1. SF30- 7200AA22R00046 Q&A_Amendment 01.pdf

Issuance Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022

Subject: Amendment No. 1 to 7200AA22R00046

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1) provide answers to the questions received by the submission deadline of Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 5:00pm

2) incorporate revisions into the solicitation, Attachment J.1 SOO, and Attachment J.5

Budget Template.

Revisions in the Amended Solicitation, Attachment J.1 and Attachment J.5 are notated as follows (Note: deletions are not notated in Attachment J.5):

Strikethrough = Deleted Highlighted = Inserted

Prospective applicants are strongly advised to read all questions and answers provided via this amendment and review the attached RFP in its entirety.

Sincerely, Rachel Baltes Contracting Officer

5. PROJECT NO.

CODE

7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED

BPA NO. 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODE CODE

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:

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended,

(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 AC- KNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY

X is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV. 10-83)

is required to sign this document and return ___________ copies to the issuing office. is not, 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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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.

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

D. OTHER

BY

Contractor

16C. DATE SIGNED

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

STANDARD FORM 30 STANDARD FORM 30

(Type or print) (Type or print)

(Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

(No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

(If other than Item 6)

(Specify type of modification and authority)

(such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)

(If required)

(If applicable)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

7200AA22R00046

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

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

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

2 39

01 See Block 16c

USAID

M/OAA/RFS

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523

All Prospective Offerors 4/26/2022

X

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1)Answer the questions received by the deadline and amend the RFP accordingly;

2) Update Attachment J.1 – SOO; and

3) Update Attachment J.5 –.Budget Template

Rachel Baltes Contracting Officer

RFP No. 7200AA22R00046 Amendment 01

Questions and Answers

1. Section B.4 (p. 7) and Attachment J.5 distribute plug figures evenly across eight years.

Please confirm that offerors may distribute grants and other expenditures flexibly over the life of the activity in line with their technical approaches.

USAID answer #1: Plug figures are not to be revised.

2. Could USAID please confirm that the plug figure for “Field Activities” provided in the table in Section B.4 is inclusive of an offeror’s associated indirect costs?

USAID answer #2: Please see revised section B.4 of the RFP, as well as revisions to Attachment J.5 budget template. The plug figure amount of $100m is inclusive of an offeror’s associated direct, indirect and fixed fee costs.

3. Regarding Section B.4, could USAID please clarify whether the GUC plugs for Core Activities or Field Support are inclusive of an offeror’s associated indirect costs? If not, could USAID please add a line item for indirect costs under Field Support in the table in Section B.4 and the budget template (Attachment J.5)?

USAID answer #3: GUC plug figures do not include associated indirect costs. Please see revised section B.4 of the RFP, as well as revisions to Attachment J.5 budget template.

4. The table in Section B.4 contains a separate line item for “Field Fixed Fee” that is missing from the budget template. Could USAID please clarify whether the plug for Field Activities is exclusive of an offeror’s fixed fee and should be budgeted separately?

USAID answer #4: Attachment J.5 is updated to reflect the “Fixed fee” line item.

5. The first paragraph of Section B.5 (page 8) states that not-for-profit and for-profit U.S.

organizations are eligible to receive grants, but the same clarification is missing for non- U.S. organizations. Could USAID please confirm that not-for-profit and for-profit non- U.S. organizations are eligible to receive grants under this program?

USAID answer #5: Yes, both not-for-profit and for-profit organizations are eligible for grants. This applies to both U.S. and non-U.S. organizations.

6. In Section B.8 (p. 10), USAID indicates that fixed fee may not be taken on GUCs. This appears to be inconsistent with FAR 15.404-4 and ADS 302.3.6.9, which state, inter alia, that pre-negotiation fee objectives must be determined according to a structured approach that considers contractor effort, risk, and other special factors. Grants require significant effort to administer and carry risks for the contractor. Additionally, the statutory underpinnings of fixed fee at 10 USC 2306(d) and 41 USC 254(b) discuss fee definitions and limitations in terms of total estimated cost, which would include grants in this case. Given this, we respectfully request that USAID reconsider its agency pre-negotiation fee objective of 0% on grants and allow offerors to charge a fee that is reasonable and consistent with federal regulations.

USAID answer #6: Offerors are allowed to propose relevant management and administrative costs for GUCs. However, as stated in the RFP, profit cannot be applied to grant activities.

7. Section F.6 (p. 19) states that a draft Branding and Marking Plan is to be submitted with the proposal (to be finalized within 60 days of award). Section L.10 (page 110) states that the “successful Offeror will be required to submit a BIP and MP with their proposal.” Could USAID please clarify whether offerors are required to submit a BIP and MP with their proposals? If this is a requirement, please confirm that offerors are to include this information with their technical proposals. In addition, please confirm that offerors have until Day 60 post-award to submit the final BIP and MP to USAID.

USAID answer #7: All offerors are required to submit a BIP and MP with their proposal, to be finalized within 60 days of award. Accordingly, section L.10 of the RFP has been updated.

8. Regarding Section F.8 (pp. 22-23), please confirm that key personnel labor, along with the labor of other long-term technical and/or operational staff, may be partially funded through buy-in contributions and is not required to be fully funded by the Core Activities portion of the budget.

USAID answer #8: Yes, we anticipate that buy-in contributions will contribute to covering key and other personnel labor costs. The budget narrative should explain any assumptions in that regard.

9. As detailed in Section F.9 (pp 23-24), by establishing a portion of fixed fee tied to expected result/targets for GRIP overall, USAID has created abnormal challenges and unnecessarily heightened risk to the contractor. For example, the ability to leverage non- USG resources and the ability to mobilize funds to support Nationally Determined Contributions or National Adaptation Plans vary widely among potential buy-in countries. Similarly, the ability to leverage non-USG funds varies dramatically by possible sectors engaged through GRIP. As the contractor has limited control over which Missions choose to buy in and what type(s) of funds Missions are using, it puts undue risk on the contractor in establishing a flat expectation for leverage that does not account for context. It also presents an incentive to only seek funding in environments where it is most readily leveraged rather than where there may be greatest vulnerability.

Considering these unknowns and challenges, would USAID please allow offerors to modify the indicators selected by USAID for the fee schedule?

USAID answer #9: No, offerors may not modify the indicators for the fee schedule.

However, they may modify indicator targets as instructed in section F.9 of the RFP.

10. Section H.3(h) (page 36) states, “Unless the consultant is an employee of the contractor, they are considered subcontractors subject to the applicable clauses and requirements.”

This language presents significant issues for many offerors, particularly related to NICRAs and Cost Accounting Standards (CAS). NICRAs are approved by USAID’s Overhead, Special Cost, and Closeout Branch Division and require many offerors to treat consultants as short-term personnel and apply relevant indirect costs. Should an offeror begin to treat consultants as subcontractors and apply subcontractor-related indirect costs, this would be viewed as inconsistent treatment of direct costs across U.S.

Government-funded contracts and would be in violation of the terms of an offeror’s NICRA and CAS. Further, it is industry standard to treat consultants as short-term personnel. Based on these concerns, would USAID please remove the language requiring offerors to treat consultants as subcontractors so that each offeror may classify consultants according to its own NICRA and CAS?

USAID answer # 10: Please see updated language in the RFP.

11. In Section L.8.4.2.b (p. 101), USAID indicates that the offeror must submit a staffing plan for the core management team, including the start-up team. Please confirm that offerors do not need to include the requested brief position descriptions for key personnel in the staffing plan as position descriptions are already provided in Annex 1 for key personnel.

USAID answer #11: Offerors do not need to repeat in the staffing plan the key personnel positions descriptions that are already provided in Annex 1.

12. Regarding Section L.8.4.3 (p. 101), can USAID please clarify how it intends for offerors to present their “Technical Approach and Capability.” USAID has requested a Performance Work Statement (PWS), which is typically written from the perspective of USAID as though it were part of the contract, using neutral “the Contractor must” language. However, in the description of Subfactor 2.1, USAID ask for the offeror to “describe relevant, recent work executed by consortium members to demonstrate cutting-edge thinking, creativity, quality of performance …” This instruction is at odds with typical approaches to preparing and presenting a PWS. Could USAID please confirm that offerors may address these capability requirements either in text boxes or tables within the PWS or as a separate section following the PWS. Please note that USAID could remove these boxes/tables and directly input the remaining (standard PWS) text into Section C of the contract.

USAID answer #12: Yes, capability and relevant experience can be included in text boxes or tables to facilitate their subsequent removal from the PWS.

13. Regarding Section L.8.4.4 (p. 102), please confirm that offerors are not required to present a past performance narrative within the main body of the 20-page technical proposal.

USAID answer #13: Correct; offerors are not required to present a past performance narrative within the main body of the technical proposal.

14. Also regarding Section L.8.4.4 (p. 102), may Offerors present a brief (1 or 2 pages) summary of the past performance information contained in Annex 4 as an introduction to that annex?

USAID answer #14: No, USAID does not recommend a narrative introduction.

15. Section L.8.4.4 (p. 102) states, “Utilizing the Past Performance Matrix in Attachment J.3, the offeror is to list as an annex the most recent (within the past five years) and relevant contracts or assistance awards for efforts which are relevant to the work in the subject proposal.” Later in the same section (i) the RFP says, “For all contracts listed above that are in CPARS, the offeror will attach the official CPARS report(s). Offerors must not submit past performance for contracts in CPARS.” Please confirm that offerors should include information for those projects that are in CPARS in the Past Performance Matrix (Attachment J.3) and also include copies of available CPARs.

USAID answer #15: Correct, offerors should submit information on the projects in the matrix in Attachment J.3 and attach the official CPARS report.

16. Regarding Section L.8.4.4 (p. 102), given the potential volume of pages for available CPARs, may offerors include only the most recent CPAR available for each of contracts presented?

USAID answer #16: Only the most recent CPAR for each contract is needed.

17. Given the breadth of the SOO and the size and scale of the GRIP procurement, presenting only three past performance references as instructed in Section L.8.4.4 is very limiting. Would USAID please consider allowing offerors to provide more than three past performance references?

USAID answer #17: Per section L.8.4.4., offerors may list up to three (3) past performance references for itself and up to an additional three (3) for each major subcontractor.

18. In Sections L.9(1)(ii) (p. 104) and L.9(1)(v)f (p. 105), USAID requests a detailed breakdown of cost elements associated with each line item, including of travel by destination, number of trips, and number of travelers. Given that GRIP is an eight-year program for which there are many unknowns in terms of geographic focus, funding sources, etc., we respectfully ask that USAID consider providing all offerors with a plug figure for travel costs at the proposal stage.

USAID answer #18: A plug figure of $900,000 has been provided for travel costs. Please see the revised solicitation, section L.9, and Attachment J.5 budget template for additional details.

19. In Section L.9(1)(v).b (p. 104), USAID requests Biographical Data Sheets for professional technical staff. Given the RFP instruction that Offerors do not name candidates or provide CVs, please confirm that Biographical Data Sheets are not required.

USAID answer #19: Biographical Data Sheets are not required as part of the proposal and will not be reviewed as it relates to proposed key personnel candidates. However, offerors are not prohibited from submitting Biographical Data Sheets as part of their cost proposal for named professional technical staff.

20. In Section L.9(1)(v).i (p. 105), USAID indicates that the core GUC activities plug figure is $25M. USAID also indicates that GUC are intended as 50% or “whichever is less.”

Would USAID please confirm that offerors should budget a total of $50M in Core Activities, using the $25M GUC plug and providing all other remaining services and activities with the remaining $25M. Please confirm that that USAID does not intend for offerors to reduce the GUC plug for Core Activities to $15M, which would be required in order to budget at the low end of the range provided.

USAID answer #20: The GUC plug figure for Core Activities has been revised. Please see amended solicitation, sections B.4 and L.9, as well as Attachment J.5.

21. Section L.9(1)(v)i (p. 105) states, “Grants could be awarded to U.S. and non-U.S.

governmental organizations and/or partner governments entities,” while Section B.5 (p.

8) states, “GUCs to partner government entities have not been authorized under this award.” Could USAID please confirm whether or not partner government entities will be eligible for direct (cash) funding under this program?

USAID answer #21: Grants to partner government entities are not authorized under this award. Accordingly, section L.9(1)(v)i, on page 105 has been revised.

22. Regarding Section M.2.1, Subfactor 1.1 evaluation criteria for the offeror’s management approach (p. 114), USAID indicates that “the Offeror will be evaluated on their demonstrated ability to establish and manage an effective finance and partnership network and platform.” This evaluation criteria provides an undue advantage among offerors, particularly as the Statement of Objectives indicates that all offerors are to leverage the existing finance and partnership network and platform established by the INVEST activity. We respectfully request that USAID modify this evaluation criteria to read “the Offeror will be evaluated on their plan to establish, strengthen, and manage effective finance and partnership networks and platforms.”

USAID answer #22: See revised language in the RFP.

23. RFP Reference: B.4, Page Number: 7, Relevant RFP Language: “Core Activities…

GUC… $25,000,000”

Question: What portion of this funding will be available in the first year?

USAID answer #23: Anticipated funding will be confirmed at a later date. Offerors should follow instructions in the RFP when preparing proposals.

24. RFP Reference: F.9, Page Number: 23-24, Relevant RFP Language: Fee Schedule Question: 50% of the fee is tied to achievement of the targets listed in the fee scheduled table. As currently written, achievement of these one-time targets will occur at or near the end of the project, which will require USAID to make a large one-time payment. To smooth expenditures, would USAID please consider providing annual targets and incremental payment of fee for achievement of those targets?

USAID answer #24: Offerors may propose a milestone-based fee structure appropriate to the indicators. Please see response to Question 9 and revisions incorporated to section F.9 of the RFP.

25. RFP Reference: F.9, Page Number: 24, Relevant RFP Language: “USD value of non- USG resources mobilized toward climate change outcomes = $2.5B”

“USD value mobilized to support the Nationally Determined Contributions or National Adaptation Plans = $2B”

Question: Alternatively, could USAID confirm that investment mobilization would count towards both the $2.5B mobilized toward climate change outcomes and the $2B mobilized to support the Nationally Determined Contributions or National Adaptation Plans?

USAID answer #25: Yes, it is possible that an investment could count toward both indicators.

26. RFP Reference: L.7.h, Page Number: 98, Relevant RFP Language: “Technical and Cost Volumes must be emailed”

Question: For electronic submission of proposals, is there a maximum file size that USAID can accept?

USAID answer #26: The file size of each email must not exceed 25MB.

27. RFP Reference: L.8.4.2.b, Page Number: 100, Relevant RFP Language: “The Offeror must not indicate names nor include CVs of individuals to fill Key Personnel positions.”

RFP Reference: L.9, Part 2.1.v.b

Page Number: 104, Relevant RFP Language: “Biographical Data Sheets are required for all identified Professional Technical long- and short-term personnel (US nationals, cooperating country nationals (CCNs) and third country nationals (TCNs)) (See Attachment J.6).”

Question: Could USAID confirm that biodatas are not required because offerors are not allowed to name personnel?

USAID answer #27: USAID will not be reviewing proposed Key Personnel candidates for approval at the evaluation stage. Therefore, Biographical Data Sheets are not being requested for Key Personnel positions at the proposal stage. Biographical Data Sheets are required for named personnel consistent with requirements in the solicitation regarding approval for such positions/staff.

28. RFP Reference: L.8.4.4, Page Number: 102, Relevant RFP Language: “Utilizing the Past Performance Matrix in Attachment J.3, the offeror is to list as an annex, the most recent (within the past five years) and relevant contracts or assistance awards for efforts which are relevant to the work in the subject proposal.”

Question a: The Excel Past Performance Matrix template in Attachment J.3 contains 13 columns, making it too wide to comfortably fit on even 11” x 17” paper. For ease of reading, would USAID allow offerors to submit the Past Performance Matrix in Excel?

USAID answer #28a: Offerors may submit the Past Performance Matrix in Excel.

Question b: If offerors are required to submit the Past Performance Matrix in Word, would USAID allow it to be placed in 11” x 17” format to improve readability?

USAID answer #28b: See the response to Question 28a.

29. RFP Reference: L.8.4.4.1.i, Page Number: 102, Relevant RFP Language: “For all contracts listed above that are in CPARS, the offeror will attach the official CPARS report(s).”

Question: For contracts that are in CPARS, could USAID revise the solicitation to require only the most recent official CPARS report for each contract? Including CPARS reports for all years of each contract will require many pages for each project.

USAID answer #29: Confirmed. Please see the response to Question 16.

30. RFP Reference: L.9, Part 2.1.v.h, Page Number: 105, Relevant RFP Language:

“Offerors included in the competitive range will be required to submit a small business subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR Part 19.704.”

RFP Reference: L.9, Part 6, Page Number: 109, Relevant RFP Language: “If the Offeror is other than a small business, it must submit a Subcontracting Plan (see Attachment J.9).”

Question: Could USAID confirm that a Subcontracting Plan is not required with this proposal submission?

USAID answer #30: All offerors other than small businesses are required to submit a small business subcontracting plan with their proposal.

31. RFP Reference: L.10, Page Number: 110, Relevant RFP Language: “The successful Offeror will be required to submit a BIP and MP with their proposal.”

Question: Could USAID confirm that only the successful offeror will be required to submit a Branding and Marking Plan (and offerors are not required to include a Branding and Marking Plan with the submission on Jun 6, 2022)?

USAID answer #31: See response to Question 7.

32. RFP Reference: L.10, Page Number: 110, Relevant RFP Language: “The successful Offeror will be required to submit a formal and detailed Branding and Marking plans for final review within thirty (60) days of signing the award.”

RFP Reference: F.6, Page Number: 17, Relevant RFP Language: “6. Branding and Marking Plan – Within 60 days of award”

Question: Could USAID confirm that the formal and detailed Branding and Marking Plan is due 60 days after award (not thirty days after award)?

USAID answer #32: We confirm the due date is 60 days after the award. The typo in section L.10 of the RFP has been revised.

33. RFP Reference: M.3, Page Number: 115, Relevant RFP Language: "The evaluation will be based upon the cost/price matrix and the supporting budget narrative provided by the Offeror."

Question: Can USAID please confirm that “cost/price matrix” refers to the budget template in Attachment J.5?

USAID answer #33. Confirmed. Section M.3 on page 115 of the RFP has been revised to clarify.

34. RFP Reference: Attachment J.5: Budget Template Question: To ensure accuracy of calculations given offerors’ unique cost structures, do offerors have the flexibility to use their own budget templates for the Core Detail budget, if the overall structure and content corresponds to that of USAID’s Detail – Core template?

USAID answer #34: Offerors are required to submit costs utilizing the template provided.

35. RFP Reference: Attachment J.5: Budget Template, Page Number: “Budget Summary” tab, Relevant RFP Language: “Total Fee” (cell F8)

Question: Does USAID want offerors to enter information in (or perhaps next to) Cell F8 of the “Budget Summary” tab, which contains the text “Total Fee”? If so, could USAID confirm that this refers to the Core budget only?

USAID answer #35: Based on response to Question 4, Cell F8 should contain the sum of the Core and Field fees.

36. RFP Reference: Attachment J.5: Budget Template, Page Number: “Detail – Core” tab Question: What dates should offerors use to populate the “<Dates>” Cells in Row 8 of the “Detail – Core” tab?

USAID answer #36 Offeror may leave this field blank.

37. RFP Reference: Attachment J.1, J.3.1, Page Number: 6, Relevant RFP Language: “As a general principle, USAID expects GUC recipients to provide cost share or leverage as part of this activity. The level of USAID assistance should be the minimum required so as to maximize potential for long-term viability and self-reliance.”

Question: Does USAID consider the expected cost share and funds leveraged from GUC recipients to count towards the $2.5 billion of non-USG resources mobilized toward climate change outcomes?

USAID answer #37 : Yes, it would count.

38. RFP Reference: Attachment J.1, J.5.2, Page Number: 16, Relevant RFP Language:

“Engagement with the local and regional private sector will need to be coordinated with other USAID implementing partners and USAID field missions.”

Question: Could USAID confirm that the implementer would be able to have informal conversations with our networks of private sector partners to develop early stage ideas before involving the Agency?

USAID answer #38. The contractor should provide regular updates to USAID as the conversations become concrete. We do not expect to be part of every conversation.

39. Question: Could USAID confirm that offerors are not required to include Cost and Pricing Data Certification, given that GRIP is a competitive solicitation?

USAID answer #39: Confirmed. The procurement will be based on adequate price competition and therefore will not require certified cost and pricing data.

40. RFP Reference: Cover Letter Question: There seems to be a contradiction between the government estimate of $230- $250 million and the instruction to allocate no more than 50% of the budget to GUCs.

Since USAID provided a total of $125 million in plug numbers for GUCs, that would suggest that the minimum compliant budget would be $250 million. Furthermore, if an offeror were to bid a $230 million budget and include zero fixed fee, that would leave only $5 million for non-GUC Core Activity costs over 8 years, or $625,000 per year – which appears insufficient to provide multiple key personnel or deliver the Core Activity requirements listed in the SOO. We suggest revising the government estimate to a minimum of $250 million, and a range that allows for robust platform development and other Core Activities required by the SOO over the extended 8-year period of performance. At a lower range, the budget allocated uncertain future Field Support buy-ins will otherwise crowd- out the robust Core Activity work USAID is soliciting.

USAID answer #40: Offerors are expected to budget no more than 50% of the budget to GUCs, with a maximum overall GUC amount of $125 million authorized for this award.

See responses to Question 20 and 67.

41. RFP Reference: Cover Letter Question: The proposal validity period of 260 days suggests a lengthy award process. In order to allow offerors to make realistic cost assumptions, can USAID provide an expected start date for GRIP?

USAID answer #41: USAID intends to issue an award by September 30, 2022, but we reserve the right to use the entire 260 day period if necessary.

42. RFP Reference: Section B.4, Page 7

Question: In order to enable offerors to scale the Core Activity team to the anticipated volume of Field Support, we request that USAID allocate the Field Activity and Field GUC plug numbers between the base and option periods.

USAID answer #42: Please see revised Attachment J.5 for annual allocations of GUC plug in figures.

43. RFP Reference: Section B.5, Page 8 Question: GUC recipients are described as non-governmental organizations. Can USAID confirm that in this context, NGOs can include non-US for-profit entities? Also, L.9.i.

states that GUCs “could be awarded to U.S. and non-U.S. governmental organizations and/or partner governments entities”. Please clarify whether GUCs can be awarded to government entities.

USAID answer #43: See answers to Questions 5 and 21.

44. RFP Reference: Section B.8, Pages 9-10 Question: The RFP asks offerors to propose negotiated provisional or pre-determined rates pending the establishment of revised provisional or final indirect cost rates.

However, B.6 further states that “The Government will not be obligated to pay any additional amounts should the final indirect cost rates exceed the negotiated ceiling rates.” Could USAID please remove this language to allow the successful Offeror to correctly invoice the final indirect rate?

USAID answer #44: The language will remain in the solicitation and resulting award.

45. RFP Reference: Section B.8, Page 10 Question: Given the fact that 50% of the program will be allocated to grants (up to $125 million), and the fact that administering a grants program correctly that helps achieve GRIP's ambitious targets while also minimizing risk for both USAID and the Contractor requires significant effort as well as large cash outlays by the Contractor, would USAID allow offerors to propose a fee on grants?

USAID answer #45 : See answer to Question #6.

46. RFP Reference: Section F.9, Page 23-24 Question: USAID asks offerors to propose fee percentages against specific targets, namely $2.5B in non-USG resources mobilized toward climate change outcomes and $2B in USD value mobilized to support the Nationally Determined Contributions or National Adaptation Plans. However, as the majority of these funds will come from buy-ins, there is a possibility that either the full $200M will not be funded and/or buy-ins may not be structured to equally apply to both of these goals. On other buy-in mechanisms, we have seen USAID instead establish specific fee- based deliverables based on the specific scope of the buy-in which we believe better aligns Contractor incentive with the scope. Would USAID consider revising the basis for paying fee?

USAID answer #46: No, the basis for paying fixed fee will not be revised from the existing terms included in Section B.8 of the solicitation.

47. RFP Reference: Section F.9, Page 23-24 Question: In the Fee Schedule, we would expect that the first indicator “USD value of non-USG resources mobilized toward climate change outcomes” and the second indicator “USD value mobilized to support the Nationally Determined Contributions or National Adaptation Plans” would overlap in many, but not all, instances, since many activities supporting climate change outcome would also support NDCs and NAPs, and vice versa.

Can USAID confirm that it anticipates some GRIP-supported resource mobilization to “double count” towards both of these indicators?

USAID answer #47: See response to Question 25.

48. RFP Reference: Section G.6, Page 31 Question: The RFP in section G.6 states that “All ODCs exceeding $3,500 requires that the Contractor conduct appropriate competition.” Could USAID please modify the threshold from “$3,500” to “the micro-purchase threshold.” The current MPT is $10,000 and it may further be revised over the life of the eight-year program.

USAID answer #48: Thank you for flagging the typo. Section G.6 of the solicitation has been revised to identify the correct Micro Purchase Threshold of $10,000.

49. RFP Reference: Section H.3, Page 36 Question: The RFP includes the following statement within Section H.3: “(h) Consultants. Unless the consultant is an employee of the contractor, they are considered subcontractors subject to the applicable clauses and requirements.” Could USAID please confirm that independent consultants can be exempted from 52.244-2 requirements in Section H.11 Consent to Subcontract, even though this language refers to consultants as subcontractors.

USAID answer #49: See response to Question 10.

50. RFP Reference: Section L.8, Page 102 Question: USAID defines a major subcontractor as a subcontractor whose budget is at least 20% of the total estimated cost. This seems to indicate that a major subcontractor would have to have a budget of $50 million, which is not realistic given the large budget plug numbers provided. We suggest that major subcontractors instead be defined as those who have a 20% share of the direct and indirect (non-GUC) Core Activity budget.

USAID answer #50: The definition of “Major Subcontractor” has been revised throughout the solicitation to indicate that “"Major subcontractors are those whose costs are 20% of the total estimated Core Activities cost of the proposed offer, not including GUCs”.

Sections L.8.4.4 and L.9 Part 2 (2) of the RFP have been updated to include the above definition.

51. RFP Reference: Section L.9, Page 106 Question: L.9.k. refers to the Table in F.6. We believe the reference should be to the Table in F.9, please clarify.

USAID answer #51: Correct. Section L.9.k of the solicitation has been revised to identify the table in Section F.9, not the table in section F.6.

52. RFP Reference: Section L.9 (h), page 105 Question: The RFP includes the following statement within Section L.9: “The information required for the prime offeror for the cost proposal must be provided for all subcontractors.” For some subcontractors, it is a challenge to provide the same level of detail of cost information required for the prime offerors. We respectfully request USAID provide the option of using fully burdened fixed daily rates with foreign subcontractors or U.S. small businesses which may not have NICRAs, audited or reviewed financial statements, or indirect cost rate agreements independently audited.

USAID answer #52: The requirement for “NICRA, audited or reviewed financial statements, or indirect cost rate agreements independently audited” are required for Major Subcontractors. Please see section L.9(2) for additional information on indirect cost information requirements.

53. RFP Reference: Page 1 and Page 77 Question: Kindly please clarify if the NAICS code for the solicitation is 541611 as shown in page 1 of the RFP or 541990 as shown in the Section K.2 reps and certs in page 77.

USAID answer #53: The NAICS code for this solicitation is 541611. Section K.2 of the solicitation has been revised.

54. RFP Reference: Section L.7, Page 97 Question: Kindly confirm the proposal submission email address is it same email as provided for RFP question submission ssolofonirina@usaid.gov and a copy to Rachel Baltes at rbaltes@usaid.gov USAID answer #54: Confirmed.

55. RFP Reference: Section L.9, Page 103-104 Question: Within the overall Field support Buy-Ins plug, kindly provide anticipated maximum dollar threshold or magnitude for each field support Buy-In that USAID anticipates (i.e., number of buy-ins, average size, and duration). This guidance will help Offerors to shape effective local and regional proposal teaming arrangements and an efficient staffing approach.

USAID answer #55 USAID anticipates buy-ins of $3-5M, but will consider larger or smaller amounts depending on specific circumstances. Buy-in duration will vary.

56. RFP Reference: Attachment J.8 Question: In the two scenarios provided, could USAID clarify if there is an expected period of performance for the $2M buy-in to GRIP by the Bangladesh Mission and the $5M buy-in to GRIP by the Ghana Mission?

USAID answer #56. As these are hypothetical scenarios, Offerors can use their discretion to indicate a period of performance appropriate to the tasks.

57. Could USAID clarify the intended purposes and limitations of the $25 million grants under contract (GUC) plug figure cited in the RFP for core funding? For example, does USAID envision this as a flexible pool of funding to be set aside for demand-driven activities or can offerors propose to allocate some of this funding for consortium partners carrying out core activities?

USAID answer #57: The core activity GUC line item is meant to support implementation of the Core Activities identified in the RFP. USAID envisions this as a flexible pool of funding for demand-driven activities that meet core objectives. Offerors may allocate no more than 50% of Core Activities funds towards GUCs. See the response to Question 20.

58. Could USAID clarify the meaning of “core activities” as described in Section J.3.1 of Attachment J.1, Purposes and Objectives? For example, one of the three deliverables for Objective 1 (Attachment J.1, page 7) states that “The Contractor must, as part of its core activities under Objective 1, deliver the following: Build a portfolio of partnerships to support urban, rural, and coastal climate resilience investments that engage and benefit women, youth, and marginalized communities.” Does USAID intend the phrase “core activities” to imply that this is a separate workstream undertaken with core funding, or that this an overall result GRIP should achieve based on the aggregate results of mission buy-ins and demand?

USAID answer #58. Offerors should assume that this will be undertaken with core funding, although it is possible that Missions may choose to buy-in to expand that work if it aligns with their own objectives.

59. Could USAID clarify if there is any flexibility in the field funding, specifically the 50/50 breakdown of GUC and field activities? By allowing greater flexibility between the two, it would enable the Contractor to respond to the buy-ins using the best mechanism for the scope as opposed to equally dividing each buy-in between grants and other activities.

USAID answer #59: The 50/50 breakdown is the expected ratio for the contract overall. Individual buy-ins may or may not use a GUC mechanism depending on their specific scopes of work.

60. It is our assumption that GRIP buy-ins, funded through the $100 million field activities plug, will include some core funding to support salaries of long-term staff on the core GRIP team, including key personnel. Could USAID confirm that this assumption is correct?

USAID answer #60. Yes, this is a correct assumption. We assume that buy-ins will contribute to core GRIP management costs.

61. Section B.5 states that GUCs to partner government entities are not authorized, which contradicts L.9 of the RFP and ADS 302.3.4.13. Section L.9 and the ADS allow contractors to execute solely in-kind grants to government entities. Would USAID kindly remove that language from Section B.5 of the RFP to allow for maximum flexibility during implementation Section B.5 states that GUCs to partner government entities are not authorized, which contradicts L.9 of the RFP and ADS 302.3.4.13.

Section L.9 and the ADS allow contractors to execute solely in-kind grants to government entities. Would USAID kindly remove that language from Section B.5 of the RFP to allow for maximum flexibility during implementation ?

USAID answer #61: See answers to Questions 5 and 21.

62. Section B.5 indicates the contractor may execute grants up to $500,000 with U.S.

organizations. Could USAID confirm this is the maximum amount per grant and update the language accordingly? Since ADS 302.3.4.13 normally allows for individual grants with U.S. organizations up to the simplified acquisition threshold, we assume this is the case.

USAID answer #62: Confirmed.

63. Section B.8 of the RFP states that fee may not be taken on GUCs. This appears to be inconsistent with FAR 15.404-4 and ADS 302.3.6.9, which state, inter alia, that pre-negotiation fee objectives must be determined according to a structured approach that considers contractor’s effort, risk, and other special factors. Grants require significant effort to administer and carry risks and added costs for contractors, including the cost of financing grants, which must be recouped through fee per FAR 31.2. Additionally, the statutory underpinnings of fixed fee at 10 USC 2306(d) discuss fee definitions and limitations in terms of “total estimate cost,” which would include grants in this case.

Given the above, we respectfully request that USAID reconsider its zero-fee-on-GUCs limitation and allow offerors to budget for a fee that is reasonable and consistent with above mentioned federal regulations.

USAID answer #63: See answer to question 6.

64. Section L.8.4.2(a) states “The Offeror must not indicate names nor include CVs of individuals to fill Key Personnel positions.” However, L.9.v.(b) states “Biographical Data Sheets are required for all identified Professional Technical long- and short-term personnel (US nationals, cooperating country nationals (CCNs) and third country nationals (TCNs)).” Could USAID confirm that biodatas are not required given that offerors cannot name key personnel

USAID answer #64: See answer to Question 19.

65. In Section L.8.4.4 part (1), the RFP indicates that the offeror should list most recent contracts and awards as an annex “utilizing the Past Performance Matrix in Attachment J.3.” Could USAID confirm that the past performance matrix can be submitted in Microsoft Word and PDF in line with the formatting instructions for the technical volume?

USAID answer #65: Confirmed. Offerors may also submit it in Excel if that would be easier.

66. Section L.9 states that the cost proposal narrative must be in Word, while L.7(g) states that the cost volume narrative must be in Microsoft Word and PDF. Could USAID confirm the preferred format for the cost notes?

USAID answer #66: As stated in L.7(g), the cost volume narrative must be in Microsoft Word and PDF.

67. In Section L.9 Part 2 (1) (iii), the RFP states, “A plug figure is provided for both GUCs and Field Support activities, based on government estimates. The plug figure for GUCs does not include fees or pass-through charges.” Could USAID confirm if the plug figure for field support activities includes fees or pass-through charges?

USAID answer #67: Please see revised solicitation. Field Support indirect costs may include appropriate administrative/management fees for GUCs.

68. In Section L.9, on page 105, the RFP states, “Offerors included in the competitive range will be required to submit a small business subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR Part 19.704.” However, page 109 lists the Subcontracting Plan as required an annex in the cost volume. Could USAID clarify if the small business subcontracting plan is due at the time of submission or during the competitive range

USAID answer #68 See the response to Question 30.

69. Could USAID confirm duration assumptions for the two technical scenarios in Attachment J.8? In other words, does USAID have a timeframe in mind for each buy-in?

For example, does USAID envision the $2 million for Bangladesh being programmed over a certain number of years?

USAID answer #69. See answer to question 56.

70. Section B.4 Budget. Page 7 notes the Offeror must set aside no more than 50% of its total budget for GUCs, however the table in B.4 provides plug figures for $125M total.

Given this is greater than 50% of the low-end Total cost range ($230M) and 50% of the high-end range, can USAID advise if the GUC amounts may be amended or whether the GUCs could be greater 50% of the total budget if the offeror’s cost is below $250M?

USAID answer #70: See answer to question 20.

71. Section F.9 Fee Schedule. Page 24 presents a Fee Schedule with noted Indicators and Associated Cumulative Targets and a TBD% of Fixed Fee that the bidder is to propose in its proposal submission. Can USAID advise if the noted Indicators and Targets are for the initial five-year base period or for the entire life of the project (five-year base plus the three-year option period)?

USAID answer #71. They are for the total eight-year period.

72. Section L.7 General Instructions to Offerors. Given the scope and importance of this complex global program, will USAID confirm that offerors will be provided with sufficient time to meaningfully integrate the responses to these questions in their submissions (e.g., 2 weeks from receipt of responses)?

USAID answer #72. Yes.

73. Section L.7 General Instructions to Offerors. Page 98 states that charts, tables, and graphics may be in a smaller font than the specified 12-point Times New Roman font. Can USAID advise if text boxes can use a font smaller than 12-point font but not smaller than 10-point?

USAID answer #73: Confirmed.

74. Section L.8.4.2. Subfactor 1.2: Personnel. Given that key personnel are, by definition, essential to the performance of the GRIP scope of work, could USAID provide the rationale for the exclusion of names and resumes of key personnel from the technical proposal? This causes a significant risk to the government if the successful offeror is unable to provide key personnel suitable for delivery of the program within a reasonable time frame of startup.

USAID answer #74. USAID discourages exclusivity agreements with key personnel and will not be reviewing proposed candidates during the evaluation stage. Key personnel approval will be handled as a post-award administration activity.

75. Section L.8.4.2.b Subfactor 1.2: Personnel indicates that the “Offeror must not indicate names nor include CVs of individuals to fill Key Personnel positions.” Section L.9(v)b.

Direct Labor indicates that “Biographical Data Sheets are required for all identified Professional Technical long- and short-term personnel). Please verify that in cases where key personnel have already been identified that offerors should identify them in the cost proposal and include Biographical Data Sheets?

USAID answer #75: See response to Question 19.

76. Section L.8.4.2.b Subfactor 1.2 Personnel indicates that the “Offeror must not indicate names nor include CVs of individuals to fill Key Personnel positions.” Is the contractor permitted to include names of non-key personnel and the start-up team in the staffing plan?

USAID answer #76. Yes. Please see response to Question 19.

77. Section L.8.4.3 Evaluation Factor 2 Technical Approach and Capability, Subfactor 2.1 notes “The Offeror must propose tasks for identified core activities under each Objective” Can USAID clarify whether Offerors should propose a Technical Approach to Field Activities, including Illustrative Field Activities or Illustrative use of both Core and Field GUCs in the PWS?

USAID answer #77: Please review Section L.8.4.3 requirements.

78. Section L.8.4.3 Subfactor 2.1 says that “The offeror must propose tasks for identified core activities under each objective....”. Could USAID clarify whether offerors are expected to focus the PWS exclusively on core activities, or should the PWS incorporate potential field support activities as well?

USAID answer #78. See answer to question 77.

79. Section L.8.4.4 Evaluation Factor 3: Past Performance defines major subcontractors as “those whose costs are 20% of the total estimated cost of the proposed offer”. Given that 90% of the total estimated cost of the GRIP contract ($225 Million) is composed of plug figures for field support and GUC, should offerors use the remaining non-plug costs as the denominator to calculate the percentage contribution of major subcontractors?

USAID answer #79: See the response to Question 50.

80. Section L.8.4.4 Evaluation Factor 3: Past Performance (1). On page 102 USAID notes that Major subcontractors are those whose costs are 20% of the total estimated cost of the proposed offer. Would USAID consider defining major subcontractors as those that have a significant technical role supported by core funds over the life of the contract rather than defining core subcontractors as those whose costs are 20% of the total estimated cost of the proposed offer?

USAID answer #80: See response to Question 50.

81. Section L.10 Instructions for Preparation of Branding and Marking Plans. Page 110 notes the “successful offeror” will be required to submit a BIP and MP with their proposal. Does USAID require each bidder to submit an initial BIP and MP with its initial submission or does USAID plan to ask the “selected, successful offeror” to submit once they have chosen one “successful offeror for award”?

USAID answer #81: See response to Question 7.

82. On Page 7 of the SOO under Objective 1 Results, could USAID please describe the intended difference between “increased number of people using climate information” and “implementing risk reducing actions to improve resilience to climate change”

USAID answer #82: People “implementing risk reducing actions to improve resilience to climate change” may or may not be a result of “using climate information” as noted on p.8 of Attachment J1.

83. Could USAID please clarify whether indirect cost rate ceilings in §B.6 will apply under this contract, for what types and what periods? o If indirect cost ceilings are applicable, could USAID please clarify the need for indirect cost rate ceilings described in §B.6? It is our understanding that USAID is not requiring a cost-sharing arrangement under any resulting contract. For offerors with extensive past performance implementing prime contracts for the U.S. Government and established NICRAs, the example situations described in FAR 42.707(b)(1) do not appear to apply. If this is the case for the selected offeror, will USAID consider waiving the requirement to apply ceiling rates for indirect costs?

USAID answer #83: Indirect cost rate ceilings have…