1131PL26R0022-A0002 Questions and Answers.pdf

Philippines Railroad Development Advisory Services

Solicitation No: 1131PL26R0022- A0002

Questions and Answers

1. Reference: Section D.1.2, Page 19, Paragraph 1 (a) Question: RFP states “Contractor may also be required to travel to the Philippines for up to three times, for a duration not to exceed five (5) working days per visit, to participate in meetings along with USTDA personnel and/or conduct site visits to support USTDA with the assessment of deliverables.” Please confirm that travel time to the Philippines is excluded from the five (5) working days per visit.

Answer: Yes – travel time to/from the Philippines is not included in the five (5) working days.

2. Reference: Section E.1.6, Page 29, Paragraph (g) Question: RFP states “Price Proposal: Offeror(s) shall complete and submit the Price Proposal in Section B and B1. Offerors may propose up to six (6) labor categories and are encouraged to propose their most discounted rates.” Please advise if support staff may be added to the project team in addition to the six (6) labor categories.

Answer: Yes, as long as it’s justifiable for successful performance of the contract.

3. Reference: Section B.1, Page 3, Paragraph N/A Question: RFP states under B.1: Labor Rates and Categories, that, “… The Technical Expert labor category is a blended rate for all team members supporting the required disciplines identified in SOW Section D.2, “Scope of Work.” Please advise:

(1) if the two listed positions provided in the table in this section, “Rail Transportation Expert” and “Transportation Support Team” are two of the six (6) labor categories that shall be included in all Offerors’ proposals, Answer: Yes

(2) if the “Rail Transportation Expert” should also serve as the Project’s Team Leader

Answer: While not strictly mandatory, it is highly preferred. Given the complexity and technical nature of the railway project, the team leader must be able to articulate the technical details of the railway project effectively.

(3) if the “Technical Expert labor category” referenced in this section is in addition to the 2 labor categories listed in this section, or if the “Technical Expert labor category” is analogous with one of the other two listed labor categories that are listed.

Answer: No, it is in addition to the other labor categories.

4. Reference: Section E.1.2, Page 25, Paragraph 1 Question: Considering the need for additional time to better understand the level of effort associated with the deliverable review and advisory services requested following receipt of responses to the following questions, as well as the lack of availability of key staff over the upcoming Memorial Day holiday week, we respectfully request an extension of time of 1 week, to June 9th.

Answer: Yes, the proposal due date has been extended to June 12, 2026 at 1 PM Arlington/VA Time EST.

5. Reference: Section D.1.1, Page 18, Paragraph 3 Question: Are the areas of 3rd party review limited to SCMB transport model surveys, port-rail integration options, environmental impact and climate assessments, and the recommendations provided on optimal legal and institutional framework? Are there any other areas where such review is required that were not mentioned above?

Answer: The deliverables requiring review and recommendation of technical acceptability include the following:

• Transport Model Surveys for Freight and Passenger Sector

• Subic-Clark-Manila-Batangas Transport Model

• Port-Rail Integration Study

• Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping and Regulatory Reports

• Climate Risk Assessment

• Environmental and Social Management Plan

• Environmental Impact Assessment

• Project Regulatory and Legal Analysis

• Development Impact Assessment

• U.S. Sources of Supply Analysis

• Final Report and Stakeholder Presentation

6. Reference: Section D.1.2, Page 18, Paragraph 2

Question: How extensive are the reports across the 12 deliverable areas, from a page count perspective? Can USTDA provide an indication of the volume of documentation to be reviewed?

Answer: The Contractor would be reviewing work plans and deliverables that vary between 20 and 300 pages.

7. Reference: Section D.1.2, Page 18, Paragraph 2 Question: Are all documents that are not the 12 identified deliverables, but that were used as inputs and may need to be referred to for context in conducting our analysis of the deliverables, already collected in a data repository, or is it expected that we will need to research and seek these out independently?

Answer: All documents requiring review will be provided by USTDA.

8. Reference: Section D.1.2, Page 19, Paragraph 1 Question: What are the expected deliverables, cadence, and level of rigor for advisory support and written observations (e.g., periodic memoranda, technical reviews, risk registers, meeting participation, or executive briefings)?

Answer: 1. Deliverables and Work Products:

Written and oral advisory outputs, including technical reviews and recommendations:

a. For each milestone package sent by USTDA, a 3–5 page Task Report assessing whether the deliverable meets the technical requirements of the SCMB Railway TA scope of work.

b. Follow‑up Task Reports for any re‑submitted deliverables by the Technical Assistance Contractor.

c. Final electronic versions of all accepted reports, provided to the COR before invoicing.

2. Cadence and Response Expectations

a. Written review due within nine (9) business days of receiving each deliverable package from USTDA.

b. Ongoing communication: Immediate notification to the COR if clarifications or additional information are required.

3. Level of Rigor and Participation

a. Solid technical reviews of each deliverable to ensure it is complete and appropriate in accordance with the requirements of the SCMB TA contract.

b. Independent, professional judgment applied to identify gaps, risks, inconsistencies, or issues requiring correction.

c. Participation in meetings with USTDA as requested to discuss findings, clarify issues, or support decision-making. Meetings occur on a bi-weekly basis but may take place in the morning or evening given the time-zone difference with the Philippines.

9. Reference: Section D.1.2.1).b., Page 19, Paragraph 1 Question: What specific role does USTDA expect the Contractor to play in coordination and oversight across the USTDA, ADB, and Swedfund workstreams (e.g., observer/advisor, active integrator, formal reviewer, or schedule/risk coordinator)?

Answer: The Contractor will be an advisor, not a coordinator. The Contractor’s technical insights will help USTDA coordinate more effectively with ADB and Swedfund by spotting alignment issues and supporting discussions but not directing the work of the other agencies. The Contractor’s advice and review will help ensure that USTDA’s workstream complements, and not conflicts with, the ADB and Swedfund efforts, as well as support discussions related to follow‑on implementation‑related topics such as procurement approaches, documentation, or required approvals.

10. Reference: Section D.1.2 2), Page 19, Paragraph 4 Question: Can USTDA provide additional parameters for the request that the Contractor “provide advisory services to USTDA and coordination with ADB and Swedfund across multiple technical workstreams”? This will help us define the appropriate level of effort to include in the total price associated with this task, allow for better comparison of price across different bids for USTDA, and assist with the identification of resources required.

For example, should we assume that this advisory service is expected to occur at any time throughout the duration of the engagement and consist of our SME involvement and a level of effort for their involvement to be consumed at a regular rate, with assumptions?

Answer: Yes

11. Are there known areas of more detailed advisory services required, such as analysis and development of a market and industry insights report, that USTDA is already contemplating that are larger and more defined in scope that should be bid accordingly?

Answer: No

12. Could we price a base level of advisory service LOE, and then assume if there are more detailed asks, we will be provided a detailed request, scope and the opportunity to assess if this is beyond what we have scoped within our not to exceed LOE?

Answer: It is reasonable to price a baseline level of effort for routine advisory services, with the understanding that if USTDA later determines that a more substantial, discrete analysis is required, the Agency would issue a specific request with a defined scope and allow the Contractor to assess whether it falls outside the originally proposed not-to-exceed LOE.

13. Reference: Section D.1.2.2) b., Page 19, Paragraph 1 Question: Can USTDA clarify the expected depth and breadth of “market and industry insights,” including whether the Contractor is expected to provide periodic market assessments, stakeholder engagement support, commercial/procurement advisory input, or only technical commentary related to the project preparation work?

Answer: The Contractor is expected to offer insights into the Philippines railway industry as related to the technical requirements or concerns pertaining to the SCMB TA. That includes both technical reviews and recommendations related to the project preparation work as well as stakeholder engagement support for the project preparation and follow-on project implementation‑related topics.

14. Reference: Section D.1.2.2) c., Page 19, Paragraph 1 Question: Can USTDA clarify the anticipated level of effort associated with explaining and interpreting technical information for non-technical personnel, whether this support is expected to occur through ad hoc requests, formal briefings, written summaries, workshop facilitation, or ongoing embedded advisory support?

Answer: Ongoing embedded advisory support, including ad hoc meetings with USTDA and project stakeholders and task reports to USTDA.

15. Reference: Section D.1.2.2) e., Page 19, Paragraph 1 Question: For potential follow-on implementation support, what level of effort does USTDA anticipate? Will those activities be scoped and authorized on a case-by-case basis?

Answer: These activities will be scoped and authorized on a case-by-basis.

16. Reference: Section D.1.5 d), Page 21, Paragraph 1

Question: Given the response for each deliverable review request is required within nine

(9) business days of receipt of each package from USTDA, is there a known schedule for deliverable package provision (or finalization by the current TA) that can be shared to understand how spread out our review activities are across the period of performance?

Answer: There will be 12 deliverables over the period of performance of 24 months.

Estimated deliverables schedule:

o Monthly Work Plans are expected to be reviewed on a monthly basis. These are short reports provided by the SCMB Technical Assistance Contractor to USTDA.

o Interim Tasks and Milestone Deliverables are expected as follows:

o It’s the Government expectations that all deliverables associated with the tasks below will be delivered to the Government by the end of Base Period for this resulting contract.

Milestone Deliverable Objective 2 – Transport Model Surveys

2.1 Transport Model Survey Execution Plan

2.2 Commodity Flow Survey

2.3 Freight Inventory

2.4 Sea Inventory

2.5 Freight Stated Preference Survey

2.6 Freight Travel Time and Vehicle Speed Survey

2.7 Household Interview Survey

2.8 Screenline Vehicle Volume Counts Survey

2.9 Special Generator Survey

2.10 Passenger Stated Preference Survey

2.11 Passenger Occupancy Survey

2.12 Passenger Travel Time and Vehicle Speed Survey

2.13 Boarding and Alighting Survey

2.14 Origin–Destination Survey

2.15 Objective 2 Deliverable: Transport Model Surveys Final Report

Objective 3 – SCMB Railway Transport Model

3.1 Review Objective 2 Results and Conceptualize Model

3.2 Prepare Model

3.3 Objective 3 Deliverable: Transport Model

Objective 4 – Port–Rail Integration Study

4.1 Review Existing Port and Rail Infrastructure

4.2 Stakeholder Engagement

4.3 Identify Areas for Improvement

4.4 Cost–Benefit Analysis

4.5 Strategic Plan for Integration

4.6 Objective 4 Deliverable: Port–Rail Integration Study

Objective 5 – Preliminary EIA Scoping & Regulatory

5.1 Preliminary EIA Scoping

5.2 EIA Regulatory Report

5.3 Objective 5 Deliverables

Objective 6 – Climate Risk Assessment

6.1 Analyze Climate Risks and Resilience

6.2 Adaptation Assessment & Mitigation

6.3 Objective 6 Deliverable: Climate Risk Assessment

Objective 7 – Environmental & Social Management Plan

7.1 Identify & Evaluate ES Impacts

7.2 Prepare ESMP

7.3 Objective 7 Deliverable: ESMP

Objective 8 – Environmental Impact Assessment (Full EIA)

8.1 E&S Risks and Impacts

8.2 Labor and Working Conditions

8.3 Resource Conservation & Pollution Prevention

8.4 Health, Safety & Security

8.5 Land Acquisition / Land Use

8.6 Biodiversity

8.7 Indigenous Peoples

8.8 Cultural Heritage

8.9 Climate Change

8.10 Engagement and Disclosure

8.11 Application for EIS and ECC

8.12 Objective 8 Deliverables (Full EIA submission package)

Objective 9 – Regulatory & Legal Analysis

9.1 Assess Relevant Regulations

9.2 Identify Legal Barriers

9.3 Support Permits and Documentation

9.4 Objective 9 Deliverable: Regulatory & Legal Report

Objective 10 – Development Impact Assessment

10.1 Establish Baseline

10.2 Assess Development Impact

10.3 Define Monitoring Methodology

10.4 Objective 10 Deliverable

Objective 11 – U.S. Sources of Supply

11.1 Identify U.S. Manufacturers

11.2 Develop Supplier List

11.3 Objective 11 Deliverable: U.S. Sources of Supply

Objective 12 – Final Report & Presentation

12.1 Draft Final Report

12.2 Revise Final Report

12.3 Present Final Report (USTDA + DOTr)

12.4 Objective 12 Deliverable: Stakeholder Presentation + Final Report

17. Reference: Section E.1.6 bullet e and f, Page 27 Question: Is it possible to submit a CPARS form in place of a Past Performance Questionnaire, to fulfill the past performance requirement?

Answer: Yes.

18. Reference: General Question: Can the RFP for the original Philippines’ Subic-Clark-Manila-Batangas (“SCMB”) Railway study be made available to offerors? This would help clarify the technical scope of the anticipated due diligence and allow us to tailor our technical offering.

Answer: This may be shared with the successful offeror at the time of award.

19. Reference: Section E.1.6.g, Page 28, Paragraph 1 Question: This section states “Offeror may propose up to six (6) labor categories”;

however, section B.1 paragraph 2 states “The Technical Expert labor category is a blended rate for all team members supporting the required disciplines identified in SOW Section D.2, “Scope of Work.”

We would like to clarify whether offerors are expected to provide 2 rates (one for “Rail Transport Expert” and one blended rate for “Transportation Support Team”) or are expected to provide up to 6 rates (one for “Rail Transport Expert” and five additional rate categories).

Answer: Offerors may propose up to 6 rates, one for Rail Transport Expert and additional five categories.

20. Reference: Section E.1.1 General Information, Page 25 of 32, Paragraph 3 / Section E.1.6

g. Price Proposal, page 28 of 32, paragraph 2

Question: Can you please clarify the contracting mechanism? Section E.1.1 notes a “single award Firm-Fixed-Price contract”. However, the projected level of effort is ambiguous at this point given the amount of effort to review the deliverables and whether trips are required is uncertain. Further, the Price Proposal guidelines note a requirement for labor categories, which points to Time and Materials. Can you please clarify?

Answer: The estimated number of hours required annually for the review is 960 for the base period and if exercised, 800 for the option period across all required labor categories. The payment schedule has been updated to reflect a fixed hourly rate for each proposed labor category.

21. Reference: Section D.1.2 (Scope of Work), Page 18, Bullet 1a Question: Can you please clarify whether the budget shall include travel for just one or multiple team members for each of the three potential trips?

Answer: Up to 2 team members per trip.

22. Reference: Solicitation Order, Box 20 “Schedule of Supplies/Service”, Page 2 Question: The table on this page shows 4 items in the schedule of services, including separate line items for Direct Labor and Cost Reimbursement for the Base Year and Option Year. A couple points of clarification:

For the Direct Labor Costs, are we expected to provide a lump sum, or a blended rate? If a lump sum, which tasks are anticipated in the Base Year versus the Option Year, to generate LOE estimates? If a blended rate, should this rate be the same in the Base Year and Option Year?

Answer: Offerors should propose the rate for the six labor categories. The labor categories will stay the same for the Option Year, but the rates may be estimated for market rate increase projections.

23. When calculating the cost reimbursements, we understand that the assumption for the Base Year is that 3 trips will be required. Will an equivalent number of trips be expected for the Option Year?

Answer: Not expected but may be requested if needed.

24. Is this a brand-new contract or is there (was) an incumbent performing these services?

Answer: This is a new requirement.