08. SWIFT 6 RFP Amendment 05.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

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

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

Michael A. Clark, Contracting Officer

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

The purpose of this amendment is to 1) reply to questions submitted by offerors following the evaluation of Phase 1 proposals (see Attachment 1), 2) provide an amended Attachment J.18, 3) provide access instructions for OTI eLearning Courses, and 4) provide an updated SF-33 form.

N/A U.S. Agency for International Development Office of Acquisition and Assistance Attn: M/OAA/CPS, USAID Annex 500 D Street SW Washington, DC 20547

Support Which Implements Fast Transitions (SWIFT) 6 Offerors

See Block 6

REQ-COTI-22-000092

7200AA23R00029

10/13/2023

05/16/2023

SWIFT 6 IDIQ RFP

Solicitation No. 7200AA23R00029

Amendment No. 05

Attachment 1: SWIFT 6 RFP Questions and Responses

QUESTIONS SPECIFIED AS SWIFT-PROGRAMS (UNRESTRICTED)

1. In Section L.7.1(a)(i) (p. 6) of Revised Attachment J.7 of the RFP, USAID/OTI states the Implementation of Transitions Programs (SWIFT-Programs) technical proposal narrative is limited to 23 pages. USAID/OTI requires Offerors to address a large number of requirements in Factors 2 and 3, with several sections and subsections comprising several bullets and multiple parts. The Implementation Scenarios (p.11-14) are particularly dense with requirements, in which, for example, one bullet each in Scenarios 1 (p. 12) and 3 (p. 14) requires Offerors to address seven TAP activity components (i.e., description of proposed TAP instrument, type of partner, the target actors and beneficiaries, etc.). Given the depth of detail required, especially in Factor 2, would USAID/OTI consider providing up to an additional five pages (not to exceed 28) to enable Offerors to adequately address requirements throughout, including demonstrating programmatic and operational understanding and country context? RESPONSE: USAID amends the Section L.7.1(i) page limit requirement for SWIFT-Programs Phase Two proposals to 26 pages for the technical proposal narrative.

2. For the Cost Proposal submission, please confirm that offerors may combine the relevant Excel templates provided by the RFP into a single document. For example, for Offerors responding to the unrestricted SWIFT-Programs, please confirm Offerors may combine attachments J.21 Amended Cost-Price Evaluation Matrix, J.23 Labor Category CDR Matrix, and J.25 Fee and Indirect Cost Matrix. RESPONSE: Offerors must submit the Excel files as separate attachments.

3. Would USAID/OTI kindly confirm that in Attachment J.21, line 79/GUC Fee (3%) then means that all offerors are to propose a fee of $90,000? Given no GUC fee ceiling rate is to be proposed, and per Amendment 3 answer to Question 80, this would seem the case. RESPONSE: For Attachment J.21, USAID confirms that all Offerors are to propose a GUC fee of $90,000 (3% of the $3,000,000 GUCs plug figure).

4. Attachment J.25 – please confirm under TAP costs that “STTA US Labor”, “STTA TCN Labor”, and “STTA CCN Labor” are in reference to consultants/independent contractor agreements. Additionally, please confirm under Direct Costs that “US Labor”, “TCN Labor”, and “CCN Labor” are in reference to employees. RESPONSE: For the purposes of USAID’s cost evaluation, for Attachment J.25, USAID confirms that under the TAP section of the table, “STTA US Labor,” “STTA TCN Labor,” and “STTA CCN Labor” correspond to consultants/independent contractors, and under the Direct Costs section of the table, “US Labor,” “TCN Labor,” and “CCN Labor” correspond to employees of the Offeror.

5. Attachment J.21, please confirm if USAID/OTI is requesting the multipliers on the various direct cost line items. Also, note that if requesting the “Indirects on 1”, there would be no “Indirects on 2” given this is already covered under the previous line. Finally, there are some indirects applied to other indirects, and we assume we can add this as relevant to this matrix. RESPONSE: In Attachment J.21, Section 11, Offerors are to apply their current indirect costs to the applicable Direct Costs and include the

Amendment No. 05 totals in the yellow highlighted cells (Offerors do not need to indicate the actual multipliers in the table, but may provide an explanation of the multipliers/rates in the supporting cost narrative). Attachment J.21 matrix rows in Section 11 can be edited by the Offeror to reflect different cost structures (e.g. bases of application for specific indirect rates) in individual Offeror NICRAs; however, if edited, Offerors must clearly indicate/explain cost lines to which the indirect rates are applied.

6. Would USAID please confirm that paid absences recovered via direct billing (as opposed to recovered via the offeror’s indirect cost rates) should be included in the “1-year LOE” totals in Section 1, SALARIES, of the Cost-Price Evaluation Matrix? For example, if an offeror directly billed all paid absences, the offeror would put “260” LOE days for all long-term technical assistance (LTTA) positions in the matrix. RESPONSE: In accordance with the instructions on Attachment J.21 “Offerors will insert Level of Effort (LOE) person-days for 1 year where indicated for LTTA staff, based on 260 days per year, less paid absence days, OR based on Offeror's recovery of, and method of accounting for, paid absences .” Offerors may explain in the cost narrative their method of accounting for paid absences.

7. Attachment J.7, page 28, states: “The Offeror must also provide a Prime and Major Subcontractor Percentage of Labor Overview Chart in an annex to the Cost/Business Proposal identifying the anticipated labor utilization for the prime and all subcontractors.”

Page 5 of the attachment defines “major subcontractors” as “those expected to perform at least 20 percent or a prominent part of the technical effort.” Would USAID please confirm that the Prime and Major Subcontractor Percentage of Labor Overview Chart need only show anticipated labor utilization for the prime contractor and subcontractors that qualify as major subcontractors as per Section L.6? RESPONSE: Confirmed.

8. Attachment J.21 provides a plug figure of $500,000 for short-term technical assistance (STTA), which includes “allowances and fringe.” We have three questions about this plug figure:

a. Would USAID please provide guidance on how much of this plug to budget for STTA labor versus allowances versus fringe? Disaggregating this plug amount will help offerors correctly represent their indirect costs in the matrix because offerors may have indirect cost recovery structures that apply different rates to labor and non-labor costs associated with STTA. RESPONSE:Offerors are free to propose a disaggregation of this plug figure between labor, allowances, and fringe in their cost narratives. Offerors should fully detail any assumptions made in doing so and should provide a brief justification as needed.

b. Would USAID please specify how much of the STTA labor cost within the plug offerors should assume goes toward U.S. national (USN) versus third-country national (TCN) versus cooperating country national (CCN) labor? This distinction is relevant because offerors may have indirect cost recovery structures that apply different rates to different categories of STTA. RESPONSE: Offerors should fully detail any assumptions made for this plug figure. See the response to Question 8a above.

Amendment No. 05

c. Would USAID please confirm that offerors should treat the fringe costs within this plug as direct costs rather than indirect fringe costs (because Step 11 of the Cost-Price Evaluation Matrix accounts for indirect fringe costs)? This clarification will help ensure that fringe costs are not counted twice in the matrix and that the offeror’s indirect cost rates are applied correctly. RESPONSE: Yes, Offerors may assume that any fringe included within this plug figure are direct fringe costs.

9. Revised Attachment J.7 - Section L.8.2.3 Contractor Past Performance Information Past Performance Matrix (Annex O). USAID states "Local Partner Type: List the types of local partners that the contractor supported in this project".

a. Can USAID please clarify what it means by 'types' of local partners?

RESPONSE: Please refer to Section C.2.4.2 of the revised SWIFT 6 RFP which provides a description of some different types of local partners.

b. Will USAID confirm that contractor support is defined as providing grants?

RESPONSE: If the program/award included grants (e.g. GUCs, or sub-grants/sub-awards, if assistance) then yes, contractor support is defined as providing grants. In this case, please indicate the corresponding quantity of GUCs or sub-grants/sub-awards in the appropriate column. If the program provided support to local partners through the provision of technical assistance or direct in-kind goods or services, the Offeror may also list the types of local partners supported.

10. Revised Attachment J.7 - Section L.8.2.3 Contractor Past Performance Information Past Performance Matrix (Annex O): "Total quantity of grants must be provided for the number of Grants Under Contract, in-kind grants, sub-grants, and/or sub-awards."

a. Could USAID please update the matrix to reflect this change? RESPONSE:

Please see the amended Attachment J.18 template for the submission of Annex O. Additional columns have been included where Offerors can indicate the number of sub-grants/sub-awards made to sub-recipients under an assistance award, and how many of those were in-kind. Note: CFR

200.1 states that a sub-award “means an award provided by a pass-through entity to a subrecipient for the subrecipient to carry out part of a Federal award received by the pass-through entity. It does not include payments to a contractor or payments to an individual that is a beneficiary of a Federal program ” (underline emphasis added). Therefore, Offerors must not include payments to subcontractors or vendors.

11. Revised Attachment J.7 - L.8.2.1 Approach to Transition Programming: Case Study Start-Up Approach, pg. 8: “This plan must demonstrate an understanding of the requirements for the first four (4) months of the OTI PatriamTransitus Program…as well as deliverables”

a. Could USAID kindly provide a full list of deliverables for the Case Study’s Start-Up phase to inform the Offeror’s proposed Annex B. Case Study – Start-Up

Amendment No. 05

Work Plan? RESPONSE: Please see below a table of illustrative Phase 1 tasks/deliverables and average due dates (NOTE: on any given Task Order, due dates may be adjusted with advanced written approval by the TOCOR to take into account conditions and circumstances on the ground).

Illustrative Phase 1 Deliverable/Task Illustrative Due Date

1. Start-Up Conference in Washington, D.C. or facilitated remotely

Within one (1) calendar week of award notification or award start date

2. Revised Work Plan for Phase 1 Within one (1) week of the Start-Up Conference

3. Start-Up Team Deployed Within three (3) to five (5) business days after Start-Up conference

4. Communications Established Within three (3) business days of In-Country Deployment

5. Phase 1 Field Staffing Plan/Report Within two (2) weeks of Start-Up conference

6. Activity Implementation Capacity Established

Within ten (10) business days of the end of the Start-Up Conference

7. Plan for Obtaining In-country Legal Status and Proof of Legal Status

Within thirty (30) days after Task Order award, the Contractor must provide the TOCOR initial documentation regarding the legal status for the program. The Contractor must provide subsequent written documentation every thirty (30) days until legal status is obtained

8. Environmental Management and Compliance

Within sixty (60) days after Task Order award

9. Activities Piloted Prior to the end of Phase 1

10. Activity Cycle Flowchart Prior to the end of Phase 1

11. Activity Manual Addendum Prior to the end of Phase 1

12. Initial Inventory Prior to the end of Phase 1

13. Operational Capacity Established Prior to the end of Phase 1

14. Security Plan Prior to the end of Phase 1

15. Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan

Prior to the end of Phase 1

Amendment No. 05

16. Social Media Strategy (if requested) Prior to the end of Phase 1

17. Draft of Phase 2 Work Plan (if requested)

Prior to the end of Phase 1

12. Attachment J.7, Section L.8.2.1 Approach to Transition Programming, A. Case Study:

Illustrative Task Order Program Implementation, iii Case Study Program Management Processes, TAP Activity Development and Implementation: Some of the bullets in the instructions regarding this section specifically require Offerors to present how they would use their management processes to implement the illustrative activity (Activity Number PAT020) described in Attachment J.12. However, other bullets in the instructions for this section make no mention of PAT020 – e.g., the third bullet, “Processes for identifying and vetting potential awardees and ensuring awardee accountability.” Can OTI please clarify whether Offerors should present all of their program management processes in this section of Factor 2.A in the particular context of PAT020? RESPONSE: Offerors must provide their overall program management processes including processes for TAP activity development and implementation, with regard to the illustrative Task Order (Patriam Transitus Program) described in Attachment J.12. As indicated in the Section L.8.2.1 instructions, some sub-elements specifically reference the illustrative activity described in Attachment J.12 (PAT 020). For those sub-elements, Offerors must also follow the instructions for providing specific processes with regard to the illustrative activity (PAT 020).

13. Attachment J.7, Section L.8.2.3 Contractor Past Performance Information, B. Past Performance Information (Annex O) & Attachment J.18, Annex O – Past Performance Matrix: Amendment 4 added the following sentence to Section L.8.2.3: “Total quantity of grants must be provided for the number of Grants Under Contract, in-kind grants, sub-grants, and/or sub-awards.” However, Attachment J.18, the template for the Annex O matrix, does not include columns for sub-grants and sub-awards. May Offerors add columns for these categories to their spreadsheets in Annex O? RESPONSE: Please see response to Question 10 above.

14. Attachment J.12, Illustrative Case Study: Patriam, pages 8-9, Assessment Team Recommendations: May Offerors assume, without stating an explicit assumption in their responses to Factor 2, that the SWIFT-Programs and SWIFT-Support Task Orders for Patriam have the same start date? Could OTI please clarify the timeline for SWIFT-Support STA mobilization - should we assume they are already on the ground in Patriam, or that the STA mobilization is synchronized with PTP mobilization?

RESPONSE: Offerors can assume that the SWIFT-Programs and SWIFT-Support Task Orders have the same start date. Phase 1 for SWIFT-Support Task Orders is typically two (2) months. Therefore, Offerors can assume that SWIFT-Support personnel described in Attachment J.12 are mobilized within that first two (2) months; however, Offerors must provide any additional specific assumptions with regard to coordination with the SWIFT-Support Contractor and staff that would impact Offerors’ proposed processes.

15. Attachment J.12, Illustrative Case Study: Patriam, page 10, PAT020 Activity Summary:

The description of the illustrative activity PAT020 says, “This activity will include in-kind

Amendment No. 05 procurement of equipment and supplies to enable National TV to host nationwide debates, including in Regio.” Can OTI please confirm that Offerors should interpret “nationwide debates” as consisting of one debate in Majora and one debate in Regio, each of which will be broadcast to a national audience? RESPONSE: Offerors must include any assumptions that they use in their proposal responses, beyond the parameters provided in Attachment J.12.

16. Page 31, Section C.4.1.2 Transition Activities Pool (TAP), can OTI please clarify whether GUC awardees, STTAs, and firms engaged as part of DDGS are all required to secure a Unique Entity Identifier and be registered in the USG’s System of Award Management (SAM)? RESPONSE: Offerors are encouraged to review ADS 302mbj and ADS 303 maz, which summarize Unique Entity Identifier and SAM registration requirements (and potential exemptions) for acquisition and assistance respectively. Note that these mandatory references do not explicitly refer to GUCs. However, as GUCs must be managed in accordance with the requirements that apply to direct USAID-administered grants, GUC recipients must be fully registered in SAM. The applicable "Universal Entity Identifier (UEI) and System for Award Management (SAM)" standard provision (e.g., RAA23 in ADS 303maa, RAA6 in ADS 303mab, RAA2 in ADS 303 mat) requires the GUC recipient to obtain a UEI and register in SAM, unless an exemption applies. Contractors may include potential exemptions within their activity manual (e.g. for a GUC under $25,000 performed outside the United States). The Contracting Officer would need to approve application of an exemption, unless such an exemption is already covered by a USAID-approved activity manual.

17. Page 31, Section C.4.1.2 Transition Activities Pool (TAP), Regarding procurement, when does OTI require a consent to subcontract? RESPONSE: See Section L.10 Part 9 of the Revised Attachment J.7 for information regarding consent to subcontract.

Specifically:

a. Does OTI have a waiver from complying with FAR 52.244-2 which requires consent for all fixed price subcontracts over the Small Acquisition Threshold (SAT)? RESPONSE: No, OTI does not have such a waiver.

b. Does OTI have a waiver from complying with FAR 52.244-2 which requires consent for all T&M or labor hour subcontracts, regardless of their value?

RESPONSE: No, OTI does not have such a waiver.

c. If the SWIFT Programs IP procures STTA services and engages this individual on a labor hours or time & materials type agreement which has a value below the small acquisition threshold (SAT), is consent to subcontract required from the Task Order Contracting Officer (TOCO). RESPONSE: If the Contractor does not have an approved purchasing system, the Contractor must obtain consent to subcontract in this situation. If the Contractor does have an approved purchasing system, the Contractor does not have to obtain consent to subcontract in this situation. See FAR 52.244-2.

18. Pages 109-110, Section H.13 ORDER OF PREFERENCE FOR PROPERTY

DISPOSITION

Amendment No. 05

a. Given in-kind GUCs are not specifically defined as an award type in ADS302, can OTI please clarify how property acquired under an in-kind GUC should be defined? Is it acceptable for the IP to define and manage property acquired under in-kind GUCs per 2CFR200 or must the IP define and manage property acquired under in-kind GUCs per FAR 752.245-70? RESPONSE: Although the term “in kind” may not be used in ADS 303 to refer to a specific type of grant, assistance is understood to include not only financial contributions but also non-cash contributions or donations of property. See 2 CFR 200.1 and the definition of “assistance” provided in ADS 303. As such, it is understood that in-kind components of GUCs would be subject to the applicable standard provisions incorporated into that award. See, for instance, Mandatory Provision 7, Title to and Use of Property (December 2014), in ADS 303mab. This provision specifically contemplates in-kind contributions, as it defines property as “equipment, supplies, real property, and intangible property [...] financed under this award or furnished by USAID” (emphasis added) . The provision also specifies that title to property financed under the award vests with the recipient unless otherwise specified; as such, the reporting requirements of AIDAR 752.245-70 are not applicable, as they pertain only to Government property for which title to vests with the U.S. Government.

b. Can OTI confirm that property acquired under non-GUC TAP, both STTA awards and DDGS activities, is defined per FAR 752.245-70? RESPONSE: Property acquired by the Contractor for performance of the contract would be subject to the requirements of FAR 52.245-1 and AIDAR 752.245-70 as applicable.

c. For property that vests with the grantee or beneficiaries e.g., under in-kind GUC TAP awards and non-GUC DDGS activities, can OTI please clarify whether the TOCO provides approval to dispose property prior to the IP handing over property to the grantee or beneficiaries or is property disposition something that the TOCO reviews and approves as part of the activity closeout process?

RESPONSE: Contractors are encouraged to review approval requirements related to property disposition that may be found in the applicable standard provisions and various contract clauses. Where approval by the Contracting Officer is explicitly required for property disposition, a Contractor may request that alongside activity approval (e.g. for an activity where the Contractor knows that specific property will need to be disposed). If disposition approval was not previously requested or disposition was not anticipated, a Contractor may request approval during the closeout process.

19. Attachment J.7, page 8, Start-Up Organization Chart (Annex A) states, “what long-term positions will assume long-term responsibility, if applicable, for roles initially implemented by start-up personnel.” The instructions for the Start-up Organization Chart Annex A are a little confusing. The Instructions for Annex A and assumptions provided in Attachment J.12 suggest that all LTTA personnel proposed to work in the Magna and Vella offices

Amendment No. 05 should be hired within phase 1. To help clarify and level the playing field among all offerors, can OTI please answer the following questions related to Annex A:

a. Are offerors required to include all LTTA roles that will be hired during the start-up phase 1 on the start-up org chart? RESPONSE: No. Please just indicate any LTTA positions, hired in Phase 1, that take over any of the roles initiated by start-up personnel (i.e. positions to which the STTA start-up team hands over any roles/responsibilities).

b. If offerors are required to include all LTTA roles that will be hired during phase 1, the start-up org chart will essentially be the same as the full-implementation org chart with an added section depicting the home office and other STTA roles that will deploy/be engaged short-term to support the start-up. Does OTI require the Annex A Start-up Org Chart to depict all STTA and LTTA roles that will deploy as the Start-up Team as well as the LTTA roles that will be engaged during phase 1?

RESPONSE: Please see response to the sub-question 19.a above.

c. In response to question 67, OTI responded “For the purpose of the Case Study, Offerors should assume that they submitted named Key Personnel candidates at the proposal stage for Patriam Transitus Program RFTOP, and also assume the Key Personnel are available upon Task Order award.” And, in response to question 68, OTI responded, “No. Start-Up Team personnel are short-term.

Offerors must demonstrate what long-term positions will assume any roles initiated by Start-Up Team positions. Given offerors are to assume Key Personnel are available upon award we assume key personnel will be integral to the start-up and key members of the Start-up Team. However, this would conflict with OTI’s response to question 68 which stated, “Start-up Team personnel are short-term”. With this in mind, can OTI clarify that Annex A should include not only the short-term members of the Start-up Team, but also the key personnel and other personnel the offeror proposes to engage upon award and initially as consultants? RESPONSE: Confirmed - Annex A must depict the short-term members of the Start-Up Team and any Key Personnel who may deploy in Phase 1 as part of the Start-Up Team.

d. Are offerors expected to include in Annex A all personnel involved in the Start-up and all members of the Start-up Team, which will include both short-term personnel, long-term personnel, and cooperating country national (CCN) personnel initially engaged as consultants while in-country registration is secured? RESPONSE: For Annex A please depict Start-Up Team positions (i.e. STTA and any Key Personnel responsible for start-up roles and responsibilities). Per the instructions, and the clarification in sub-question 19.a above, also indicate any LTTA that take over any of the roles initiated by start-up personnel.

20. Page 33, Section C.4.1.1 Phases/Options A. Phase 1 – Pre-Deployment and In-Country (or Intra-Regional) Start-up (Typically the first four (4) months of a task order) In-Country (or Intra-Regional) Start-up

Amendment No. 05

a. Can OTI clarify when the field-based orientation takes place?, i.e. Does the field-based orientation take place immediately once the short-term Start-up Team (SUT) members are in country? OR Does the field-based orientation take place immediately once both the short-term Start-up Team (SUT) members are in country and upon arrival in Patriam of the LTTA key personnel following the Start-up Conference and training? OR Does the field-based orientation happen once both the LTTA key personnel and short-term SUT field members are in Patriam and the implementing partner has also hired a critical mass of LTTA CCN personnel? RESPONSE: While the term “Field Based Orientation” (FBO) is still in common use, FBO is not an off-the-shelf product or one-time event, but rather a series of efforts a program undertakes to orient staff to OTI's model, and is meant to complement training for HCN staff on their roles and responsibilities. There is no single formula for this orientation, but rather a number of factors a field Senior Management Team (SMT) should consider when deciding upon the right approach for their program context and tailoring resources and support accordingly. Generally, having a quorum of HCN staff on board will create more efficient orientation efforts;

however if the pace of hiring is slow, an SMT may decide to hold smaller, more frequent orientation sessions as staff are hired. Without a solid understanding of the OTI model and the rationale behind why OTI is in their country, HCN staff are not set up for success in adaptation, activity implementation, or learning.

21. Section C.4.8.2 OTI Anywhere on pages 53-54, Incumbent firms currently implementing OTI programs under the ongoing SWIFT 5 IDIQ and other contracts have an unfair advantage over offerors which have not yet implemented OTI programs and/or worked with/supported OTI. This is specifically because, as the RFP states current OTI IPs have access to the Knowledge Networks, Guidance, and Resources in OTI Anywhere and the guidance and best practices OTI shares with all OTI IPs.

a. In the interest of ensuring a level playing field and fair competition among all offerors, we request OTI to offer all firms that submitted phase 1 SWIFT 6 proposals access to key materials provided to current SWIFT IPs through OTI Anywhere. Specific examples may include the OTI Field Guide, guidance on best practices related to countering disinformation and propaganda, guidance on monitoring, evaluation, learning, and outcome harvesting, knowledge management and research and guidance, and use hotlines and/or other cloud-based remote management tools and systems. RESPONSE: Please refer to the attached instructions on accessing eLearning courses on “OTI 101” and “OTI 201.”

QUESTIONS SPECIFIED AS SWIFT-SUPPORT (RESTRICTED)

22. Revised Attachment J.7: L.9.2.1 Approach to Transition Programming: Case Study Start-Up Approach, pg. 20: “This Start-Up Work Plan must demonstrate an understanding of the requirements for the first two (2) months of the Support Task Order, including illustrative key tasks, deliverables, and operational needs.”

Amendment No. 05

a. Could USAID kindly provide a full list of deliverables for the Case Study’s Start-Up phase to inform the Offeror’s proposed Annex A. Case Study – Start-Up Work Plan? RESPONSE: Please see below a table of illustrative Phase 1 tasks/deliverables and average due dates (NOTE: on any given Task Order, due dates may be adjusted with advanced written approval by the TOCOR to take into account conditions and circumstances on the ground).

Illustrative Phase 1 Deliverable/Task Illustrative Due Date

1. Start-Up Conference in Washington, D.C. or facilitated remotely

Within one (1) calendar week of award notification or award start date

2. Revised Work Plan for Phase 1 Within one (1) week of the Start-Up Conference

3. Start-Up Team Deployed Within three (3) to five (5) business days after Start-Up conference

4. Communications Established Within three (3) business days of In-Country Deployment

5. Phase 1 Field Staffing Plan/Report Within two (2) weeks of Start-Up conference

6. Establish Temporary Housing for TA/field-based staff

Within two (2) weeks of Start-Up conference

7. Plan for Obtaining In-country Legal Status and Proof of Legal Status

Within thirty (30) days after Task Order award, the Contractor must provide the TOCOR initial documentation regarding the legal status for the program. The Contractor must provide subsequent written documentation every thirty (30) days until legal status is obtained

8. Initial Inventory Prior to the end of Phase 1

9. Operational Capacity Established Prior to the end of Phase 1

10. Security Plan Prior to the end of Phase 1

11. Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan

Prior to the end of Phase 1

12. Draft of Phase 2 Work Plan (if requested)

Prior to the end of Phase 1

23. In Amendment 3, Attachment 02 of the SWIFT 6 Pre-Solicitation, USAID affirmed that they would “consider staggering the submission date for Phase Two proposal responses

Amendment No. 05 to accommodate small business potentially submitting proposals for both components”;

The Advisory Notifications for Phase 2 of SWIFT-Programs and SWIFT-Support the deadline for SWIFT-Support has been staggered to nearly two months after the submission deadline for SWIFT-Programs.

a. Could USAID confirm that small business Offerors will have another opportunity to submit questions to USAID for Phase 2 of SWIFT-Support to accommodate small business submitting proposals for both components? RESPONSE: No. All additional questions regarding Phase Two for both SWIFT-Programs and SWIFT-Support must have been submitted by the deadline indicated in the Advisory Notifications.

24. Section. B. Case Study Implementation Scenarios, page 22 of 47 of Attachment J.7: Can OTI kindly provide any guidance about the roles and responsibilities of the Magna-based CCN Administrative Assistant, and will OTI also have access to an Embassy-based FSN to support the program? RESPONSE: Per Attachment J.12, the primary role of the Magna-based CCN Administrative Assistant is administrative/operational support to the STAs. However, in line with Section C of the revised SWIFT 6 RFP, occasionally the SWIFT-Support Contractor may be required to provide program-funded USAID personnel with support, which may include administrative assistance. Offerors must include any assumptions that inform their proposal responses beyond the parameters provided in Attachment J.12. The USAID/OTI Country Representative will not have a dedicated Embassy-based FSN to support them or the program (beyond the standard support provided by the Embassy/Mission).

25. Section. B. Case Study Implementation Scenarios, page 21 of 47 of Attachment J.7:

Regarding Scenario 1; Recruiting approaches and responding to staffing challenges;

Part B: Do we have a sense of what notice period the Magna STA prior to their resignation? RESPONSE: Offerors must assume there is no notice period, that per the scenario description, two (2) weeks after deployment the Magna STA resigns and the Offeror must respond immediately.

26. Advisory Notification. The SWIFT 6 Support Advisory Notification for Viability states, “Phase Two submissions are due via email to swift6@usaid.gov by Monday, January 17, 2024”. However, January 17, 2024 is on a Wednesday. Please confirm that proposals are due “Wednesday, January 17, 2024”? RESPONSE: USAID confirms the due date for SWIFT 6-Support proposals is Wednesday, January 17, 2024.

27. Revised Attachment J.7 Phase II Sections L and M, L.9.2.2, Management Approach, A.

IDIQ and Task Order Home Office Management, ii. Task Order Management Approach, Structure, and Capacity, page 24. The section states. “The roles and responsibilities of the home office management staff, their assigned management and decision-making authorities, and the value they will add to tasks. The experience of the home office management staff, specifically skill-sets, multi- tasking ability, qualifications, complementarity, and capabilities, must also be described.” Upon approval of Task Order award, specific Home Office staff will be assigned based on the scope to support Task Orders. Therefore, at the IDIQ level, describing specific skills sets and roles and responsibilities is not feasible. Would OTI consider removing this requirement since the

Amendment No. 05

Home Office staff support may vary? RESPONSE: As part of Factor 3 Management Approach, USAID/OTI is interested in the approach, structure, and capacity of SWIFT-Support Offerors with regard to overall SWIFT-Support Task Order management and support for Task Orders that will implement the services described in Section C.5 of the revised SWIFT 6 RFP. USAID will not remove this requirement.

QUESTIONS APPLYING TO BOTH SWIFT-PROGRAMS AND SWIFT-SUPPORT

28. In Section L.10 Part 1 (p. 26-27) of Revised Attachment J.7 of the RFP, it states Offerors must acknowledge each amendment number and date in block 14 of the SF-33. Please confirm if Offerors need to acknowledge the four amendments prior to the Advisory Notification of Viability, or whether it includes only those issued after the advisory notification. Please also confirm that the advisory itself does not need to be acknowledged in the SF-33 box 14, particularly given there is no associated SF-30.

RESPONSE: USAID confirms that Offerors need to acknowledge the four amendments prior to the Advisory Notification. The Advisory Notification itself does not need to be acknowledged.

29. Could USAID/OTI kindly provide an updated SF-33 form for offerors to include in their Cost Proposals? RESPONSE: Please see the updated SF-33 attached to this amendment.

30. Revised Attachment J.7, Section L.6 Phase Two Proposal Delivery Instructions, Page 5, states: “For Phase Two, all proposal documents must be submitted as a PDF (with Optical Character Recognition), except for Attachment J.21 ‘Cost Price Evaluation Matrix (SWIFT-Programs)’ and Attachment J.22 ‘Cost Price Evaluation Matrix (SWIFT-Support).’” As a standard PDF document, all general text, tables and text boxes would be searchable and editable, but the text in graphics and images would not be searchable or editable. Could USAID please confirm whether a standard PDF document would meet this Optical Character Recognition requirement? RESPONSE: USAID confirms that a standard PDF document with all general text, tables, and text boxes searchable and editable is acceptable.

31. In Amendment 2 to the solicitation, Q&A Question 2 requested that offerors be allowed to use Arial 9 in text boxes,graphics, text in tables, charts, and graphs, and this was affirmed by USAID. This was also affirmed by USAID in Amendment 3, Question 74 to the subject RFP. However, the “Revised Attachment J.7 Sections L & M” released as part of Amendment 4 on June 16 still notes on Section L.7.1.(b), Page 6, that Arial 10 should be used. Can USAID please confirm that Arial 9 is still acceptable for text boxes, graphics, text in tables, charts, and graphs? RESPONSE: USAID confirms that Arial 9 is acceptable for text boxes, graphics, text in tables, charts, and graphs.

32. Original Attachment J.7 Section L.9.2.3, page 25. USAID states "For all contracts/agreements that are not in CPARs" implying that Offerors could include cooperative agreements in its Past Performance Short Forms. In Box 1 of Attachment J.17, Offerors are required to include the Contract/Agreement number for each Past Performance Short Form. In Annex A of the Phase 1 submission for SWIFT 6 -

Amendment No. 05

Programs, Offerors could include both contracts and cooperative agreements as program examples including grants under contract.

a. Will USAID please confirm that Offerors can include both relevant contracts and cooperative agreements in their Past Performance Short Forms? RESPONSE:

First, the amended Attachment J.7 provided as part of Amendment 04 supersedes the original Attachment J.7 - Offerors must not reference or use the original Attachment J.7 in the preparation of their proposals.

Second, USAID confirms that for both SWIFT-Programs and SWIFT-Support, Offerors may submit cooperative agreements or other assistance awards (not just contracts) in their Past Performance Short Forms submission.