RFP 7200AA21R00012 AMENDMENT 01 signed for posting.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 28

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

See Box 16C

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (IF OTHER THAN ITEM 6) CODE

U.S.Agency for International Development

M/OAA

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, UA

Washington DC 20523-1000AA

Same as Box 6

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State, and Zip Code)

To All Potential Offerors

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO. 01

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11) 01/23/2021

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

CODE: FACILITY CODE: 10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

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.

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 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram 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 telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If Required)

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

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO., AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14

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

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, 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)

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

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

This is Amendment No. 01 for Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 7200AA21R00012 and:

(a) Amends relevant RFP sections; and

(b) Publishes the submitted questions from interested offerors and corresponding responses.

Details provided on pages 2 – 28 below.

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.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

Suhaib A. Khan

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE

SIGNED

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE

SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Previous Edition Unusable Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

PART I – REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) AMENDMENT

1. On Page 24, Section F.5, In the Table, under the Labor Category, delete the “Long Term Technical Assistance” and replace with “Long-Term Technical Assistance (expatriate/U.S)” and, delete the “Short Term Technical Assistance” and replace with “Short-Term Technical Assistance (expatriate/U.S)”.

2. On Page 25, Section F.7 (1), second paragraph, bullet no 2, delete “Minimum ten (10) years of management experience implementing trade and investment development programs. Africa work experience preferred” and replace with “Minimum ten (10) years of management experience leading large programs that have focused on trade, investment, private sector engagement, partnerships, private sector development or enterprise-driven growth. Africa work experience preferred”.

3. On Page 26 and 27, Section F.9, delete the Table in its entirety and replace with the following:

F.9. REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES

DELIVERABLES DUE DATE

Work Plan

Final Y1 work plan- within-90 calendar days of the date the contract is signed.

Annual work plans- 30 calendar days prior to the subsequent year of implementation.

Environmental and Social Management Framework

(ESMF)

Final – within- 45 calendar days of date contract is signed.

Trade and Investment Landscape Assessment

Within the first two quarters of the Award and Updated Yearly.

Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Plan Final- within 90 days of the date of contract signature

Grants Manual To be finalized within 60 days of the date contract is signed.

Communications Strategy, Branding Strategy and Marking Plan

Within 30 calendar days of date contract is signed.

Quarterly Progress Reports

Within 30 calendar days of the end of the quarter. The last quarterly report of the reporting year shall be replaced by an annual report that summarizes the entire year’s accomplishments. Quarterly reports shall include reporting on indicators and milestones as detailed in the M&E Plan.

Annual Report

Within 30 days of the end of the annual reporting period. The last annual report of the project shall be replaced by the final report that summarizes the entire project’s accomplishments, annual government property report, and reporting on indicators and milestones as detailed in the MEL Plan.

USAID M/OAA

Request for Proposal (RFP) Solicitation No. 7200AA21R00012

Amendment No. 01

Final Activity Report Four weeks before the contract completion date.

Close-out Plan 6 months before contract completion date.

4. On Page 47, Section H.19:

a) first paragraph, delete this sentence, “The contractor must seek approval for grants under contract authority for the contract in accordance with the procedures outlined below.”

b) add the following after paragraph (g):

“(h) If requested by the contractor, an LOC will be established to provide advances for GUCs. This process of making advances will be governed by ADS 636.”

5. On Page 68, Section J - Attachments, Add the following:

Attachment 9 - Local Compensation Plans (LCP) for Kenya, Ghana, Morocco and South Africa

6. On Page 79, Section L.1, FAR 52.252-1 Solicitation Provisions Incorporated By Reference (FEB 1998), add the following in the table:

52.225-17 Evaluation of Foreign Currency Offers FEB 2000

7. On Page 82, Section L.5, Phase Two Factors for technical evaluation include, delete the title “Factor 7 – Organizational chart and replace with “Factor 7 – Organizational Chart and Staffing Plan”

8. On Page 82, Phase Two Factors for technical evaluation include, delete Factor 8 - “CVs for the five key personnel” and replace with Factor 8 - “CVs for up to five key personnel.”

9. On Page 82, Phase Two Factors for technical evaluation include, delete “Factor 7 Organizational Chart “and replace with “Factor 7 - Organizational chart and Staffing Plan”.

10. On Page 83, Section L.5, Phase One- Technical Proposals, Factor One – Introduction, delete the sentence in its entirety and replace it with "Provide a high-level vision of how to address the needs and objectives described in Section C”.

11. On Page 86, Section L.5, Phase Two- Technical Proposals, Factor Ten – Past Performance, delete first bullet of the section and replace with “Offerors must provide a list of up to ten relevant Federal Awards (contracts or grants) or non-Government awards within the last three years that demonstrate impact across similar work as in Section C.”

12. On Page 86, Section L.5, Phase Two – Technical Proposal, delete "Factor Seven - Organizational Chart: Provide a graphic representation of roles and organizational structure as well as a brief narrative that provides a rationale for this structure. Offerors must include descriptions of the consortium members and their roles, define the proposed lines of responsibility, authority, and reporting through which multiple tasks will be managed." and replace with "Factor Seven - Organizational Chart and Staffing Plan - Provide a graphic representation of roles and organizational

USAID M/OAA

Request for Proposal (RFP) structure as well as a brief staffing plan that provides a rationale for this structure. Offerors must include descriptions of the consortium members and their roles, define the proposed lines of responsibility, authority, and reporting through which multiple tasks will be managed."

13. On Page 88, delete 2nd bullet point “● Organizational chart (maximum two pages)” and replace with ● Organizational chart and Staffing plan (maximum four pages).

14. On Page 88, Section L.7, first paragraph, bullet no 4, delete the sentence and replace it with “Draft Environmental and Social Management Framework (Maximum five pages, see instructions in attached PIEE);”

15. On Page 100, Section M, Factor 7, delete the Factor 7 name "Organizational Chart" and replace with "Organizational Chart and Staffing Plan" Delete the first bullet "The quality of the organizational chart and supporting rationale, including descriptions of the consortium members and their roles" and replace with "The quality of the organizational chart and supporting staffing plan, including descriptions of the consortium members and their roles".

16. On Page 102, M.6, Cost Proposal Evaluation, delete the last sentence “A cost evaluation will not be performed on Offerors whose technical proposal does not make it to Phase Two.

PART II – QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY INTERESTED OFFERORS AND

CORRESPONDING ANSWERS.

GENERAL QUESTIONS

Q1. USAID has provided a range of $450-500 million and a total of 57,500 days of level of effort over the life of the contract. Please clarify the following:

a. How much of the total budget and LOE will be allocated for potential regional and bilateral mission activity buy-ins?

b. For budgeting and planning purposes, please provide an estimate of how much will be obligated upon award for initial contract start-up and implementation.

A1. We estimate about half the TEC will be reserved for regional and bilateral buy-ins. Startup funds will be about $40 million.

Q2. How does USAID define major subcontractor for purposes of PATI?

A2. A major subcontractor can be defined as one that is proposed as a consortium member and will be responsible for a core or major component of objectives 1-4 in the SOW on a medium to long-term basis. For example, if an offeror proposes to have a subcontractor implement the core MEL function for the activity, that subcontractor would be a “major subcontractor”. Other examples might include a subcontractor that implements the Deal Team support function, or one that supports and advises on enabling environment activities and buy-ins for all activities on the continent.

USAID M/OAA

Request for Proposal (RFP) Solicitation No. 7200AA21R00012

SECTION B

Q3. B.2-B4, page 2: Section B.2 calls for a CPFF Term type of contract under which payment of fee is tied to LOE. Section B.4 Contract Budget includes three CLINs, CLIN 00001 Technical Assistance, CLIN 00002 GUCs and CLIN 00003 Subcontracts. Please confirm that, given instructions in L.8(b)(iii) (page 89), offerors should include applicable fee (if any) on CLIN 00003 Subcontracts in CLIN 00001 Technical Assistance.

A3. Technical Assistance is for core services under CLIN 00001. Any indirect charges or fees to provide core services must be clearly shown. This would include the costs associated with making or managing a grant or subcontract. The GUCS CLIN will only include the funds released to the grantee, and the Subcontracts CLIN only the funds provided to the subcontractor.

Q4. B.4, page 2: Please confirm that offerors should include non-competed technical assistance subcontracts in support of “core” services in CLIN 00001 Technical Assistance for the purposes of the summary budget.

A4. If the subcontract is for a core service as defined in Section C, including page 14 of the RFP,

1. Core services vs. performance-based subcontracts and cost-shared grants, then it will be included in

CLIN 00001.

SECTION C

Q5. There are several references to the USG Deal Teams throughout the RFP. Given the importance of interacting and supporting the USG Deal Teams, we request that greater details are provided on the composition and role of the Deal Teams and the anticipated support required from

PATI.

A5. The State Department has mandated that all USG missions overseas establish an Embassy Deal Team (EDT) to coordinate analysis and support to the private sector. The Prosper Africa Executive Secretariat also convenes a deal team for Africa, known as the Prosper Africa Deal Team (PADT), which comprises representatives from all seventeen (17) departments and agencies which comprise the Initiative. Embassy Deal Teams consist of all relevant USG agencies at a given post (or supporting a Post, such as from a Regional office or platform) whose mandate, tools and resources can in some way support business transactions. The PADT and each of the over 50 EDTs are anticipated to require support under PATI.

Under Prosper Africa, all Deal Teams and the entities that oversee them (USG missions, PAES) in Africa are mandated to support two-way trade and investment deals between the United States and Africa, and to work to improve the business enabling environment for trade and investment in Africa.

More information about EDTs can be found at:https://www.state.gov/deal-teams/. The widely varying range of Embassy size and staffing, as well as the range of business climates and private sector interest in different African countries will determine the amount of support required for a given EDT. A smaller USG Mission, such as Sierra Leone, may require more generalized support due to smaller staff size and fewer USG Agencies present in-country, however, there is also likely to be a smaller volume of deals requiring support as well. A large mission, such as South Africa, has significant staff and Agency presence, but the high volume and sophistication of deals may require additional technical expertise or bandwidth.

USAID M/OAA

Request for Proposal (RFP)

In general, the Deal Team support function is not intended for implementation of deals, but rather to help PADT/EDT analyze opportunities, engage businesses and investors and determine what type of specialized support might be appropriate. In most cases, actual implementation of specialized support will be funded separately, either through a mission buy-in to PATI or through other agency programming and resources (e.g., not a part of “core services”).

Q6. C.5, page 7: USAID states “An efficient, service-oriented office in Washington, D.C. will be required to support Activity implementation, however, Activity resources must be primarily dedicated to field-based efforts to the greatest extent possible.” Can USAID confirm that offerors should budget for offices in Washington D.C., South Africa, Kenya, Ghana, and Morocco for the entire period of performance?

A6. Yes, offerors should budget for presence in each location, however the size, scale and staffing are to be determined by the offeror based on their proposed technical and management approach.

Q7. The RFP (p7) states that “[T]he Activity will have multiple strategically located offices designed to provide a critical interface for USG agencies and high-volume business centers, including, but not limited to South Africa, Kenya, Ghana and Morocco.”

a. For budgeting purposes, should offerors assume that all offices will need to become operational as soon as possible upon award, as part of an overall Activity startup?

A7.a. The offeror is responsible for proposing an innovative and cost effective technical and management approach that meets the needs of the USG, based on current realities.

b. Does USAID have a preference for which location should serve as PATI headquarters, including for budget purposes?

A7.b. USAID’s preference is for PATI to be headquartered in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Q8. C.5, page 8: USAID states “This effort will require significant collaboration and creativity that leverages the combined resources of the USG, especially through engagement with U.S. Embassy Deal Teams…” Can USAID confirm how many deal teams USAID envisions supporting through the Activity, and if this support will be in person or remote support, for budget considerations?

A8. Every USG Embassy on the continent has a Deal Team, however in several circumstances a U.S. Embassy covers more than one country (information available on the State Department’s website). The offeror is expected to propose an innovative and cost effective technical and management approach that provides support to any Embassy Deal Team requesting assistance, as well as the Prosper Africa Deal Team in Washington.

Q9. C: The RFP indicates in several places (pages 8-12) that PATI will collaborate and engage with Embassy Deal Teams in delivering Objective 1-3 activities. On page 13, USAID lists Advisory Support to Missions and Embassy Deal Teams as one of six core elements of Objective 4.

Considering that USAID expects the successful prime offeror to “implement relatively few of the activities under Objectives 1-3 since most efforts under these Objectives should be implemented

USAID M/OAA

Request for Proposal (RFP) through sub-contracts or GUCs” (page 14), can USAID confirm that all “direct support” to Embassy Deal Teams should budgeted through its core set of services?

A9. Correct. All direct support provided, whether it be to AFR/SD, the Prosper Africa Executive Secretariat, the Prosper Africa Deal Team, or Embassy Deal Teams, should be budgeted as part of core services.

Q10. RFP Section C, page 12, paragraphs 4a and 4b, states, “The USAID Africa and Middle East Bureaus and the Prosper Africa Secretariat will rely on this Activity to meet most of their MEL needs on trade and investment programming across the continent,” and, “The Activity will support all trade and investment related communications and outreach needs of the USAID Africa and Middle East Bureaus and PAES.” Given the potentially expansive scope of these activities beyond PATI and Prosper Africa, could USAID please provide an LOE estimate for MEL- and communications-related activities respectively, so that offerors may appropriately resource and budget their proposals? Is this LOE considered a core service and included within the estimated 57,500 days, or might these services be provided as buy-ins drawing down on the subcontract fund?

A10. MEL and communications for activities implemented under PATI should be calculated as part of the core LOE. MEL and communications for activities outside PATI are not core activities and, if such activities were to be considered, it will be paid for through a buy-in.

Q11. Can USAID please clarify whether the primary mechanism for funding and implementation of the project will be through regional and bilateral USAID mission buy-ins? If so, can USAID provide additional guidance or assumptions for the expected timing and scale of Activity funding?

This will have implications for staffing, infrastructure, and other critical inputs to proposed budgets, as well as efficiencies and economies of scale USAID might benefit from during implementation.

A11. It is anticipated that about half of the funding for PATI will be allocated centrally through the Africa and Middle East Bureaus, with the balance coming from both regional and bilateral mission buy-ins. The offeror will need to propose an innovative and flexible technical and management approach that allows for scaling up or down services based on demand from missions and opportunities that arise in different countries.

Q12. Page 12, 4.a Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning. “The USAID Africa and Middle East Bureaus and the Prosper Africa Secretariat will rely on this Activity to meet most of their MEL needs on trade and investment programming across the continent. A robust, gender-informed MEL plan will be established to support activity and PAES related impacts and results, including coordinating, consolidating and reporting on USAID and/or Prosper Africa goals…The Activity will assist USAID in tracking the activities of, and coordinating with, Prosper Africa stakeholders, including Deal Teams and USG agencies engaged in the initiative, host country governments, non-governmental organizations, international development partners, multilateral development banks and other regional institutions, and the private sector.” We request that USAID lay out in more detail the intent and parameters of this requirement, since as written, this could be implied to cover MEL reporting for all trade and investment activities even those not under PATI, in all countries where USAID and Prosper Africa operate. The extent of this requirement could be enormous and require a large portion of the budget.

A12. The MEL plan is to cover all activities financed through PATI, including core services, grants, and subcontracts. If a Mission uses another contract or task order for trade and investment

USAID M/OAA

Request for Proposal (RFP) activities, and wishes to use PATI for MEL on those activities, the Mission will need to buy-in and implement those activities through a PATI subcontract or grant.

Q13. Page 14 of the RFP states that the “Prime will not compete for or lead the implementation of any of PATI’s subcontracts or GUCs.” Please confirm that subcontractors with dedicated scopes of work in the core contract are eligible to compete for additional work on activities that may be funded from the project’s subcontracts and grants pool.

A13. Yes, subcontractors with dedicated scopes will be able to compete for additional work and that additional work will be funded through the project’s subcontracts and grants pool.

Q14. Page 15, Activity Approach: 1. Core services vs. performance-based subcontracts and cost-share grants. “The contractor must add commensurate value in the subcontracting process in order to justify any indirect charges/fees it charges for work performed by the subcontractor (s). The value added must be documented.” Can USAID clarify if applying indirect charges to subcontracts is part of a company’s NICRA, is this sufficient documentation?

A14. No, just having an indirect charge approved as NICRA is not sufficient documentation.

Q15. Per #14 above, can USAID clarify or provide guidance on wh at form constitutes this documentation or examples thereof?

A15. An example of added value would be the definition found in FAR clause 52.215-23(a) which defines added value as: “Added value” to mean that the contractor performs subcontract management functions that the Contracting Officer determines are a benefit to the Government (e.g., processing orders of parts or services, maintaining inventory, reducing delivery lead times, managing multiple sources for contract requirements, coordinating deliveries, performing quality assurance functions).”

SECTION F

Q16. Page 24, Section F.5, provides five labor categories that must be used to organize the professional technical level of effort including Long-term Technical Assistance Key Personnel, Long-term Technical Assistance (CCN/TCN), Long-term Technical Assistance (Expatriate), Short-term Technical Assistance (CCN/TCN), and Long-term Technical Assistance (Expatriate).

a. Given the requirements to have staff based in Washington, DC as well as in Sub-Saharan and North Africa, please advise which of the labor categories should include any LOE assigned to non-key personnel based in Washington, DC.

A16a. The RFP will be amended to specify that Long-term Technical Assistance includes both expatriate and U.S. The RFP will also be amended to specify that Short-term Technical Assistance will also include U.S.

b. Is Long-term Technical Assistance (Expatriate) only for long-term overseas personnel?

USAID M/OAA

Request for Proposal (RFP)

A16b. No, long-term Technical Assistance (expatriate or U.S.) can be based in Washington or overseas, the offeror must specify which it is. The RFP will be amended to include “ Long-term Technical Assistance (expatriate or U.S.).

c. If Long-term Technical Assistance Key Personnel participate in short-term activities, such as assessments or scoping, how should the LOE for those individuals be allocated? Are they attributed to LTTA, expatriate or STTA as they are long-term technical assistance key personnel? If Washington, DC based non-key personnel participate, which labor category should their LOE be attributed?

A16c. Long term Technical Assistance Key personnel will be shown under that category. If non-key personnel based in Washington are long term they will be shown as Long-term Technical Assistance (expatriate or U.S). If non-key personnel based in Washington are short-term they will be shown as Short-term Technical Assistance (U.S).

Q17. Section F.5 a) of the RFP indicates that USAID requires the Contractor to provide an estimated 57,500 professional technical staff person days. It further specifies that this level of effort estimate is “not including subcontractors.” This language suggests that USAID expects these person days to be provided exclusively by the Prime, and that any subcontractors identified to support core activities would need to be in addition to this estimate. Can USAID clarify whether this reference to subcontractors refers to all subcontractors, or may a portion of these estimated LOE days be provided by subcontractors identified to support core activities?

A17. Yes, it can include subcontractors identified to provide a portion of the core activities.

Q18. Would the government confirm that offerors are expected to reflect FFP subcontractor LOE in the 57,500 figure listed in the RFP?

A18. Yes, if the subcontractor effort is in support of core activities.

Q19. The Solicitation Clause F.5 Professional Technical Level of Effort (LOE) and Support LOE (page 23) states that The Contractor must provide the Level of Effort of professional technical employees (not including subcontractors) for the contract period of performance specified in Section F.3 above. Does USAID mean by this that the Contractor cannot use subcontractors or consultant labor to provide professional technical services to complete the Professional Technical Level of Effort? For example, can the Contractor hire labor through a subcontracted Employer of Record arrangement or through a consultant agreement rather than as Contractor employee?

A19. Subcontractors can provide part of the Professional Technical LOE if their work is in support of core services identified in Section C. See Core services vs. performance-based subcontracts and cost-shared grants on Page 14 of the RFP.

Q20. Section F.5 estimates 57,500 professional technical staff person-days’ level of effort for PATI. Could USAID confirm this estimate is for core services delivered by the program?

A20. USAID confirms this estimate is for core services as defined in Section C. It does not include other LOE in the CLINS for GUCS or performance-based Subcontracts as described on page 14 of the

RFP.

USAID M/OAA

Request for Proposal (RFP)

Q21. Section F.5 of the RFP states, “The Contractor must provide the Level of Effort of professional technical employees (not including subcontractors) for the contract period of performance.” We understand that the level of effort included in the estimated $228,000,000 of outsourced subcontracts would not count against the estimated 57,500 days. However, our consortium subcontractors will be performing core services outlined in the RFP, including provision of long-term core services labor. As such, we request that core consortium partners’ LOE count against the 57,500-day LOE estimate.

A21. If the subcontractors are performing core services, the labor can be counted as part of the 57,500-day estimated LOE.

Q22. Page 23, F.5 Professional Technical Level of Effort (LOE) and Support LOE. USAID estimates the Prime’s Professional Technical LOE required to implement is about 57,500 days. Are these days inclusive of paid time off?

A22. Yes. Offerors are expected to propose LOE inclusive of paid time off.

Q23. Page 23, F.5 Professional Technical Level of Effort (LOE) and Support LOE. USAID estimates the Prime’s Professional Technical LOE required to implement is about 57,500 days. Would Subcontractor LOE contributing to the “centrally coordinated technical and institutional support activities” be included in this estimate?

A23. Yes. This wording under C. 1 of the RFP is consistent with the description provided on page 14 of the RFP (core services vs. performance-based subcontracts).

Q24. F.5, page 23: USAID notes that “The Contractor must provide the Level of Effort of professional technical employees (not including subcontractors) for the contract period of performance […].” Please confirm that labor-based subcontracts for key personnel and professional technical employees responsible for “core” services count towards the 57,500 professional technical staff person days level of effort estimate.

A24. USAID confirms this is correct.

Q25. RFP Section F.7 (p24) states that “[T]he Contractor must have up to five (5) Key Personnel positions.” On p82, however, Phase 2 factors for technical evaluations show that Factor 8 requires “CVs for the five key personnel.” Could USAID please clarify if offerors are required to submit five key personnel or if offerors may propose “up to” (and therefore less than) five key personnel?

A25. USAID encourages the submission of five Key Personnel, but the Offeror is at liberty to propose less than five if it believes its staffing mix proposed will best deliver PATI’s anticipated results with less than five key personnel as demonstrated in its proposal. The RFP will be amended to add “CVs for up to five key personnel.”

Q26. F.7, page 24: USAID indicates offerors may include “up to five (5) Key Personnel positions” whereas under Section L.5 Proposal Submission on page 82, the RFP indicates Factor 8 include “CVs

USAID M/OAA

Request for Proposal (RFP) for the 5 key personnel”. Please confirm that offerors may include up to five (5) key personnel positions, including CVs for all designated key personnel roles, but there is not a specific number of key personnel roles required?

A26. Same answer as to question directly Q25 above.

Q27. F.7, pages 24-25: Since description of PATI in the RFP is more expansive than trade and investment, and since the prime is not expected to lead technical implementation of most PATI activities from an operational standpoint, would USAID consider revising the Program Manager/Chief of Party qualifications so they are more broadly encompassing of PATI’s objectives, for example: ‘Minimum ten (10) years of management experience leading large programs that have focused on trade, investment, partnerships, private sector development or enterprise-driven growth, or enabling environment improvements. Africa work experience preferred.’

A27. The language in the RFP will be revised as follows: “Minimum ten (10) years of management experience leading large programs that have focused on trade, investment, private sector engagement, partnerships, private sector development or enterprise-driven growth. Africa work experience preferred.’.

Q28. F.8, page 25: USAID states “the staffing plan must include other personnel needed to accomplish the Activity’s goals…”, however there is no provision for a staffing plan under the instructions in Section L. Would USAID allow bidders to include a staffing plan for PATI in Factor 7, revising this section to read ‘Factor Seven – Organizational Chart and Staffing Plan’ and increasing the maximum page length from 2 to 4 pages?

A28. The language in section L.5 of the RFP will be amended to rename the title of the factor as suggested, including language calling for a Staffing Plan supportive of the graphic.

Q29. RFP Section F.8, Other Personnel (page 25), lists four personnel needed to accomplish the Activity’s goals. Is it USAID’s expectation that the four skillsets be covered by full-time staff on the project, or is USAID open to other potentially more flexible and dynamic arrangements?

A29. There is no preference whether the skill sets be covered by full-time staff or other arrangements. USAID prefers that the offeror propose innovative approaches to staffing that will meet USG needs in a flexible, cost effective way.

Q30. Section F.8 of the RFP states that “[T]he staffing plan must include other personnel needed to accomplish the Activity’s goals…” However, a staffing plan is not listed among Section L requirements. Could USAID please clarify if a staffing plan is required and, if so, in which factor and in what number of pages?

A30. Yes. See answer A29 above.

Q31. F.9, page 26: Please confirm that offerors are not required to submit a Draft Year 1 (Y1) work plan with either the Phase I or Phase II proposal submission.

A31. No draft work plan is required for the proposal submission. The RFP table will be amended to take out the requirement.

USAID M/OAA

Request for Proposal (RFP)

Q32. The table in section F.9 indicates that the Year 1 Work plan is due 45 days after award.

However, on p26, USAID indicates “The first Annual Work Plan shall be submitted to USAID for approval within 30 days of the effective date of the award and must cover the period until the end of the next fiscal year.” Could USAID please clarify when they would expect a final Year 1 Workplan?

A32. The RFP will be amended to state that the first annual work plan will be required 90 days post-award, after a co-creation effort that includes input from both the implementer and USAID.

Q33. Page 26, F.9 Reports and Deliverables. USAID states “Final Year One Workplan due within 45 calendar days of the date the contract is signed”, but then on page 27, fourth paragraph under “Annual Workplan” USAID states “The first Annual Work Plan shall be submitted to USAID for approval within 30 days of the effective date of the award,” furthermore, on page 28, Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan, USAID states “Ninety (90) days after award the Contractor shall submit its Final MELP, including a Collaboration Learning and Adapting (CLA) Plan to USAID together with the Annual Work Plan.” These items are not consistent in terms of the definition of timing of the first annual workplan. Given the requirement for consultation with USAID Missions, Deal Teams, and Prosper Africa partners in general, we would propose that the First Annual Workplan draft be submitted in the same 90 day period as the MELP in order for time for discussions to be coordinated, timing to be coherent, and both documents reflective of the discussions that have taken place during this period.

A33. The RFP will be amended to state the first annual work plan will be required by day 90, together with the final MELP due 90 days post-award.

Q34. Page 26, F.9, Reports and Deliverables: USAID states “Draft Year 1 (YI) Workplan submitted with the proposal”; However, page 88, section L7, and page 99 and 100, Section M.4:

Phase 2, do not require a draft workplan to be delivered with the proposal. Given the desire for co-creation, consultation with Prosper Africa, USAID, Deal Teams, and other stakeholders, would USAID consider not requiring the draft Year 1 Workplan to be submitted with the proposal? We would suggest that this item be removed from page 26.

A34. The draft Year 1 work plan is not required with either the Phase One or Phase Two proposal submissions and the table on page 26 amended accordingly.

Q35. Page 28, Trade and Investment Landscape Assessment. “The Contractor must prepare an annual trade and investment landscape assessment that describes current and near-term potential, as well as the constraints for increased trade and investment across the African continent, by region and country”. With a coverage of more than 50 countries, it seems prohibitively costly and inefficient to prepare T&I assessments for every country in Africa (every year). Is this the intent, or can USAID narrow the requirement to countries in which active deals and PATI activities are taking place?

A35. It is not envisioned that this will be comprised solely of original work conducted by the Offeror, but rather a compilation of information held by the Offeror and other information published on trade and investment that leads the Offeror to suggest an understanding of constraints as well as orient PATI to the sectors and geographies with highest estimated potential for success. The Offeror is free to suggest the level and type of effort it believes is appropriate to achieve the desired output.

Q36. Under Section F.9, “Reports and Deliverables,” the table for deliverable due dates states that a

USAID M/OAA

Request for Proposal (RFP) draft MELP is due within 60 days of the date the contract is signed and the final due 15 days after comments received from USAID, but the narrative (page 28) says the final MELP is due 90 days post-award, together with the Annual Work Plan. Could USAID please confirm that the MELP is due 90 days post-award?

A36. Both the first year Annual Work Plan and the MELP are due 90 days post award.

37. RFP Section F.9 (p26) states that the Draft Year 1 Work Plan should be submitted with the proposal. However, a Draft Year 1Work Plan is not listed among Section L requirements. Could USAID please clarify whether a Draft Year 1 Work plan should be submitted in Phase 2 along with the other technical annexes?

A37. The draft Year 1 work plan is not required as part of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 proposal submissions.

38. Under Section F.9, “Reports and Deliverables,” the table for deliverable due dates states that the draft Y1 work plan is submitted with the proposal, with the final Y1 work plan submitted within 45 calendar days of the date the contract is signed. However, on page 29, the RFP states “the first Annual Work Plan shall be submitted to USAID for approval within 30 days of the effective date of the award.” Page 29 also states that “Regional work plans will be developed with, and approved by, the regional missions prior to being submitted for COR approval.” Could USAID please confirm that the due date of the final Y1 work plan? Given the needed collaboration and approval by regional missions, we suggest 90 days following contract award.

A38. The final year 1 work plan is due to USAID 90 days post-award.

Q39. Section F.9 of the RFP states that the grants manual will be finalized within 30 calendar days of the contract signing. Given that the Final Y1 work plan is due within 45 calendar days of the contract signing, and the grants manual will need to consider all elements and be responsive to the finalized work plans, would USAID consider changing the due date of finalizing the grants manual to 45 days after the contract award, or 90 days if USAID extends the work plan deadline in response to Question above?

A39. The grants manual will be due to USAID 60 days post-award.

Q40. Page 29, Quarterly Reports. “The Quarterly Reports shall also discuss existing and potential problems in Activity Implementation and variance from the Annual Work Plan and PMP.” A PMP is not mentioned elsewhere in the reporting requirements. Is this equivalent to the MELP? If so, please confirm, or add PMP into the required documents with its description.

A40. The MELP is the equivalent of the PMP.

SECTION H

USAID M/OAA

Request for Proposal (RFP)

Q41. Page 36 of the RFP provides a list of reports and deliverables. Please confirm that each of the deliverables should be completed by the Prime contractor using a portion of the estimated 57,500 level of effort days.

A41. F.9 lists Reports and Deliverables (pages 26-30 of RFP). These are core activities and counted within the estimated 57,500 LOE days.

Q42. Under H.3(d), the RFP places a number of conditions on “replacement staff,” including the requirement that positions be specifically authorized by the contract and that the proposed salary “not exceed the approved salary for the particular position in the final proposal revision.” Given that items

(b) and (c) in this section already established guidelines for salaries to reflect the ‘market value’ of positions, the need for implementers to be flexible and responsive changing conditions across the African Continent, the considerable uncertainty that exists around funding levels, and, in the context of a CPFF budget, the potential that available personnel at the time of submission may be below market rates at the time of award or at the time of any subsequent change in staffing, would USAID consider amending or removing these conditions to replacing/adding personnel?

A42. No. H.3(d) is meant to streamline the process by not requiring CO approval for a position and salary already approved. If the provision were removed, then all replacement staff would need CO approval.

Q43. Under H.3(e) the RFP indicates that “Contractor employees may be granted a one-time annual increase after their completion of twelve months of satisfactory service. The annual salary increase may not exceed TBD% for key personnel and expatriate personnel, and TBD% for CCN/TCN personnel regardless of the annual escalation pool in the budget, if any.” Given that Contractors have established personnel evaluation and compensation policies for home office personnel that, for a variety of reasons, respond to inputs and constraints that extend beyond a single project, would USAID consider amending this language to apply to only to CCN/TCN project personnel?

A43. No.

Q44. Page 36, H.3.(e,) Annual Salary Increases. USAID states “Contractor employees may be granted a one-time annual increase after their completion of 12 months of satisfactory service.” Then on page 89, b. Direct Labor, “Salaries and wages must be proposed in accordance with the offeror’s personnel policies and any applicable laws and regulations.” As a company, our policy and schedule for salary increases all take place simultaneously at one point during the year, including for newly hired staff who have been with the company at least 3 months. This is a well-established policy and is applied across all programs and countries. Due to negative audit potential for inconsistent treatment of employees, we would request that the 12-month requirement be eliminated, and the “accordance with the offeror’s personal policies” statement be the guiding principle.

A44. USAID will pay a one-time annual increase after completion of 12 months of satisfactory service under this contract. The contractor can choose to provide an increase after a few months for example, but this cannot be charged to USAID.

Q45. Page 36 H.3.(e), Annual Salary Increases, “Annual salary increases of any kind exceeding these limitations, or exceeding the maximum SES established rate or the USAID CST, require the advance written approval of the Contracting Officer.” If USAID has approved the market-based

USAID M/OAA

Request for Proposal (RFP) salary of an employee which is above the maximum SES established rate or the USAID CST, does the employer still need to seek USAID CO approval for annual increases? We note that this project seeks significantly experienced individuals in the investment and trade industries who are able to command high salaries, and whose retention will depend on adequate compensation.

A45. Yes, USAID approval will be required for salary approval exceeding the SES; there is no deviation in place.

Q46. In view of Prosper Africa and USAID’s ambitious objectives for PATI to increase two-way US-Africa trade and investment, would USAID consider increasing the $100,000 limit on grants to US organizations (Section H.7, p47)? USAID projects with similarly ambitious investment-related goals have $500,000 limits on such grants.

A46. An increase in grant amounts to US organizations is under discussion but is not yet approved as part of a required deviation. In addition, there may be specific circumstances when a US organization can have more than one grant under this contract.

Q47. Page 47, H.19 (f) Grants Under Contracts (GUCs). The RFP indicates that the threshold for grants to partner government entities is $300,000. Please confirm that this threshold only applies to cash grants; and the threshold is per partner government entity for the duration of the contract.

A47. Partner government agencies will not receive grants under PATI; only non-governmental entities are eligible for grants based on the current GUCS approval memo.

Q48. Section H.3 (h) states, “Unless the consultant is an employee of the contractor, they are considered subcontractors subject to the applicable clauses and requirements.” We respectfully ask USAID to consider the following revision: “Unless the consultant is engaged as labor and hence considered contractor personnel or an employee of the organization, they are considered a subcontractor subject to the applicable clauses and requirements.” It is our understanding that a consultant is by definition not an employee; FAR 31.205-33 (a) defines “Professional and consultant services” as “those services rendered by persons who are members of a particular profession or possess a special skill and who are not officers or employees of the contractor.” Because consultants provide personal services, they are contractor personnel and their billable costs are governed by contract clauses and regulations related to personnel. When an individual is engaged as a legally constituted organization, including sole proprietorship, they are considered a subcontractor and subject to the appropriate contractual requirements.

A48. There is no revision to H.3 (h).

Q49. Page 43, H.12 AIDAR 752.7032 International Travel Approval and Notification Requirements (APR 2014). “Prior written approval by the contracting officer or the contracting officer’s representative if delegated…. Is required for all international travel directly and identifiably funded by USAID under this contract.” The volume of travel likely to occur is extensive – both international and regionally – and may provide a very significant burden to USAID and the project in terms of numbers of approvals required, meeting timeliness of action, and responsiveness to private sector business needs. We would request that “international travel” not include regional travel and not require USAID approval, and that subcontractor travel also not require USAID approval.

USAID M/OAA

Request for Proposal (RFP)

A49. Any travel from one country to another is international travel and requires USAID approval, including subcontractor travel. USAID will work with the contractor to find efficient approval methods.

Q50. Page 47, H.19 Grants Under Contract (GUCs). The RFP states that “(a) USAID shall have substantial involvement in the establishment of selection criteria and shall approve the selection of grant recipients. The Contracting Officer’s Representative and the Contracting Officer must approve the grant recipient selection, unless the CO delegates otherwise.” Would USAID consider this complete COR delegation for all grant approvals, following CO approval of the Grants Manual?

(NOTE: subsection (g) contains the same requirement)

A50. USAID anticipates reviewing the necessity for CO approval after the GUCs program has been operational for at least three months.

Q51. Sections H.19.a. and H.19.g state, “The Contracting Officer’s Representative and the Contracting Officer must approve the grant recipient selection, unless the CO delegates otherwise,” and, “Once the Grants Manual is approved by the CO, the COR will provide concurrence to the CO on grant recipient selection for final CO approval,” respectively. Given the value and volume of grants under contract anticipated under the contract, we respectfully recommend that the CO delegate authority to the COR, given the anticipated volume and pace of the grants under contract program.

A51. USAID anticipates reviewing the necessity for CO approval after the GUCs program has been operational for at least three months.

Q52. Section H.19 (f) states, “for partner government entities, the ceiling is $300,000.” Would USAID revise the clause to state that “for partner government organizations the ceiling for Grants Under Contract that provide funds (as opposed to in-kind assistance) is $300,000 for the duration of the prime contract,” per the direction of ADS Chapter 302.3.4.13.c.1 (second bullet)?

A52. Government entities are not recipients under this grant program, only non-governmental. If a parastatal meets the requirements for a commercial organization, and it falls under the non-governmental definition, the same ceiling applies.

Q53. Page 47: H.19 GRANTS UNDER CONTRACT (GUCs): “The contractor, when required in any task, may execute grants up to $100,000 (unless a deviation is obtained to have this threshold increased) with U.S. organizations (not-for-profits or for-profits), providing conditions in ADS

302.3.4.13 are met. For non-U.S. organizations there is no ceiling.” Furthermore, on the same page under section (f), “The Contractor shall award such grants only to non-U.S., or U.S., non-governmental organizations or partner government entities” Is section (f) missing the term “for-profit” or can non-US for-profit organizations receive grants under PATI?

A53. Both profit and non-profit non-governmental entities are eligible for grants.

Q54. Section H.19 of the RFP authorizes Grants Under Contract. Would USAID confirm that the successful offeror will receive advance financing through a letter of credit to cover the cost of financing the grant program in line with ADS Chapter 636?

USAID M/OAA

Request for Proposal (RFP)

A54. We will add the following in H.19 of RFP: “If requested by the contractor, an LOC will be established to provide advances for GUCs. This process of making advances will be governed by

ADS 636.”

Q55. Section H.19 states, “The contractor must seek approval for…