.1.3. USTDA FUNDING CRITERIA

The Contractor’s recommendations shall be based upon USTDA funding criteria, which are that the Project(s) must:

a) Be likely to receive implementation financing;

b) Have a procurement process that provides “equal access” to U.S. companies;

Represent an opportunity for sales of U.S. goods and services that is many times greater

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 definitional mission 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.1.8. QUALITY CONTROL AND PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT:

D.1.8.1. Quality

The deliverables 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 deliverables 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.1.8.2. Performance Assessment

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).

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.1.9. CONFIDENTIALITY:

The proposal of the U.S. firm is a proprietary document 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.

Page 56 thru 57

Offerors, it is incumbent upon the Offerors to explain the relevance of the data provided. Offerors are reminded that the burden of proving low performance risk rests with the Offerors.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant and recent past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Past Performance factor shall be evaluated using the following adjectival ratings:

Table 2. Past Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Description

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

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

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

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

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

E.7.3. Best Value Award Determination

The Government will make up to three awards to the RFP respondent(s) whose proposal(s) conforms to the

PWS 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.

The Government may award up to three (3) contractors in this requirement. Proposals that do not address all requirements presented in the PWS may not be considered for award.