Amendment_No._3.pdf

Solicitation No.: 7200AA19R00005 Amendment No. 3

2. Section B is hereby amended as follows:

a) Under B.4. LEVEL OF EFFORT AND PRICE SCHEDULE, execute the following changes:

1. Under B.4.(b) and B.4.(c), Attachments 1 and 2 are hereby deleted in their entirety and consolidated as Attachment 1 of this amendment.

2. B.4.(d) is hereby deleted in its entirety and substituted with the following in lieu thereof:

“B.4.(d) LEVEL OF EFFORT

The total LOE includes all contractor, subcontractor and consultant labor. A work day is no more than eight hours during any 24-hour period normally 12 AM to 12 PM. The minimum total number of direct-burdened 8-hour work days for the Base Period and each Option Period are as follows:

E&E CORE BUY-INS

3YEAR BASE PERIOD (Date TBD at time of award) 5528 8834

OPTION YEAR 1 (Date TBD at time of award) 1856 3428

OPTION YEAR 2 (Date TBD at time of award) 1696 1978

Subject to the prior written approval of the COR, the contractor may be authorized to adjust the number of days actually employed in the performance of the work by each functional position specified for E&E CORE LOE and for BUY-IN LOE in the contract. Adjustments between

E&E CORE LOE and BUY-IN LOE are not authorized.

It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure that the COR’s adjustment to the work days ordered for each functional position do not result in costs which exceed the ceiling price of the contract. Under no circumstances shall the COR’s adjustment authorize the contractor to be paid any sum in excess of the ceiling price of the contract.

The Offeror must specify which personnel and labor categories are to be adjusted, and any such adjustments are subject to clause FAR 52.232-07 of this contract entitled “Payments Under

Time-and-Materials and Labor-Hour Contracts”, whereby only the Contracting Officer may authorize the contractor to exceed the separate ceiling prices set forth in sections B.3.(a) and

B.3.(b) of the contract.”

b) On Section B.6 OTHER DIRECT COSTS, the following changes are executed:

1. An asterisk is inserted on the section title to read as follows: “B.6. OTHER DIRECT

COSTS*.”

2. In paragraph (a), insert “website design”.

c) Section B.9. AIDAR 752.7028 Differentials and Allowances (JUL 1996) is hereby deleted in its entirety and substituted with the following in lieu thereof:

“B.9. AIDAR 752.7028 Differentials and Allowances (JUL 1996)

(This clause does not apply to TCN or CCN employees. TCN and CCN employees are not eligible for differentials and allowances, unless specifically authorized by the Cognizant Assistant Administrator or

Mission Director. A copy of such authorization shall be retained and made available as part of the contractor's records which are required to be preserved and made available by the “Examination of Records by the Comptroller General” and “Audit” clauses of this contract).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/48/752.7028

(a) Post differential. Post differential is an additional compensation for service at places in foreign areas where conditions of environment differ substantially from conditions of environment in the continental

United States and warrant additional compensation as a recruitment and retention incentive. In areas where post differential is paid to USAID direct-hire employees, post differential not to exceed the percentage of salary as is provided such USAID employees in accordance with the Standardized Regulations (Government

Civilians, Foreign Areas), Chapter 500 (except the limitation contained in Section 552, “Ceiling on

Payment”) Tables-Chapter 900, as from time to time amended, will be reimbursable hereunder for employees in respect to amounts earned during the time such employees actually spend overseas on work under this contract. When such post differential is provided to regular employees of the Contractor, it shall be payable beginning on the date of arrival at the post of assignment and continue, including periods away from post on official business, until the close of business on the day of departure from post of assignment en route to the United States. Sick or vacation leave taken at or away from the post of assignment will not interrupt the continuity of the assignment or require a discontinuance of such post differential payments, provided such leave is not taken within the United States or the territories of the United States. Post differential will not be payable while the employee is away from his/her post of assignment for purposes of home leave. Short-term employees shall be entitled to post differential beginning with the forty-third (43rd) day at post.

(b) Living quarters allowance. Living quarters allowance is an allowance granted to reimburse an employee for substantially all of his/her cost for either temporary or residence quarters whenever Government-owned or Government-rented quarters are not provided to him/her at his/her post without charge. Such costs are those incurred for temporary lodging (temporary lodging allowance) or one unit of residence quarters (living quarters allowance) and include rent, plus any costs not included therein for heat, light, fuel, gas, electricity and water. The temporary lodging allowance and the living quarters allowance are never both payable to an employee for the same period of time. The Contractor will be reimbursed for payments made to employees for a living quarters allowance for rent and utilities if such facilities are not supplied. Such allowance shall not exceed the amount paid USAID employees of equivalent rank in the Cooperating Country, in accordance with either the Standardized Regulations (Government Civilians, Foreign Areas), Chapter 130, as from time to time amended, or other rates approved by the Mission Director. Subject to the written approval of the Mission Director, short-term employees may be paid per diem (in lieu of living quarters allowance) at rates prescribed by the Federal Travel Regulations, as from time to time amended, during the time such short-term employees spend at posts of duty in the Cooperating Country under this contract. In authorizing such per diem rates, the Mission Director shall consider the particular circumstances involved with respect to each such short-term employee including the extent to which meals and/or lodging may be made available without charge or at nominal cost by an agency of the United States Government or of the

Cooperating Government, and similar factors.

(c) Temporary quarters subsistence allowance. Temporary quarters subsistence allowance is a quarters allowance granted to an employee for the reasonable cost of temporary quarters incurred by the employee and his family for a period not in excess of (i) 90 days after first arrival at a new post in a foreign area or a period ending with the occupation of residence (permanent) quarters, if earlier, and (ii) 30 days immediately preceding final departure from the post subsequent to the necessary vacating of residence quarters, unless an extension is authorized in writing by the Mission Director. The Contractor will be reimbursed for payments made to employees and authorized dependents for temporary quarters subsistence allowance, in lieu of living quarters allowance, not to exceed the amount set forth in the Standardized Regulations (Government

Civilians, Foreign Areas), Chapter 120, as from time to time amended.

(d) Post allowance. Post allowance is a cost-of-living allowance granted to an employee officially stationed at a post where the cost of living, exclusive of quarters cost, is substantially higher than in Washington, DC.

The Contractor will be reimbursed for payments made to employees for post allowance not to exceed those paid USAID employees in the Cooperating Country, in accordance with the Standardized Regulations

(Government Civilians, Foreign Areas), Chapter 220, as from time to time amended.

(e) Supplemental post allowance. Supplemental post allowance is a form of post allowance granted to an employee at his/her post when it is determined that assistance is necessary to defray extraordinary subsistence costs. The Contractor will be reimbursed for payments made to employees for supplemental post allowance not to exceed the amount set forth in the Standardized Regulations (Government Civilians, Foreign Areas), Chapter 230, as from time to time amended.

(f) Educational allowance. Educational allowance is an allowance to assist an employee in meeting the extraordinary and necessary expenses, not otherwise compensated for, incurred by reason of his/her service in a foreign area in providing adequate elementary and secondary education for his/her children. The

Contractor will be reimbursed for payments made to regular employees for educational allowances for their dependent children in amounts not to exceed those set forth in the Standardized (Regulations Government

Civilians, Foreign Areas), Chapter 270, as from time to time amended.

(g) Educational travel. Educational travel is travel to and from a school in the United States for secondary education (in lieu of an educational allowance) and for college education. The Contractor will be reimbursed for payments made to regular employees for educational travel for their dependent children provided such payment does not exceed that which would be payable in accordance with the Standardized Regulations

(Government Civilians, Foreign Areas), Chapter 280, as from time to time amended. Educational travel shall not be authorized for regular employees whose assignment is less than two years.

(h) Separate maintenance allowance. Separate maintenance allowance is an allowance to assist an employee who is compelled, by reason of dangerous, notably unhealthful, or excessively adverse living conditions at his/her post of assignment in a foreign area, or for the convenience of the Government, to meet the additional expense of maintaining his/her dependents elsewhere than at such post. The Contractor will be reimbursed for payments made to regular employees for a separate maintenance allowance not to exceed that made to Aid employees in accordance with the Standardized Regulations (Government Civilians, Foreign Areas), Chapter 260, as from time to time amended.

(i) Payments during evacuation. The Standardized Regulations (Government Civilians, Foreign Areas) provide the authority for efficient, orderly, and equitable procedure for the payment of compensation, post differential and allowances in the event of an emergency evacuation of employees or their dependents, or both, from duty stations for military or other reasons or because of imminent danger to their lives. If evacuation has been authorized by the Mission Director the Contractor will be reimbursed for payments made to employees and authorized dependents evacuated from their post of assignment in accordance with the Standardized Regulations (Government Civilians, Foreign Areas), Chapter 600, and the Federal Travel

Regulations, as from time to time amended.

(j) Danger pay allowance.

(1) The contractor will be reimbursed for payments made to its employees for danger pay not to exceed that paid USAID employees in the cooperating country, in accordance with the Standardized Regulations

(Government Civilians, Foreign Areas), Chapter 650, as from time to time amended.

(2) Danger pay is an allowance that provides additional compensation above basic compensation to an employee in a foreign area where civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions threaten physical harm or imminent danger to the health or well-being of the employee. The danger pay allowance is in lieu of that part of the post differential which is attributable to political violence. Consequently, the post differential may be reduced while danger pay is in effect to avoid dual crediting for political violence.”

d) Section C - DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK is hereby deleted in its entirety and substituted with Attachment B of this Amendment.

e) Under Section F.7 REPORTS(c)(i) delete “(Office of Security).”

f) Under Section G.3 CONTRACTING OFFICER’S REPRESENTATIVE (COR), delete “[To be designated by letter at time of award]” in its entirety.

g) In Section H – SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS, execute the following changes:

i. In Section H.4 AUTHORIZED GEOGRAPHIC CODE, insert the word “includes” after geographic code 935.

ii. In Section H.22 CONSENT TO SUBCONTRACT, delete “Amount. [TBD]”.

iii. Section H.25 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: PRECLUSION FROM

IMPLEMENTATION CONTRACT (SEPTEMBER 2018) is hereby deleted in its entirety.

iv. Section H.26 LIMITATION ON ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(DEVIATION Nos. M/OAA/DEV-FAR-18-2c ad M/OAA-DEV-AIDAR-18-2c (APRIL 2018) is hereby renumbered as Section H.25.

h) Under SECTION J - LIST OF ATTACHMENTS, the following changes are executed:

i. Attachments 1 and 2 are hereby revised and are consolidated as one attachment titled Attachment 1 of the solicitation;

ii. Attachment 3 is hereby deleted in its entirety;

iii. Due to the deletion of Attachments 2 and 3, Attachment 4 - CONTRACTOR BIOGRAPHICAL

DATA SHEET is now Attachment 2 and Attachment 5 – GENDER ANALYSIS FOR EDGE is now Attachment 3 of the solicitation, respectively.

i) SECTION L – INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS is hereby deleted in its entirety and substituted with Attachment C of this Amendment.

j) SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, is hereby deleted in its entirety and substituted with Attachment D of this Amendment.

k) Except as referenced by a FAR or AIDAR prescription or clause, wherever the word “bid” appears, it is hereby deleted and replaced with “proposal”.

[THIS SPACE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY]

ATTACHMENT A

Technical Questions

Order Section Question Answer 1 Incumbent I am hoping to find out if there is an incumbent contractor currently performing these services, if similar services have been performed in the past, or if this is a new requirement. If there is an incumbent, could you please provide the contract or task order number?

Please see Section C.1 which references the Regional Economic Growth project (REG). EDGE is to serve a similar role.

2 C – 8 In section C.8.1 Chief of Party Qualifications, we interpret the final bullet point of on page 43 to mean that the COP must be fluent in English and at least one other official language of the Western Balkans. This requirement greatly restricts the pool of qualified COP candidates. Given that the work of the COP will be regional, we are not clear why having fluency in a language used in only one of the project’s 12 countries would significantly improve the COP’s ability to perform in this position. For the language requirements of the COP noted in the bulleted list, we request that USAID stay consistent with the language used in the third paragraph of this section, on page 42 (above the bulleted list), i.e. that the COP must be fluent in spoken and written English.

The COP qualifications have been changed to require only fluency in English.

Please see revised Section C.8

3 Extension Given the broad geographic scope of this project, would USAID consider an extension until April 5 to accommodate recruitment and coordination between multiple locations?

The closing date has been extended through May 8, 2019.

4 Ceilings Core Can USAID provide an overall ceiling for the Core Component? In accordance with ADS 302, ceiling amounts cannot be included. Offerors should use the CORE LOE in J.1. and the CORE plug amounts in Section B to gauge the scale of the project.

5 Ceilings Buy-ins

Can USAID provide an overall ceiling for the Buy-in Component?

In accordance with ADS 302, ceiling amounts cannot be included. Offerors should use the Buy-In LOE in J.1. and the Buy-In plug amounts in Section B to gauge the scale of the project.

6 B – 5, Pgs. 9-

Per the RFP, pages 9-10, regarding plug figures – if a plug figure category does not apply to our proposal, could we submit an alternate Section B.5 (a)-(c) to reflect this?

No. You must use the Plug Figures.

7 B – 4, Pg. 8 On page 8 of the RFP under section B.4.(d), the 3-year base 8,834 days is correct. The RFP has been corrected.

period buy-in LOE total is 3,332 days however the LOE per worksheet (Attachment J, worksheet 2) total is 8,834 days. Can USAID please clarify which is correct?

8 Section J If we propose a CCN COP candidate, should we use insert the individual’s rate in the Chief of Party (US Expat Sr) line of Section J or are we required to submit a US expat rate for that position (in terms of the “apples to apples” evaluation) and demonstrate the CCN rate in our “alternate” LOE table(s).

For Key Personnel and Home Office staff in Section J - Attachment 1, and in J.1. Home Office Staff for All Buy- Ins the Labor Categories have been broadened to include TCNs and CCNs. Offerors must indicate in which labor category each key person and staff is proposed. However, offerors still must provide a fully loaded daily rate in all labor categories. See revised Section L and Attachments J.1. and J.1.

9 B – 8 Pg. 12 Pg. 12, Would USAID consider revising Pg. 12, point c to indicate that travel costs by field staff based in one country to the field office in another country would allowable?

Daily commuting travel costs by long-term field staff living in one country to the field office in another country are not allowed unless approved by the COR and CO.

10 Core vs. Buy-ins

What is the split of the $13.9 million REG ceiling between Core and Buy-in?

Not relevant.

11 C – 3, Pg. 20-

Pg. 20 and 21: On page 20 Sub IR1.1 is “Reduce barriers to movement of goods and capital”. On pg. 21 the graphic indicates that Sub IR1.1 is “Building local capacity to advocate for improvements in BEE.” Please clarify.

Sub IR1.1 is “Reduced Barriers to Trade”. Sub IR 1.2 is “Enhanced Stakeholder Participation in Improving BEE”.

Please see revised Results Framework in Section C.

12 C – 3, Pg. 21 Also please note that the Sub IR descriptions in the figure on Pg.

25 do not align with the figure on pg. 21. Please clarify

For IR 1.1 and 1.3 see above.

Sub IR 2.2 is “Expanded sources of capital, leading to improved access to finance” Please see revised Results Framework in Section C.

13 C – 3, Pg. 21 Pg. 21,C.3.3 Results Framework: The DO in the figure differs from the DO described on Pg. 19, C.2.3 and pg. 14,C.1. Please clarify the wording of the DO.

The DO of EDGE is: Inclusive, sustainable economic growth supporting intra-regional and Euro-Atlantic integration.

14 C – 3, Pg. 27 Pg. 27, Please note that the SubIR2.2 on Pg. 27 (figure and in text below) is not the same as the Sub IR2.2 in the figure on pg.

21. Please clarify.

Please see 12 above.

15 C – 3, Pg. 30 Pg. 30, Please note IR3.1 and 3.2 are reversed in comparison to the Figure on pg. 21. Please clarify.

Sub IR 3.1is Improved business sophistication Sub IR 3.2 is Improved market integration and expanded market linkages in targeted sectors

16 C – 7, Pg. 41 Pg. 41, 8, There is a reference to a website. Does USAID intend that the project will launch its own website or is there an existing website that the project will be responsible for updating?

The design and management of a website is anticipated.

Please refer to Section C.7.

17 D – 2, Pg. 49 Pg. 49, D.2.a.a.a indicates that the program name is Learning, Economic Development, Governance and Enterprise Growth in Europe and Eurasia. Is Learning a typo?

The inclusion of the word “Learning” is a typo. The activity name is “Economic Development, Governance, and Enterprise Growth in Europe and Eurasia.

18 L – 5, Pg. 118 Page 118 of the RFP states that the technical proposal is not to exceed 45 pages, not including annexes, but page 119 says it should be 40 pages or less. Which is correct?

The correct number is 45 pages.

19 L – 5, Pg. 122 Pg. 122, In Section L.5.2, the RFP says: “The illustrative AMELP must include proposed or illustrative targets, since the Year 1 Work Plan is needed to inform the output and results level targets…” Can USAID clarify what type of targets should be included in the illustrative AMELP, if any? Does USAID require targets for activity/output oriented indicators, results/impact oriented indicators, neither, or both?

The language should state “indicators” instead of targets.

“The illustrative AMELP must include proposed or illustrative indicators, since the Year 1 Work Plan is needed to inform the output and results level targets…”

Please see revised Section L.

20 L - 5, Pg. 122 Pg. 122, In Section L.5.2, the RFP says “The Offeror should also propose indicators on how to measure progress in this cross-cutting IR at the output and outcome level that they believe are relevant?” Can USAID clarify what is referred to by “this cross-cutting IR”? Does that refer to the cross-cutting objective of combating corruption, malign economic influences, and violent extremism? Or does it refer to the cross-cutting objective of gender integration? Or both?

The cross-cutting IR is “Countered Malign Influences, Corruption, and Violent Extremism”. Gender integration is not a cross-cutting IR.

21 L - 5, Pg. 122 Pg. 122, Section L.5.3 indicates that “The offeror should determine a percentage of LOE that will be allocated to local staff and organizations”. Is it USAID’s intention that we indicated percentages in the text of our response? Should this be based on the LOE in Section J?

We have eliminated this sentence.

22 L - 5, Pg. 124 Pg. 124 and 125, In section L.5.4, the beginning of the third paragraph states that the Prime Offeror should submit information on past performance on five relevant awards, not to

The total page limit for past performance is twenty-five

(25) pages to include a maximum of fifteen pages (15) in past performance from the Prime Offeror and a maximum exceed 15 pages. Lower down, the RFP states that Offeror may include past performance information for major Sub-Awardees for up to another five awards, also not to exceed 10 pages, for a total of no more than 20 pages together. Can USAID clarify the page limit on the Prime Offeror’s past performance information, and the page limit on the Sub-Awardees past performance information?

of ten (10) pages from any subcontractor that would receive more than 15% of the LOE in attachments J.1. and J.1.

Please see revised Section L

23 L - 5, Pg. 125 Pg. 125. USAID indicates that only the COP and local office support staff will be full time. How does this align with Section J, which indicates multiple full time positions, including the M&E specialists and Grants Manager?

The M&E Specialist and Grants Manager are to be full-time positions. Please see revised Section L.

24 Pg. 125

Pg. 125. Can USAID please confirm that Annex 3: Staffing Chart or Matrixes should include three charts: 1. an organization chart, 2. a core component matrix, and 3. an STTA chart for the buy-in component?

The Offeror will provide a Core Component Staffing Matrix and a Buy-In Component Staffing Matrix. The Offeror may include an optional Core Component Organizational Chart if they wish, but it is not required.

25 L – 6/B - 5 Pg126, Section L.6, fourth bulletin point, USAID writes, The Offeror shall submit a detailed budget for the three-year base period and each option year using the plug dollar amounts provided in Section. B.5 above. Please clarify what the detailed budget should look like, i.e. just the elements of B.5 or additional information?

Just the elements listed in Section B.5.

26 LCPs Would USAID be able to provide LCPs for the Western Balkan countries (Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, or Serbia)?

NO.

27 B-REDI Can USAID provide information about the B-REDI? Will B- REDI be a buy-in under the EDGE project

Not relevant

28 C.3 pg. 20 (Scope of Work)

Sub IR 1.1 is written as Reduced barriers to movement of goods and capital. However, on page 21, Sub IR 1.1 is written as Building local capacity to advocate for improvements in BEE.

On page 21, Sub IR 1.2 is written as Reduce Time and Cost of Moving Good Across Borders. On page 25, Sub IR 1.2 is written as Enhanced stakeholder participation in improving BEE. Sub IR

2.2 is also written differently on pages 21 and 27, and on pages 21 and 30, Sub IR 3.1 and 3.2 are in opposite order. Does USAID have a preference which language we should use?

See answers to Questions 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 above.

Please see the revised Results Framework and Sub-IR descriptions in Section C.

29 L.5 pg. 120 It states that Offerors should include Letters of Commitment and Key Personnel must be exclusive to one bid only. In the

(Instructions Regarding the Technical Proposal)

Reference Letters for Key Personnel. Should Letters of Commitment for Key Personnel state exclusivity? Could USAID clarify what is meant by “Reference Letters” for Key Personnel? Does this mean that professional references and their contacts are provided? Or are letters from references required, and if so, how many?

letters, the personnel should state exclusivity and confirm their availability.

Contact information for three (3) professional references must be identified for each of the three (3) Key Personnel.

Letters from these references are not required.

See revised Section L.

30 Section Attachment 1 & 2

The Budget Template and Labor Categories for core activities presents the Chief of Party as a US Expat (senior-level). Could USAID please clarify if this is USAID’s preference or if it is a requirement that the proposed CoP be a US Expat?

The Chief of Party and Home Office Staff may be of any allowed (Code 935) nationality.

See Question 8 above, revised Sections L and C.8. and Attachments J.1and J.1

31 M.2 pg. 133 (Management Approach)

The sub-section on Management Approach states that Offerors will be evaluated on “Clarity and quality of how the program would manage a grant under contracts.” Could USAID clarify how/if this evaluation criteria in Section M.2 relates to Section C.5 Management Plan? The Management Plan in C.5 does not mention grants under contracts.

Grants under Contract will be evaluated as part of Institutional Capability, and the capability of the Grants Manager will be evaluated in Key Personnel.

Please see revised Section L.

32 L.5.1 pg. 120 (Technical Approach)

Concerning Sub-IR’s 2.1 (A more stable financial sector supported by the adoption of compliance with key international standards), and 2.2 (Introduction of new financial products and services that increase access to finance) are we correct in assuming these Sub- IRs should be approached as inter-linked (rather than discrete), e.g., that EDGE support to IR 2.1 should feed into Sub-IR 2.2?

Section L.5.1 Technical Approach, page 121 (Narrative) states that: “The technical approach should demonstrate an excellent understanding of the regional constraints to growth under all three IRs that the EDGE project will seek to address. With regard to the Core Component, the technical approach will address how the Offeror with determine the priority activities and areas considered most relevant to achieve the three Sub-IRs in the Results Framework.” As we understand it, there are two core components IR 1: Improved BEE and Reduced Barriers to Trade (and Investment) with two corresponding Sub-IRs; and IR 3: Improved Competitiveness through Value Chains and Trade Promotion also with two corresponding Sub- IRs. Please confirm

The language in IRs. 2.1 and 2.2 has been modified.

However, these are discrete activities and are not linked to each other.

Please see revised Results Framework in Section C.

The Core Component focuses on three Sub IRs as noted in Section C.3:

Sub IR 1.1 Reducing Barriers to Trade Sub IR 3.1 Improving Market Integration and Linkages Sub IR 3.2 Improving Business Sophistication

Please see revised Results Framework in Section C that this is correct.

a) As IR 2 (improved financial sector stability with increased access to finance) is a buy-in component, not a core component, does this mean that Offerors should not discuss how they will determine the priority activities and areas for IR 2; and/or dedicate limited space to discussion of IR 2?

b) Given the geographic focus in Western Balkan countries and the 20-page page limitation of the Technical Approach section of the Proposal, could USAID provide any guidance as to how much space Offerors should dedicate to demonstrating their “understanding if the regional landscape” to the seven non- Western Balkan countries?

As noted in L.5.1, the Offeror should demonstrate their understanding of constraints to growth in the E&E region related to all three IRs, including IR 2. The Offeror is only to address how they will determine priority activities for the three Sub IRs in the Core Component. The Core Component activities are to be addressed for Sub IRs and not the IR level.

No. Please see Section M for guidance on how these two areas of the Technical Approach will be evaluated.

33 Page Limitations

Would USAID consider adding two additional pages to the page limitation for the Technical Approach section of the proposal for Offerors to discuss their approach to Grants Under Contract?

Would USAID consider adding one additional page to the page limitation for the Technical Approach for Offerors to discuss their approach to engaging local partners?

No additional pages will be added.

The Technical Approach should address how the Offeror plans to integrate grants into the technical approach to achieve results. The Offeror can address their overall ability to manage Grants Under Contract in Institutional Capacity.

The Offeror’s overall approach to engaging local partners will be addressed in the Management Plan.

34 Extension Would USAID consider extending the deadline for EDGE? As a result of the shutdown, several procurement offices have released small business set-aside solicitations that coincide with the submission cycle of EDGE. A brief extension would be greatly appreciated.

See response to Question 3.

35 L – 5, Pg. 119 On the top of page 119 references a “Cover Letter” that is not A 1-page Cover Page is not included in the page limit. The subject to the page limit. Also on page 119, under the Technical Approach structure, is listed a 1-page “Cover Page” that is not included in the page limit. Could USAID kindly clarify if a both a 1-page cover page and a 1-page cover letter are allowed and excluded from the page limit?

reference to Cover Letter has been changed to Cover Page.

The Cover Page is described in L.5.1

36 Acronym List Would USAID kindly clarify if an acronym list is also excluded from the page limit?

Yes, an acronym list is excluded from the page limit and it has been added to Section L.

37 L - 5, Pg. 120 On page 120 states that past performance references are “not to exceed fifteen (15) pages (Description of relevant past performance of Offeror and any major subcontractors...)”.

Section L.5.5 on page 125 under “3. Past Performance” also indicates a 15-page limit. However, Section L.5.4 on page 124 indicates a 15-page limit for the Offeror if not submitting past performance references major for subcontractors OR a 10-page limit (maximum of 5 references) for the Offeror plus a 10-page limit for major subcontractors (maximum of 5 references) for a total of 20 pages. Would USAID kindly clarify the page limit for past performance references from the Offeror and any major subcontractors?

The total page limit for past performance is twenty-five

(25) pages to include a maximum of fifteen pages (15) in past performance from the Prime Offeror and a maximum of ten (10) pages from any major subcontractor.

38 L - 5, Pg. 125 On page 125 under “3. Past Performance” states that “Offerors shall provide detailed past performance information, including CPAR reports.” Would USAID please clarify if bidders should provide the actual CPAR reports or rather indicate in the past performance reference tables when CPARs are available online at cpars.gov for specific projects?

The Offeror is not required to provide actual CPAR reports but must provide the award numbers of all available CPARS. Please see revised Section L.

39 C – 8, Pgs. 42-

Pages 42-43 list the qualifications for the Chief of Party (COP).

The language qualification states that the COP must be “Fluent in English and at least one other official language of the Western Balkans.” Would USAID please consider removing that qualification altogether or, alternatively, changing the COP Western Balkans language qualification to “preferred” rather than “required”? We believe that changing or removing this requirement would possibly increase flexibility and ability to work effectively across all the Balkan countries. (We are not requesting to remove the requirement for the COP to be based in the Western Balkans, which we agree is important.)

The COP is only required to be fluent in English.

See revised Section C.

40 M - 2, Pg. 133 On page 133 under Management Approach 3.1 indicates “preference to be given also to sub-contractors of European origin, particularly entities based on the region.” Would USAID allow preference also to be given to sub-contractors that are not European entities but have extensive experience in Europe as well as a wide range of Eastern European personnel to offer?

This specific sentence has been removed. However, the Management Plan may address how the Offeror will integrate technical expertise required for European integration.

Please see revised Sections L.

41 Deadline Will USAID consider extending the proposal deadline? And if so, will the new proposal due date be announced prior to USAID issuing responses to offeror questions. We believe that the short proposal turnaround time (i.e., likely less than two weeks from receiving answers to questions) may impede Offerors’ ability to adequately respond to the RFP.

See response to Question 3.

42 Page 15 On page 15, the RFP states: “Of the three IR areas, Core activities will focus on trade facilitation and competitiveness/value chain strengthening.” Does this mean that core activities will not focus on IR 2 (Improved Financial Sector Stability with Increased Access to Finance)? Will USAID provide a percentage breakdown of the Core activities between the three IRs?

The Core Component will not emphasize IR 2, and will focus on the following three Sub IRs.

Sub IR 1.1: Reduced barriers to trade Sub IR 3.1: Improved Business Sophistication Sub IR 3.2: Improved Market Integration and Expanded Market Linkages in Targeted Sector

Also see Question 32 above.

43 Ceiling Has USAID established the buy-in mechanism ceiling amount? See answer to Q. #5 above.

44 Pg. 16 Will USAID identify the “specialized subcontractor” that has been engaged to conduct REG’s “Regional Trade activities” referenced in the footnote on page 16?

Not relevant.

45 Pg. 16 Will USAID please provide a list of the “small-scale, discrete buy-in activities” referenced in the footnote on page 16?

Not relevant.

46 GUC Is it permissible for Grants Under Contract to be awarded to for-profit entities, or are they reserved for local associations and organizations?

GUCs may be provided to for-profit entities, including businesses. Please see Section C.2.2 .

47 Pg. 121 Will USAID provide more guidance, including the estimated number of pages, regarding the “scaled-down” Work Plan referenced on page 121 of the RFP? Please confirm that the Work Plan is included within the 20-page limitation.

We have removed this requirement.

48 Pg. 125 Please provide the expected “effective date of award” referenced Award is anticipated in the 4th quarter of FY 2019.

on page 125 of the RFP.

49 Pg. 125 On page 125, the RFP states: “the only full-time positions are the

COP and the local office support staff person.” This statement does not comport with the LOE days provided in Attachment J – Section 1. Can USAID please confirm or provide further clarification regarding the number of full-time positions?

This has been removed.

Please see revised Section L.

Full-time staff are identified in Attachment J.1

50 Attachment J Will USAID provide a position description and/or qualifications for the “Balkan Country Technical Advisor” positions referenced in Attachment J – Section 1. Should offerors address these positions in the Personnel and Staffing section of the proposal?

Should they be based in a different Balkan country from the COP? Or are these positions merely illustrative?

1) The language regarding the Balkan Country Technical Advisors has been modified. Please refer to Sections C. 10 and L.5.4. There are no required qualifications for these positions, and no geographic requirement for the advisors, other than that they be based in the Western Balkans sub-region. They may be proposed at any of the three technical levels: Senior, Mid, or Junior.

2) Offerors should address the use of Balkan Technical Advisor positions in the Management Approach and Staffing Matrix for the Core Component. .

2) Offerors should propose individuals for Core Labor positions in J.1 and indicate the specific Category (US Expat, TCN, CCN) that applies to those named individuals.

3) Specific Qualifications are required for the three Key Personnel and the three Other Essential Project Staff. For all other project staff proposed, the Offeror can propose staff in any Labor Category. All other Labor Categories should be based on the Qualifications in Section C.9 Offerors must propose fully loaded rates for all Labor Categories in Core Labor J.1. and Buy-In Labor J.1. See revised Section L and Attachments J.1 and J.1.

51 L – 5 In section L.5.4 Institutional Capacity (page 124 of the RFP), the solicitation states that

The total page limit is 25 pages, including a maximum of 15 pages for examples from the Prime Offeror and a

“Offerors should provide relevant information on Past Performance in an Annex not to exceed fifteen (15) pages…” Later in the same paragraph, the solicitation states that the Offeror may include additional past performance examples for major Sub-Awardees, “…up to another five (5) past performance examples, also not to exceed ten (10) pages, totaling no more than twenty (20) pages together.” Would USAID please indicate how many pages the prime and major sub-awardee are able to provide individually? Does this mean five for each Major Subcontractor, or a total of five additional past performance examples for all subcontractors? Will USAID evaluate past performance information proved on behalf of non-major subcontractors? Would USAID further clarify the total page limit for the institutional capacity section, inclusive of both the prime and major sub-awardee past performance examples?

maximum of 10 pages for examples from any major Subcontractors.

Please see revised Section L.

52 L - 5 In section L.5.4 Institutional Capacity (page 124 of the RFP), the solicitation refers the Offeror to “See L.4.5.3” for further instructions for the past performance annex. However, upon review of the RFP, section L.4.5.3 is not included. Would USAID please confirm that the cross-reference in this section is correct?

See Revised Section L.

53 C - 3 In section C.3 Scope of Work (page 20 of the RFP), the RFP states that Sub IR 1.1 is “Reduced barriers to movement of goods and capital.” In section C.3.3, the RFP states that Sub IR 1.1 is “Building local capacity to advocate for improvements in BEE.” Would USAID please clarify the correct intermediate result Offerors should ascribe to Sub IR 1.1?

See revised Results Framework for Section C.

54 C - 3 In Section C.3.3 Results Framework (page 21 of the RFP), the RFP states that Sub IR 1.2 is “Reduce the time and cost of moving goods across borders,” whereas in both section C.3 Scope of Work and section C.3.4. Problem statement, goal and desired results, the RFP states that this intermediate result is “reduced barriers to movement of goods and capital.” Would USAID please clarify the intermediate result to which Offerors should respond?

See revised Results Framework for Section C.

55 C - 3 In section C.3.3 Results Framework (page 21 of the RFP), the See revised Results Framework for Section C.

RFP states that Sub IR 1.1 is “Building local capacity to advocate for improvements in BEE”, while in section C.3.4.

Problem statement, goal and desired results, the RFP states that this intermediate result is “Enhanced stakeholder participation in improving BEE.” Would USAID please clarify the intermediate result to which Offerors should respond?

56 C - 3 In section C.3 Scope of Work (page 20 of the subject RFP) and section C.3.3 Results Framework, the RFP states that Sub IR 3.1 is “Improved business sophistication” and Sub IR 3.2 is “Improved market integration and expanded market linkages.” In section C.3.4 Problem statement, goal and desired results, the RFP re-assigns the intermediate results 3.1 and 3.2. Would USAID please clarify the correct intermediate result Offerors should ascribe to Sub IRs

3.1 and 3.2?

See revised Results Framework for Section C.

57 Cost What information, if any, is required for sub-contractors/partners receiving less than 15% of the award under the cost proposal?

None. All subcontracts will be submitted for CO approval after award.

58 Bullet 3 Pg.

127, Biodatas

Will Biographical Data Sheets be required to support the written methodology for the fully loaded daily rates (Page 127, Bullet 3)?

Bio Data Sheets are not required but may be submitted to support the salary component of the fully loaded daily rates.

59 Pg. 127 Please clarify what is meant by “the same format” in the statement on Page 127, Bullet 5: “A separate cost proposal for each subcontractor in the same format required for the Offeror it’s (“the prime”) shall accompany the Offeror’s proposal.”

The line items in Section B budgets should show the amounts of plug numbers and LOE allocated to each major subcontractor by the prime, plus any allowable ODCs.

60 Subcontractor s

Please confirm that sub-contractors are required to submit: Core Component and Buy-in Component Budgets and LOE Spreadsheet, using the plug figures entered by USAID.

See answer to #57 above.

61 Extension Given that there was no draft scope of work issued for this solicitation, we request USAID provide an extension of the deadline so that offerors can prepare high quality, responsive proposals.

Please see response to Question No. 3.

62 C – 3, Pg. 28 Section C.3.4. IR3, page 28 of the RFP states “the Contractor must propose three sectors of priority for value chain activities throughout the region, but should have a clear justification of how new sectors proposed will contribute to the anticipate results……The contractor will also prepare a sector analysis brief for the region. At a minimum, the Contractor shall update

The sector selection follows award and is not required as part of the Offeror’s proposal. As noted in Section L.5 of the Technical Approach, the Offeror should explain how they plan to undertake this analysis.

the analyses that were done in 2013 and 2015 under REG to further validate their approach and identify other opportunities” Should the three sectors of priority activity be existing sectors or a combination of existing and new? Please clarify whether sectors should be specific to each region ( Western Balkans, Caucuses, UMB) or should be sectors that would impact all three regions across the entire project. If sectors are to be region-specific, is USAID expecting the Contractor to potentially identify up the 9 (nine) new sector activities, three for each region, or just one sector for each region?

63 C – 8, Pgs. 42-

Section C.8.1, page 42-43: The third paragraph of the COP qualifications notes that “The COP must be fluent in spoken and written English …”, while the last bullet point says that the COP Should be “Fluent in English and at least one other language of the Western Balkans” . At the same time, Attachment 1 of section J. notes that the labor category for the COP position is U.S. Expat. Given the difficulty of finding U.S. Expats who are fluent in a Balkan language, would USAID please consider changing the last bullet point to “Fluent in English and working proficiency in at least one other language of the Western Balkans” ?

The requirement for the COP to have fluency in another language is eliminated.

See revised Section C.

64 J, Pg. 99 Section J. Attachment 3, page 99, provides a link to Past Performance Matrix template which is a spreadsheet listing specific information about project awards. Section L.5.4, 124, Institutional Capability, states that offerors should provide past performance information for up to five (emphasis added) awards in an Annex. In addition, section L.5.3.3, page 125, Annexes, Past Performance, asks for “detailed past performance information”. Much of what is requested in this section, including CPARS reports, address of organization for which the work was performed, the name and telephone number, and e-mail addresses of at least two contacts for each organization, annual amount received for each of the last four years, are not included in the Past Performance Matrix Template. In addition, this section mentions information

Attachment J.3 has been removed. The Past Performance Annex explained in Section L describes the information required for Past Performance References, but there is no required template.

Offerors are not to provide CPARS reports, but must note that they exist for specific contracts.

required for two contracts (emphasis added).

Can USAID please clarify what past performance information it would like to see in the Annex, and for how may projects?

Is the template provided in Annex J sufficient or is additional information required. Should offers include copies of CPARs or just note that they exist?

65 M – 2, Pg. 131 Section M.2, page 131, provides a table with evaluation criteria that shows that “partners & subcontractors” will be evaluated as part of the “Key Personnel and Staffing criteria. Should “partners & subcontractors” be evaluated as part of the offerors Management Approach instead?

The overall use of partners and subcontractors will be evaluated in the Management Approach.

Please see revised Sections L and M.

66 L – 5, Pg. 131 Section L. 5.2 Requires a five page activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (AMELP) to be included in the Technical approach. However, the table in Section M.2, page 131, does not mention the AMELP. How will the AMELP be evaluated?

The AMELP is evaluated in the Technical Approach.

See L.5 and revised section M.

67 L – 6, Pg. 126 Section L.6, p 126, states that “Fully loaded rates shall apply to all labor provided by the prime contractor, all subcontractors, and consultants under the contract”.

However Section L.3, page 117, states

“(1) Separate rates for each category of labor to be performed by each subcontractor and for each category of labor to be performed by the offeror, and for each category of labor to be transferred between divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates of the offer under a common control;

(2) Blended rates for each category of labor to be performed by the offeror, including labor transferred between divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates of the offeror under a common control, and all subcontractors; or

(3) Any combination of separate and blended rates for each category of labor to be performed by the offeror, affiliates of the offeror under a common control, and subcontractors.”

The prime’s fully loaded daily rates will apply to all labor covered by Attachments J.1. and J.1. provided by the prime contractor, all subcontractors and consultants under the contract.

No separate loaded rates should be included for subcontractors.

Since page 127 requires “The Offeror shall provide a matrix showing all the components of each loaded daily rate, i.e. base salary, benefits, indirect costs and fee”, can USAID please give more clarification on how subcontractor rates should be presented and how the prime should apply their own indirect charges/fees on top of subcontractor rates?

68 L – 6, Pg. 126 Do fully burdened rates for local employees, referenced in Section L.6, page 126, include not just direct labor, indirect costs, and fee but also locally mandated social costs (pension, insurance, 13th/14th month bonuses) required by country specific labor laws? If not, should this be included as an ODC in the budget?

Allowable locally mandated social costs (pension, insurance, 13th/14th month bonuses) required by country specific labor laws should be included as an ODC in the budget and clearly supported. They must not be part of the fully burdened daily rates.

69 L – 6, Pg. 127 Section L.6, page 127, the first bullet point states “However, if the offeror submits an alternate spreadsheet and can demonstrate a more efficient and cost-effective way of achieving the project results, this could reflect favorably on the evaluation of the Management Plan”

Offerors submitting alternate cost budgets will reduce the effectiveness of an “apples to apples” comparison of cost structures that the RFP is trying to achieve. Since the RFP has given plug figures for LOE, labor categories, and almost all ODCs, and since Buy-In activities are all TBD, can USAID provide some direction on which areas of the budget are open to modifications?

The ability to provide alternate spreadsheets and budgets has been removed. The Offeror must include the plug figures and use the LOE tables in J.1 and J.1.

70 B – 5, Pg. 9 Section B.5, page 9, and the budget attachments provide $1.4 million dollar plug figure for local subcontractors. If a named local subcontractor is proposed as a major subcontractor, can a portion of their budget include the $1.4 million plug to meet the 15% threshold?

No, the $1.4 million plug figure is for office maintenance, motor pool, conference space, etc. type subcontracts that do not provide the labor categories in J.1 and J.1 covered by the fully loaded rates.

71 C – 2, Pg. 16 Section C.2, page 16, states, “However, other part-time representatives can be proposed for other locations in the Balkans, and one (1) Sub-Regional Representative (SRR) for the Ukraine/Moldova/Belarus (UMB) sub-region and one (1) SRR

The Sub-Regional Representatives (SRRs) in the UMB and Caucasus are to be part-time. Please see Attachment J.1 for LOE estimates.

for Armenia/Georgia/Azerbaijan (the…