SWIFT 6 Pre-Solicitation Conference Amendment 03.pdf

Date: March 10, 2023 Pre-Solicitation Notice Issue Date: January 30, 2023 Pre-Solicitation Notice ID: 7200AA23PRESOL00029

TO: All Offerors SUBJECT: Amendment No. 03 – Support Which Implements Fast Transition (SWIFT) 6

Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract Pre-Solicitation

Prospective Offerors:

The purpose of Amendment No. 03 is to: 1) post the list of organizations who attended the pre-solicitation conference, 2) post responses to questions received by USAID/OTI prior to and at the pre-solicitation conference, and 3) post the pre-solicitation conference presentation slides.

1) Attachment 01 contains the list of organizations who attended the pre-solicitation conference;

2) Attachment 02 contains responses to questions received by USAID/OTI prior to and during the pre-solicitation conference;

3) Attachment 03 contains the pre-solicitation conference presentation slides.

All other information remains the same.

Jaclyn Humphrey Supervisory Contracting Officer

M/OAA/CPS

Attachment 01

The following organizations attended the SWIFT 6 pre-solicitation conference on March 2, 2023.

This list only includes the organizations that signed in on the pre-solicitation conference sign-in sheet.

No. Organization Small Business 1 Adam Smith International No 2 All in for Development Yes 3 ARK Group Yes 4 Avram Corporation Inc Yes 5 Bean Group Global Yes 6 Blumont No 7 BroderickHaight Consulting No 8 Cambridge Global Advisors Yes 9 Chemonics International No 10 Creative Associates International No 11 Crown Agents No 12 Culmen International LLC No 13 DAI No 14 Dana Jay Professional Services Yes 15 De Lune Corp Yes 16 DevAfric-US Yes 17 Development Innovations Group Yes 18 DevTech Systems, Inc. No 19 Dexis Consulting Group No 20 DI Yes 21 DT Global No 22 ECODIT LLC Yes 23 Energy and Security Group Yes 24 Exceed Yes 25 Federal Capture LLC Yes 26 FM Talent Yes 27 GARDANT GLOBAL Yes 28 Global Development Catalyst Yes 29 Green Powered Technology Yes 30 Highlight Technologies No 31 i-APS Yes 32 IBI Yes 33 IBTCI No

34 Info Gain Consulting LLC Yes 35 Integra Government Services Int'l Yes 36 Integral Management Solutions Yes 37 Integrity Yes 38 International Advisory, Products and Systems (i-APS) Yes 39 International Business Express, Inc. Yes 40 IT Shows, Inc. Yes 41 IV Consulting Group Yes 42 Kaizen No 43 Kenjya-Trusant Group, LLC Yes 44 Keylime Yes 45 Kollabio, Inc Yes 46 Lukos Yes 47 M Powered Strategies Yes 48 MAGENTA Consulting Yes 49 MISSION SOLAIYA JV LLC Yes 50 MSI No 51 Nathan/Cadmus No 52 Navanti Group Yes 53 Nickol Global Solutions (NGS) Yes 54 NORC No 55 Palladium No 56 Pan American Development Foundation No 57 Panagora Group Yes 58 Pickett Logistics LLC Yes 59 PM Consulting Group Yes 60 PMCG Yes 61 Q2 Impact Yes 62 Rapiscan, Inc No 63 Responsive Deployment Yes 64 Rios Partners Yes 65 RIWI No 66 Rumph and Associates PC Yes 67 Sayara International Yes 68 SGI Global Yes 69 SMS Strategic Services, LLC Yes 70 Social Solutions International, Inc. No 71 SOLAIYA LLLP Yes 72 SourceAmerica No 73 The Critial Mass LLC Yes

74 The KonTerra Group Yes 75 Thompson Rock Solid, LLC Yes 76 USmax Corporation Yes 77 ZemiTek LLC Yes 78 Zinc Network Yes

Attachment 02

SWIFT 6 Pre-Solicitation Conference Q&A

Questions Submitted in Response to Pre-Solicitation Notice and Addressed at Pre- Solicitation Conference

Questions about timing / deadlines / questions:

Q: I take it, then, that the SWIFT vehicle is still performing well and is just being recompeted at its natural pace to ensure continuity of service into the next iteration?

A: SWIFT 6 is being solicited now with an anticipated award date that will ensure no gap in contracting mechanism after the after the current ordering period of SWIFT 5 ends, which is September 5, 2024 for SWIFT-Programs and December 3, 2024 for SWIFT-Support.

Q: Our only question/comment is that we would encourage USAID/OTI to consider staggering the release and submission deadlines for SWIFT-Programs and SWIFT- Support, as many small businesses would like to submit proposals for both opportunities. This will enable small businesses to prepare and submit their strongest possible proposals, ultimately resulting in stronger IDIQ mechanisms for USAID/OTI.

A: Thank you for this comment. USAID will retain one submission date for Phase One responses for both SWIFT-Programs and SWIFT-Support. USAID will consider staggering the submission date for Phase Two proposal responses to accommodate small businesses potentially submitting proposals for both components. As an example, if the Advisory Notification indicated that SWIFT-Programs proposals were due on October 15, SWIFT-Support proposals might be due a month later, on November 15. (these dates are for example purposes only).

Question: Would USAID please confirm that offerors will have an opportunity to raise further questions upon release of the final RFP?

The Answer: Yes, there will be a Q&A period after the final RFP is released/posted.

Q: Will USAID please confirm that offerors will have an opportunity to raise further questions at the start of Phase 2 in the procurement process?

A: As answered in the previous question, there will be a Q&A period after the final RFP is released/posted. USAID does not envision a separate/additional Q&A period at the start of Phase Two.

Questions about overall requirements:

Q: The Phase 1 Draft for Sections B, C, L and M indicates under L.4(e) that offers must submit the SF 33, Section K, Section B, and cost/pricing/indirect cost information from Section L. Would USAID please confirm that offerors are not required to submit this information until Phase 2?

A: USAID confirms that Offerors do not need to submit the information noted in the draft "Section B-C-L-M (Phase One)" document, Section L.4(e), until Phase 2.

Q: Please remove the requirement under Draft Sections L-M for Phase 2 for subcontractors to be registered in SAM (section L.10 Part 3 (1)), as SAM registration is only required for companies implementing prime-level acquisition awards.

A: This is to confirm that subcontractors are not required to register in sam.gov.

Q: The Attachment J.X document provided with the Phase One and Two pre-solicitation documents is specific to the case study, but throughout the Phase 2 document, there are references to Attachment J.X including other information, including an Annotated Activity Manual Outline (Page 10), an Implementation Planning Exercise Table (Page 11), IDIQ Manager Labor Category minimum qualifications (Page 15), OTI Global –Initial Environmental Examination (Page 15), Past Performance Matrix (Page 17), cost/price evaluation matrix template (Page 28), Fee and Indirect Cost evaluation matrix template (Page 29), among other templates. While it is understood that these references to Attachment J.X are placeholders, would USAID please confirm if the above referenced attachments will be released to offerors prior to the May 15, 2023 Phase One RFP release date?

A: All RFP attachments will be released with the final RFP. However, the attachments referenced in this question are all Phase 2 requirements; therefore, from RFP release to the submission date for Phase 2 responses, Offerors should have ample time to review, ask questions, and prepare their proposals, using these attachments.

Questions about Phase One attachments/requirements:

Q: Can USAID confirm the limit of eight (8) pages in response to “Implementation of Transition Programs” is for Corporate Capabilities and Experience (Factor 1) only, and does not include Title page, Cover Letter, Table of contents, Acronym List and Dividers and any appendices?

A: Yes, per page 75 of the draft "Section B-C-L-M (Phase One)" document, Section L.6.1(d) states, "Not included in the above page limitations are the following: Title Page...Cover Letter...Table of Contents...Acronym List...and Dividers." In addition, page 76, for SWIFT- Programs Phase One Section L.7.1 states that the "Program Examples Including Grants Under Contract" Annex A is "required but not included in the maximum technical proposal narrative page limitation."

Q: Can USAID confirm that in [Section L.7.2.1], Offerors should name individuals who are part of their bench based on project and recruitment efforts that demonstrate corporate capacity?

A: USAID confirms that for the SWIFT-Programs Phase One Factor 1 submission Offerors do not need to name individuals who are part of their bench to demonstrate corporate capacity

Q: Can USAID confirm that the Offeror can document in its response to the solicitation programs that include grants issued under cooperative agreements as well as grants under contracts, as per section L.7.2 of the SWIFT 6 presolicitation?

A: The SWIFT-Programs Phase One Section L.7.2.1.A.ii states that "The narrative must demonstrate the Offeror’s corporate experience and capacity managing a program with a significant number of small, in-kind grants." Grants can include grants under contract or sub-grants (under assistance awards), as further elaborated in the instructions detailing the Annex, that Offerors must present information on "GUCs (or sub-grants/sub-awards)."

Q: Would USAID please reconsider the Phase 1 - Factor 1 (Corporate Capabilities and Experience) evaluation criteria, which we believe may be weighted in favor of incumbent SWIFT Task Order awardees over a potential broader pool of expertise among other development partners. For example, would USAID please reconsider the basis for Phase 1 Voluntary Down Select to encompass geographic and/or technical capabilities and past performance?

A: Section C provides the statement of work for the IDIQ, including the technical/programmatic purpose and objectives of the contract. In response to the 2nd part of the question, USAID confirms that technical capabilities are being evaluated - in accordance with the Phase One instructions for Factor 1, for both SWIFT-Programs and SWIFT-Support, Offerors are required to demonstrate their "capabilities and experience to meet the requirements set forth in the...SWIFT 6 Statement of Work (Section C)." In response to the first part of the question, of the 10 original awardees of the SWIFT 5-Programs IDIQ, 5 of them were new to SWIFT - and corporate capabilities was the 2nd most weighted evaluation factor. In keeping with phased acquisition best practices, we have selected an evaluation factor for Phase One that provides for a lighter lift for Offerors while also promoting a meaningful evaluation.

Questions about Phase Two attachments/requirements:

Q: Please confirm that technical Annex C (Full Implementation Org Chart) may be submitted on 11x17 size paper with no page limit.

A: USAID confirms that the Full Implementation Organization Chart (Annex C) for SWIFT- Programs Phase 2 may be submitted on 11by17 size paper. However, the page limit is 1 page.

Q: Please confirm that technical Annex D (Roles and Responsibilities Matrix) may be submitted on 11x17 size paper with no page limit.

A: USAID confirms that the Roles and Responsibilities Matrix (Annex D) for SWIFT-Programs Phase 2 may be submitted on 11x17 size paper and there is no page limit.

Q: Page 9 (Phase 2), Section L.8.2.1.A.ii does not provide a page limit for Annex D: Roles and Responsibilities Matrix. Could USAID please clarify the page limit for the Roles and Responsibilities Matrix?

A: There is no page limit for the SWIFT-Programs Phase 2 Roles and Responsibilities Matrix (Annex D).

Q: Page 11 (Phase 2), Section L.8.2.1.A.roman numeral 4 provides a five-page limit for the Annex H Implementation Planning Exercise narrative but does not provide a page limit or page size for the Implementation Planning Exercise table. Could USAID please clarify the page limit and page size for the Implementation Planning Exercise Table?

A: USAID will provide a template for the Phase 2 Implementation Planning Exercise table (as part of Annex H for SWIFT-Programs and Annex D for SWIFT-Support). There is no page limit for this table for either component. The table may be submitted on paper no greater than 11by17 inches.

Q: Please provide illustrative LCP and allowances rates to use for case study resourcing assumptions.

A: No budget or cost information is required for response to the illustrative case study.

Other Questions Submitted in Response to Pre-Solicitation Notice

Q: Can USAID confirm that if labor categories and CDRs for STTA were to be required that the rates would be for all STTA, including expats/Third Country Nationals (TCNs) and Host Country Nationals (HCNs)? We have found that when HCN CDRs are subjected to local compensation plans (LCPs) or local mission guidance, this can limit the pool of local STTA with required experience, particularly those who have international experience. Given that CDRs for STTA are generally higher than those for LTTA to account for the lack of benefits, we believe that it would be beneficial to apply the same rates to HCN consultants as well. This would allow Offerors to be able to propose competitive CDR rates to HCN consultants and promote equity and inclusion amongst

STTA.

A: The SWIFT 6 RFP will not request potential offerors to propose CDRs for consultant/STTA labor.

Q: Can unsuccessful SWIFT 6 IDIQ applicants be considered for “on-ramping” should the opportunity arise during the ten-year ordering period, upon submission of later application?

A: Yes, unsuccessful SWIFT 6 IDIQ applicants can be considered for “on-ramping” should the opportunity arise during the ten-year ordering period, upon submission of later application.

Q: Will USAID issue guidance of circumstances when “on-ramping” and/or “off-ramping” may be used at solicitation or during the ordering period?

A: USAID is still considering requirements/parameters for "off-ramping." Further guidance will be included in the final RFP.

Q: Will there be a negotiation period between USAID and IDIQ holders should an IDIQ holder be selected for “off-ramping”.

A: USAID is still considering requirements/parameters for "off-ramping." Further guidance will be included in the final RFP.

Q: As specified in the Specific Questions / Issues for Industry Comment SWIFT 6 Pre- Solicitation attachment, “CDRs for a consultant may exceed the Contractor Salary Threshold (CST), with approval from the Contracting Officer”. AIDAR 731.205-6 (b) states that Contracting Officer’s approval is required to exceed the CST for employees. Per AIDAR 752.202-1(e), a consultant is not an employee. Could USAID please clarify the requirement for Contracting Officer’s approval to exceed CST for consultants, given that consultants are not employees?

A: The requirement in AIDAR 752.7007(b) for CO approval of salaries that exceed the CST is specific to employees. Thus CO approval is not required for consultants exceeding the CST.

However, Implementing Partners must adhere to the applicable cost principles in FAR Part 31 and AIDAR Part 731, including the cost principle at FAR 31.205, if the consultant meets the definition of “Professional and consultant services” provided in FAR 31.205-33(a).

Q: Can USAID advise on the expected or desired turnaround duration for sign off from the Contracting Officer, should a consultant’s CDR exceed the Contractor Salary Threshold?

A: The requirement in AIDAR 752.7007(b) for CO approval of salaries that exceed the CST is specific to employees. Thus CO approval is not required for consultants exceeding the CST.

However, Implementing Partners must adhere to the applicable cost principles in FAR Part 31 and AIDAR Part 731, including the cost principle at FAR 31.205, if the consultant meets the definition of “Professional and consultant services” provided in FAR 31.205-33(a).

Q: While CDRs are mainly used to provide cost control to a budget/contract, Consultant labor as a cost element itself is generally not among the top cost drivers for an OTI budget. Most/if not all engagements are short-term, and thus, don’t have a material impact per engagement. Given this, could USAID provide further information as to the reasoning behind requesting CDRs on consultant STTA labor?

A: The SWIFT 6 RFP will not request potential offerors to propose CDRs for consultant/STTA labor.

Q: Page 6, Section B.7.1 states that all CCN and TCN personnel and other non-U.S.

expatriates must be paid in accordance with AIDAR 722.170. It is our understanding that the requirement to pay TCNs in local currency is only applicable to TCN employees (i.e.

long-term, field-based personnel) and not TCN consultants/independent contractors.

Would USAID please confirm that this requirement does not apply to consultants?

A: In accordance with AIDAR 722.170(b), the compensation of TCNs shall be paid in the currency of the cooperating country, unless a waiver has been approved. However, according to AIDAR 752.202-1(e), consultants are not employees.

Questions Asked During the Pre-solicitation Conference

OTI Overview, Business Model, and Program Examples (Field Programs Division)

Q: Will USAID also share a list of the attendees/firms?

A: USAID will post the sign-in sheet afterwards which will include the list of attendees.

Q: Will a recording or transcript be made available after the session? Thank you.

A: This session is not being recorded but written notes from the Q&A will be shared afterwards.

Q: Can you confirm the meeting slides will be made available?

A: The slides will be provided in an amendment to the pre-solicitation notice after the conference.

Q: Any plans to implement any programs in Sri Lanka ?

A: OTI will notify partners of any new potential Task Orders in the USAID business forecast.

Q: Can you discuss an example of a "failed" situation, and how that informed learning and programming?

A: It depends on what level. For example in Colombia, we thought that by providing logistical assistance to Bogota-based technocrats to get them out into rural areas to connect with communities on the peace accord was sufficient to bridge the urban-rural divide. In the end, we had high level technocrats using very academic language and approaches that did not work out well at all and only ended up exacerbating the perception of a divide. We learned from that, worked on our approach, and adapted future activities – it was fine because the only failure is the failure to learn.

Q: Please provide some examples of Knowledge Management techniques for TAP?

A: The Activity Database is a bespoke tool developed by OTI several decades ago. Initially an Access database, it is now online. Each program has a “space” within the database and it acts as a tool to capture, observe, and record what the activities are, as well as what is learned from these activities. It also contains M&E plans and activity notes (for capturing and recording knowledge). This is the main tool, but not the only one. The exact format, tempo, etc. of meetings for knowledge management purposes will vary between programs. There are common methods, but otherwise there is a good deal of variety in processes and knowledge capture approaches across OTI programs. Another technique to capture knowledge is through our pause and reflect processes (such as Rolling Assessments). For example, in a recent Rolling Assessment in Benin, the whole team gathered together to discuss “what we are seeing in our environment,” and “what should happen going forward.” We capture all of that information to inform staff but also to share with HQ.

Q: Please provide some quantitative metrics for strategic accountability and integrity.

A: OTI programs primarily rely on qualitative metrics to measure strategic accountability and strategic integrity. One approach we use is Program Performance Reviews (PPRs). In a PPR, OTI will send a team out to that country - meet with the team and stakeholders to figure out the extent to which the strategy is aligned with local priorities. In these reviews, we talk to the entire team and ascertain if team members speak about the program in the same way or if there is a disconnect. This demonstrates whether leadership and staff are aligned in their understanding of the strategy. Another process is a Strategy Review Session (SRS), which OTI programs generally do on an annual basis, although it varies. This involves getting the whole team together (including HQ). An SRS is an opportunity to gauge strategic integrity, review context, apply lessons learned, and decide a way forward. These methods don’t lend themselves toward quantitative metrics but may occasionally utilize some quantitative data (e.g., a staff survey).

Q: Are there particular tenets of the OTI approach and model that you think are especially supportive of the Agency's localization agenda?

A: The way OTI programs identify their local partners and how those partners align with the program’s strategy is consistent with the Agency’s localization agenda. OTI programs work with a wide variety of local partners — dozens if not hundreds in a single program. Implementing partner local staff work with potential grantees to identify and collaboratively design activities — what is it about, who should be involved, what should it be trying to achieve. We co-create at that level and build on the ideas of these local stakeholders. OTI programs do not often issue requests for proposals/applications. Rather, local staff scout out different opportunities to support local organizations, activists, and government officials. Programs typically have weekly meetings where staff present concepts for potential activities — could be their own ideas or could be from a potential or past local partner. This approach empowers these local actors.

Q: Can you say more about the collaboration between USAID OTI and IPs on security and operating in these challenging environments? (with an example from a rapid response case if possible) A: I can give two examples. One is from Niger when Boko Haram first came over the border.

OTI had the ability to sit in the partner’s office, call up the local staff, and hear what the actual impact was on the ground. This was critical to informing what the US Mission's understanding and posture should be. That was an example of working together to feed information up. In Colombia, some grantees implementing an OTI activity were stopped while en route by the ELN who confiscated the car and equipment. The negotiation to get that property back was facilitated by OTI being able to know as soon as the incident happened, and being able to encourage our

IP to work directly with Colombian Government counterparts to reach a solution. OTI then encouraged those same government counterparts to protect these activities going forward to help prevent our partners from being in jeopardy.

Q: How does OTI consider other nation's initiatives within a country,...let's say,...a Chinese sponsored pipeline versus an OTI/TAP effort? How about a NGO initiative?

A: An assessment team would include an analysis of what others are doing - other parts of USAID or USG and others donors, etc. And this would be part of how a team considers whether OTI’s tools are appropriate to what the needs are of the country.

Q: One of the country programming examples was Libya, where OTI has operated since 2011. Have there been changes to how OTI decides whether to continue an in-country presence over that time? Also, are there any differences now as opposed to in the past as to how OTI approaches an exit/transition strategy when there's been extended programming in a country?

A: Exits are tailored to each country's program. Sometimes it involves other parts of USAID picking up some of the lines of effort OTI is working on, sometimes it’s an introduction of partners to other parts of USAID, and sometimes it’s just an exit where OTI shares the program learning but that specific activities do not continue.

Q: Can you say more about any specific frameworks and approaches you prefer to use to rapidly assess, monitor and evaluate OTI implementation (for example the CAF framework for conflict assessments)?

A: There is no one-size-fits-all for assessing, monitoring, and evaluating the implementation of OTI programs. OTI employs a customized approach to M&E because of the complex problem sets our programs tackle and the contexts that we work in. These present a challenge to using fixed frameworks. OTI has an in-house team of M&E specialists who support and advise each program to identify which tools and approaches are most appropriate for each context. OTI programs typically rely on more flexible tools and iterative approaches. Some of the more rigid frameworks do not lend themselves well to the fluid and evolving nature of OTI programs. It's not that OTI does not see value in those approaches, but rather our programs are not necessarily conducive to utilizing them. We tend to focus on qualitative tools over quantitative.

Q: If you want to complete the sentence “I wish our IPs have or can do the following….”

how would you complete this sentence?

A: I hope our implementing partners can share a true one-team mindset and fully understand what OTI means by that. It is a more intensive relationship than other models within USAID.

This is important because truly our success depends on this relationship. Sharing the celebratory moments together but also the challenges and risks. Challenges we set out to face together. In order for us to adapt in real time, it really requires a real-time relationship, where we are sharing information in both directions. Integrating policy and what we hear on the ground.

When that happens it is magical in what we can achieve together.

Q: One of the OTI Principles is "Local Ownership" - how does OTI screen local partners with regards to skill levels for management, capabilities, culture, and political will?

A: We don’t have to, because of you. OTI can work with anyone, even “three ladies under a tree,” if they have a great idea. That is how OTI embodies localization in practice. OTI invests small amounts and is able to take on risk because we invest in small ways and our Implementing Partners manage the administrative and financial oversight critical to ensuring that US government funds are well-managed. OTI starts out small, risks a small amount of money through in-kind grants, and then learns from that.

Q: Can you share examples of digital solutions that OTI has used to aid adaptive management inclusive of grantee monitoring A: OTI relies primarily on implementing partner staff to monitor grantees. These local staff are typically based in the regions where activities are being implemented and those staff monitor grantees through site visits, photos, etc. Photos are often time-stamped or embedded with GPS coordinates to verify the status of OTI activities. OTI programs may also sometimes have local staff or external enumerators use smart devices to collect feedback or survey data that is uploaded in real time.

Q: On the activity database, is this customized by the contractor/implementing partner or does USAID/Washington customize it per country?

A: OTI sets up a dedicated Activity Database at the outset of each program, and our implementing partner is a co-user of the database.

Q: On the first slide, you mentioned how important security is. Could you talk about whether/how staff care and mental wellbeing is considered important in terms of OTI's culture? Do you have an example?

A: The Strategy Review Sessions and Rolling Assessments are good opportunities to take the pulse of staff. And sometimes to bring in professionals in staff care to check in with them. Other concrete examples include Ukraine, where we have been working with our implementing partner to support staff who don’t have access to electricity, or have lost their homes or had to move because it is too dangerous. In Libya, we have a program office in a safer place - Tunis - if there are specific threats to staff in Libya, we are able to bring them to Tunis for training or mentoring.

We take this kind of staffcare very, very seriously because our staff - meaning OTI staff and Implementing Partners, expats, TCNs, and local staff - are the backbone of our programs.

Q: What is the OTI program in Ghana? and is there a plan to extend it?

A: OTI's presence in Ghana is part of the Coastal West Africa program, which has a current end date of March 2024.

Q: Can you share any hard lessons learned from SWIFT 5 or predecessors that you all would like to see addressed or incorporated in SWIFT 6?

A: Lessons learned were incorporated into the SWIFT 6 IDIQ.

SWIFT 6 SOW and RFP

Q: Will large and small business offerors be required to have an active security clearance to be eligible to bid on the SWIFT 6 IDIQ?

A: No.

Q: What is OTI doing as part of the design or procurement of SWIFT 6 to increase its partner base and prevent over reliance on any one IP?

A: For SWIFT 5 there were 10 awards, five of which were new partners. We believe this demonstrates a good track record of bringing in new partners. In addition, for the current SWIFT 5 partners, the OTI Program Office is working closely with OAA to look at our RFTOP templates to help streamline the process and “level the playing field” to ensure we are providing an opportunity for all partners to participate. We have had feedback from our current SWIFT partners that this is appreciated. Specifically, we have implemented changes such as reducing the number of evaluation factors and/or sub-factors, within sub-factors reducing the number of required elements to respond to, and removing the requirement to name and evaluate Key Personnel candidates in the proposal.

Q: The draft RFP references ‘joint venture’ and ‘major subcontractors’. With the exception of SWIFT 4 where it was explicit about being open to subcontractors, the USAID market has learned that OTI seeks one organization to implement and be solely accountable. Is OTI now more open to working with major subcontractors (prime and sub) or joint venture?

A: OTI has been and is open to working subcontractors - and OTI expects that Offerors should ensure that roles, responsibilities, and communications are clear and in-keeping with OTI's One Team ethos. In keeping with the RFP’s description of the complex environments in which OTI works, streamlined management with strong communication is of utmost importance.

Q: Understanding that SWIFT is largely an OCONUS (Outside the Continental U.S.) effort at country program locations, what (if any) functions/activities/requirements are typically performed or delivered to USAID stateside?

A: Largely services performed within the US are the program and contract management by home office units in support of the field programs. There is usually a start-up conference that happens stateside, in addition to regular/periodic touch bases between the Task Order Contracting Officer (TOCOR) and the partner’s home office point of contact. Occasionally, OTI has been able to bring local staff, grantees, or beneficiaries to the US to meet with and brief stakeholders. Otherwise most everything else happens in the field.

Q: Is there a list of the funding that is provided to the team members versus the products that is funded? I am asking in relation to logistics and transportation services and importing/exporting cargo freight of all commodities via air, rail, truck or ocean. Thank you.

A: All of the programmatic expenses that an implementing partner undertakes are funded by the contract, as long as the costs are reasonable, allocable, and allowable. This would include team members’ level of effort to implement the program, and any logistics and/or transportation services required to further programmatic objectives.

Q: Thank you for the feedback re: describing the grants mgmt system. So if some of the systems are IP provided and some (eg, Activity Database) are to be USAID-provided, can you specify which are to be IP-provided vs. USAID-provided? THanks A: Please refer to the final RFP when released.

Q: For the Systems referenced in earlier slide, possible to provide a description, for example, the Grants Mgmt system (appreciate that described the Activity Database, but possible to get similar for the other systems)? Thanks.

A: The other systems (such as a system for managing grants and systems to manage procurement) are systems the partner provides in order to implement and manage the Transition Activities Pool (TAP) - and are specific to each partner.

Q: You already confirmed that there will be no Phase 1 requirement to demonstrate a bench of individual experts. Will there be any such requirement for Phase 2?

A: Please refer to the final RFP when it is released.

Q: What is the current expected release date of the final RFP and how many awards are anticipated for SWIFT-Programs and for SWIFT-Support?

A: Please continue to monitor the USAID Business Forecast; currently the projected release date is May 15, 2023. Please refer to the final RFP for information regarding the anticipated number of awards.

Q: As the panelists have alluded to as well, things change really rapidly on the ground in conflict regions which a lot of times necessitate a change in the implementation plan.

How quickly does OTI approve pivot in a particular contract's scope of work or change deliverables to accommodate that? What's OTI's approach to changing a contract's scope of work or deliverables in such circumstances. Thank you.

A: Our statements of work do not “change.” Each statement of work will contain a purpose statement which will define what is in “scope” - and as we noted earlier in the presentation, OTI SOWs are written very broadly to provide OTI with maximum flexibility to respond to opportunities and challenges in complex environments. An OTI program’s program objectives may change at any given time. OTI programs are constantly pivoting - the program evolves to meet the needs on the ground.

Q: Given that SWIFT-Support's mandate includes management reviews, rolling assessments, and performance reviews of SWIFT -Program TOs, does this create any potential conflicts of interest for small businesses interested in pursuing both SWIFT- Support and SWIFT-Programs? If so, how does OTI plan to mitigate these conflicts of interest?

A: There are potential conflicts of interest on individual Task Orders if a small business is awarded both SWIFT-Programs and SWIFT-Support, which we will outline in more depth in the Small Business Session. This does not preclude a partner from submitting a proposal for both components or being awarded both components.

Q: Please explain your general invoicing procedure? Could you include your invoicing procedure into your RFP so that business owners can better understand OTI invoicing procedures.

A: Please refer to the final RFP for guidance on this, and if you are a new partner, USAID will work very closely with you so that you understand these processes.

Q: Could OTI please provide guidance on the timeline between RFP release, submission and response on Phase I, and deadline for Phase II submissions?

A: Please refer to the final RFP when released.

Small Business Session

Q: Some of our companies are new to USAID but we'd like to support and leverage expertise. Are there focused areas that USAID has seen gaps that small businesses fill particularly well? M&E, online learning, on the ground implementation for example?

A: Yes, separate from the SWIFT IDIQ, OTI does require an array of support services which are all provided by small businesses - these are contracted and accessed through other IDIQs and mechanisms. For example, our small business contract providing M&E services was awarded out of the USAID PPL M&E IDIQ. In addition, we utilized the GSA schedule to competitively procure a small business contract to provide institutional support. Other services traditionally provided by small businesses have been training and facilitation.

Q: Will you give us an idea of what might expected in terms of staff care needs (based on past experience ) A: In general, the places that OTI works can be quite insecure and stressful places. What we have seen our partners provide in the past is the ability for there to be “reach-back” for staff -typically including access to counseling and psychosocial support. I currently cannot think of a time where SWIFT-Support staff have had to be evacuated, but that is always a potential possibility in complex/insecure environments - so the partner would need to have the resources and ability to evacuate its staff if required. In addition, SWIFT-Support partners must have the ability to continue to monitor the on-the-ground situation so that the partner can act quickly when needed. The partner must also provide staff care logistical support, as pertains to housing security.

Q: Can you please say more about what you mean about security and specifically how to work with other OTI IPs on security?

A: Several good examples of what we expect from partners on the ground were provided in the “Current SWIFT-Support Task Orders session.” What we have seen when it comes to SWIFT- Support partners working with SWIFT-Programs partners, is that in a particular country the two companies might negotiate some kind of inter-company MoU with regard to what services or infrastructure the SWIFT-Programs partner might provide that SWIFT-Support staff might access - this helps to avoid double billing, and also sometimes to streamline, when a SWIFT- Programs Implementing Partner might have an optimized platform/infrastructure with regard to security support. To be clear, this is not something that USAID could dictate, but rather an agreement that the two partners would have to negotiate on.

Q: Can USAID/OTI provide more information on the use of the SWIFT 5 Support mechanism? Does USAID/OTI anticipate any overlap between the current EXPLORE TOs and SWIFT 6 Support or Programs? If so, can USAID/OTI clarify how it sees the SWIFT Support and/or any SWIFT Programs SB reserve/set-aside working alongside the EXPLORE task orders under SWIFT 5.

A: EXPLORE (Exploratory Pilot and Learning Options for Regional Efficiency) was a new mechanism, designed about a year and a half ago. There are 6 regional awards - for each of OTI’s regional teams. These are intended to be rapid response, intermittent programming.

Generally, OTI could use a regional EXPLORE award to respond either in places where OTI is not currently operating but needs to respond very quickly, or even after an OTI program closes, but OTI needs to provide programming to “fill the gap” before some other programming comes online. As these Task Orders are pre-competed, EXPLORE partners are ready to deploy staff to help set up an operational platform really quickly. EXPLORE is not intended to replace fair opportunity Task Orders which are competed for country or regional programs, because EXPLORE engagements are limited - generally between 6-12 months. EXPLORE engagements might also include short-term research and data collection. There is not really an overlap between EXPLORE and SWIFT Support. Where an EXPLORE engagement is active, OTI might still require SWIFT-Support staff to augment its management and monitoring of the engagement.

Q: Was the decision to set aside at least 1 spot (and possibly more) under the small business reserve based fully, on in part, on feedback OTI received from the SB responses to its RFI?

A: Yes, that and in addition to other market research OTI conducted.

Q: Does OTI have small business utilization goals under SWIFT VI? If so, what are the indicators used for that (ex total $ amount of task orders awarded to SBs, etc)?

A: Please refer to the final RFP, which will outline small business utilization goals.

Q: For past performance and capabilities, whether for large or small business, would OTI consider other complex environment implementation beyond GUCs and assistance awards to earn a seat on the IDIQ? As the GUCs mechanism has limited use at USAID outside of OTI, it may create a challenge for new partners to be awarded a seat on the

IDIQ.

A: You have heard from our presentations today and from reading the draft Section C, the primary service area of SWIFT-Programs is the management and implementation of TAP (which includes GUCs, direct distribution of goods and services, and STTA - with GUCs being the preferred tool utilized). Therefore, OTI requires partners who have the capability to manage GUCs. Any capabilities where an Offeror can demonstrate that they have managed that type of work would be relevant to this SoW.

Q: Kimberly mentioned that OTI values small business. Would USAID consider additional SB reserve slots for the programs contract? This would be a great way for OTI to gain new small business partners and more small businesses the chance to engage and gain experience doing this important work. Given the $5 billion ceiling, it would be a shame to dedicate so few spots to SB and it seems there is room for SB to compete successfully in the unrestricted space, given the size of many current SWIFT 5 procurements A: Thank you for that feedback, and we will take it under consideration in our final RFP release.

Q: Does OTI anticipate average size and number of SWIFT 6-Support task orders will be similar, less than, or more than SB set aside tasks on SWIFT 5?

A: This is very hard to anticipate, and not sure we can answer that. Under SWIFT 5-Support, OTI has awarded three TOs - one is country specific, the others are regional. So it would depend on the particular needs of a program and country context - it is very difficult to speak to that at this time.

Q: Would there be any performance assessments you would be willing to provide on industry partners historically who serviced the SWIFT efforts?

A: Not sure what you meant by performance assessments unless you mean CPARS (which are of course proprietary to each individual partner)? If you mean evaluation reports on particular programs, those would be found on the Development Experience Clearinghouse.

Q: Is there additional information or feedback from industry partners that could help OTI with regards to the off-ramping approach and decision?

A: OTI did already ask for feedback as part of our pre-solicitation notice. We did receive a lot of good feedback. Not sure we will have another feedback session before the final RFP is released. We also performed market research, including talking to other government agencies with experience in on-ramping/off-ramping. If you have any additional questions or feedback you are welcome to provide that to us in the chat or in the formal Questions period after the RFP release.

Q: What are common trends that OTI likes to see for a successful IDIQ proposal and TO proposals? Is it the IDIQ manager with OTI experience, tech approach.,..

A: Please refer to the Evaluation Factors in the final RFP to see what OTI is asking of you and how we are weighting those factors.

Q: When is the beginning of ordering period under SWIFT VI expected to be?

A: The ordering period begins upon the award date of the contract. As with SWIFT 5, the SWIFT-Programs ordering period will likely begin a little earlier than SWIFT-Support.

Q: Do you have any advice for newly founded SB's without past performances? Are they eligible? Any reserves for WOSB/EDOWSB?

A: Per the Section L instructions, any Offerors without past performance will be rated as neutral for that Evaluation Factor. As noted earlier, small businesses may also subcontract to a prime Offeror.

Q: How will you handle a situation where a small business graduates during the 10 year timeframe of the award?

A: For SWIFT 5, there have been a number of small businesses that have graduated. 13 CFR §

121.404 provides guidance with regard to small business size status.

Q: We are Hubzone Certified? What is the % Setaside for company like us.

A: Please refer to the final RFP release for more information.

Q: The $$ amounts cited - like MENARS. Are these obligated amounts or ceilings on SUPPORT TOs?

A: The dollar amounts cited for the SWIFT-Support Iraq LTTA Task Order and MENARS Task Order are “total estimated ceilings” (base period + any options).

Q: Is OTI planning to update it's market research (and therefore maybe its planned number of SWIFT-Programs or SWIFT-Support small business awards) in light of the recent increase in the size standard for the 541611 NAICS code from $17m to $24.5m (a more than 40% increase)? This means that numerous IPs that might have been considered "middle tier" at the time of the RFI may now be eligible to bid as small businesses.

A: Thank you for the feedback regarding the size standard for NAICS code 541611. Please refer to the final RFP for the estimated number of contracts OTI anticipates awarding to small businesses.

Q: I wish to confirm that a small business awarded SWIFT Programs can apply for and receive TOs that are not just exclusive to the SB set-aside within the mechanism (i.e., that are also open to the large businesses under SWIFT VI Programs)?

A: Yes. A small business awarded SWIFT-Programs, may compete for fair opportunity task orders.

Q: What are the services you value the most and are getting from small businesses that you are not getting from large ones?

A: This was answered during the presentation. SWIFT-Support is only for small businesses so all the services outlined we value greatly from our small businesses, in addition to all the service areas obtained outside of SWIFT for which we partner with small businesses (M&E, institutional support, training, facilitation, etc.).

Q: Are there any opportunities for Leadership Training, Strategic Planning & Execution systems and 6 Sigma Methodology?

A: Refer to the SOW in the final RFP for a description of services that OTI requires from Implementing Partners.

Office of Transition Initiatives

SWIFT 6 Pre-Solicitation Conference March 2, 2023

Attachment 03

Introduction Jaclyn Humphrey, Branch Chief and Supervisory Contracting and Agreement Officer

USAID/OAA/CPS

K. Santi Duewel, Senior Program Advisor (and SWIFT 5-Programs Contracting Officer’s Representative), OTI Program Office

USAID/OTI

OAA Introduction

• This Pre-Solicitation Conference is for informational purposes only.

• This conference does not represent a commitment by USAID to release an RFP.

• Any information presented in this conference is subject to change, and if USAID decides to release an RFP, that document would be the official information on the IDIQ.

• The Q&A session later will address questions submitted regarding the draft Sections B, C, L, and M and will include a time for follow-up questions. USAID has reserved the right to: address questions and/or clarifications at this pre-solicitation conference; factor answers into any final solicitation; and/or not to respond to questions.

OTI Introduction

● Introductions

■ Producers: Ashley Pinamonti (apinamonti@usaid.gov)

Rachel Hoffman (rahoffman@usaid.gov)

● Sign-In Sheet (link in chat)

● Tech Tips (link in chat)

● Q&A (all questions submitted via Q&A function)

● Agenda

Tech Tips

Click to update sound settings

Click to access Q&A

For technical difficulties, send a chat to the host.

AGENDA

1:00 – 1:10 Introduction

1:10 – 1:20 Welcome

1:20 – 2:00 OTI Overview and Business Model

2:00 – 2:20 Country Program Examples

2:20 - 2:30 Q&A

2:30 - 2:40 Break

AGENDA continued

2:40 – 3:00 SWIFT 6 SOW

3:00 – 3:30 Q&A

3:30 – 3:40 Break

3:40 – 4:30 Small Business Session

Welcome

Brittany Brown, Director

USAID’s Mission:

On behalf of the American people, we promote and demonstrate democratic values abroad, and advance a free, peaceful, and prosperous world. In support of America’s foreign policy, the U.S. Agency for International Development leads the U.S. government’s international development and disaster assistance through partnerships and investments that save lives, reduce poverty, strengthen democracy governance, and help people emerge from humanitarian crises and progress beyond assistance.

WHO WE ARE

CPS Bureau’s Mission: CPS seeks to create stable and peaceful societies.

● The Bureau for Conflict Prevention and Stabilization (CPS) partners in countries affected by conflict to build the foundations for peace and stability. Investing in conflict and violence prevention breaks the costly cycle of instability to advance U.S. national security interests.

● CPS lead and coordinate USAID’s investments in peacebuilding, addressing state fragility, stabilization, conflict and violence prevention, and political transition.

WHO WE ARE

OTI’s Mission:

In support of U.S. foreign policy, OTI seizes emerging windows of opportunity in the political landscape to promote stability, peace and democracy by catalyzing local initiatives through adaptive and agile programming.

OTI Values:

● Agility

● Diversity & Inclusion

● Curiosity

● Courage

● Accountability

● Political

OTI Overview and Business Model

Meghan Van Leeuwen, Chief, Field Programs Division

USAID/OTI

Andrew Hall, Acting Deputy Chief, Field Programs Division

✓ Is the opportunity or threat an important U.S. foreign policy interest?

✓ Is there a window of opportunity: a decisive shift in the political landscape that creates an opening to support viable local political will?

✓ Can OTI’s model bring a comparative advantage to support positive political momentum during the crucial period?

✓ Does the operating environment allow for OTI’s systems and processes to be optimized?

CRITERIA FOR ENGAGEMENT

WHEN WE WORK

WHERE WE WORK

Active & Closed programs (1994-2023)

WHERE WE WORK

Active & Closed programs (1994-2022)

Country Partner(s) Budget to Date Current End Date

Coastal West Africa (Benin, Ghana, Togo)

Creative Associates International $15 Million March 2024

Ethiopia Dexis Consulting Group $36.7 Million February

Niger The Kaizen Company $9.1 Million June 2023

Sudan Chemonics & Development

Transformations Global $94.8 Million August 2023

Belarus Chemonics International $24.5 Million February

Moldova Dexis Consulting Group / Management Systems International

$7.2 Million March 2023 / September

Ukraine Chemonics International $163.8 Million August 2023

Country Partner(s) Budget to Date Current End Date

Central America (El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras)

Creative Associates International $30.0 Million May 2024

Colombia Management Systems

International…