Phase Two Questions and Answers - ACCELERATE RFP.docx.pdf

Responses to Questions Received under ACCELERATE Request for Proposals (RFP) -

No.: 7200AA24R00015

(PHASE TWO)

Section F.6

F.6 Authorized Workday/Week (p. 17): the RFP indicates that only a five-day work week is authorized. Would USAID kindly consider amending this section to allow for a six-day work week for short-term technical assistance assignments being conducted in the field?

Response: This section can be modified before or after the award is made, as deemed necessary. For budgeting purposes, Offerors can assume that consultants (STTA) are authorized to work six-day work weeks. The RFP will remain as is.

Part III-List of Documents, Exhibits, and Other Attachments

Section J - List of attachments

Attachment J.1.

Attachment J.1 Statement of Objectives, 3. Performance Objectives, a. Objectives Summary (p.

6): Under Objective 4 “Increased support to stakeholders to improve investment transparency so that investments have a greater development impact,” the Performance Outcomes includes the following: “3. The real and perceived risks of investing in the region is reduced, resulting in greater investor interest in the region.” Could USAID please clarify whether this is intended as an outcome (i.e., the contractor will present specific activities against this), or as an indicator?

Response: This is intended, as stated, as a performance outcome in support of Objective 4.

USAID expects the offeror to present activities that reduce real and perceived risks. The performance indicators noted for Objective 4 are assessed as methods with which to collectively achieve this. The offeror is welcome to include additional indicators if necessary in order to achieve performance outcomes.

Part IV-Representations and Instructions

Section L - Instructions, conditions, and notices to offerors or respondents

Section L.2

The RFP States “Biographical Data Sheets are required for all long-term, short-term expatriate personnel and all long-term cooperating country personnel being proposed...”

on page 90 of the Amendment 01 RFP. Could USAID clarify that this requirement only applies to personnel identified explicitly in the budget?

Response: Yes. That is correct.

Section L.9

Section L.9, page 80, Offerors proposed a partnering structure in the Phase I submission. Can we add/remove partners in Phase II?

Response: No. In Phase One, USAID has evaluated offerors’ proposed partnering structure under Factor 1 and assigned a rating for Factor 1. The partnering structure presented and evaluated in Phase One should remain the same throughout the competition. This requirement is in place to ensure consistency and fairness in the evaluation process.

Allowing changes between phases could impact the Phase One evaluation and give some offerors an unfair advantage.

Section L.11

L.11.1 Factor 5 – Technical Requirements (p. 85):

a. The RFP notes “This technical section of the proposal should build upon and expand on the technical responses provided in Phase One, without repeating or presenting the same information twice.” However, there are instances where inputs for high-level vision, context, partner information or qualifications, and specific illustrative activities (particularly for Objective 1) are presented in Phase One that are relevant for and correspond directly to Phase Two. Therefore, will USAID please confirm that Offerors may briefly summarize and/or rephrase language and concepts introduced in Phase One to enable Offerors to build upon their Phase One responses clearly and effectively in their Phase Two proposal?

Response: Confirmed.

b. To allow offerors to introduce key technical proposal elements of their approach before presenting the details of the Performance Work Statement (PWS), would USAID consider reordering the Technical Requirements to begin with the Technical Approach (i.e., the proposed order of presentation is: i) Technical approach; ii) PWS; iii) QASP)?

Response: The order will remain as is, as we believe the order has no impact on the review and evaluation of proposals.

L.11.1 Factor 5 – Technical Requirements (p. 86):

a. (i) Performance Work Statement (PWS): The RFP states “the Offerors must use contractually binding language in the PWS that is written from the USAID perspective (i.e., “the contractor must…” as opposed to “we will…”).” Would USAID please clarify if they prefer that bidders include the Contractor must for all members of the consortium (i.e., for both the Prime and its proposed Subcontractors)? Or rather, should bidders note "the Subcontractor must" when referring to subcontractors performing specific activities in the PWS?

Response: Offerors should use the “Contractor will” etc, regardless of who will actually complete the work, the prime or the sub. This may allow for some flexibility as well in case of shifting responsibilities throughout the award period. Also, USAID has a contractual relationship with the Prime Contractor, not the Subcontractor.

b. (ii) Technical Approach: would USAID please confirm that bidders do not need to use contractually binding language from the PWS section (such as “the Contractor must”) in the Technical Approach section?”

Response: Confirmed.

L.11.1 Factor 5 – Technical Requirements (p. 86-87): For Annex A - Minimum Outcomes and Results Matrix, does USAID have a preferred template for the matrix or are bidders expected to propose their own?

Response: No preferred template.

Section L.12

L.12 Instructions for the Preparation of the Phase Two Cost Proposal, Part 2 – Proposed Costs, Grants Under Contract (p. 91-92): The RFP states: “Detailed information on proposed grant activities must be provided in the budget narrative.” As grants will be awarded during implementation through a competitive process that will entail negotiations with selected grantees on the specific activities to be funded, it is not feasible to determine a fully detailed plan for all proposed grant activities at the proposal stage. Would USAID kindly consider removing this requirement from the solicitation and instead allow offerors to provide a high-level overview of what the grants fund will be used for, including illustrative activities?

Response: This is understandable and clear. Fully detailed plan for all grant activities is not realistic and not expected. Offerors are allowed to provide an overview and illustrative activities. No change to the RFP is made.