Questions and Answers - ACCELERATE RFP.pdf

Attachment 1

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

No.: 7200AA24R00015

General

We understand that the mid-term performance evaluation of the CATALYZE project included a case study on the Engines of Growth buy-in. However, we could not find the document on the Development Exchange Clearinghouse. Could USAID please upload the evaluation as an attachment to the RFP?

Response: The mid-term performance evaluation of the CATALYZE project that includes a case study on the Engines of Growth buy-in remains in draft form and will not be posted on the DEC. As such, USAID will not be attaching it to the RFP.

We understand that USAID has conducted an Investment Transparency Study / Landscape Analysis in the E&E region under USAID’s INVEST (implemented by DAI), which should inform the design of ACCELERATE.

In order to level the playing field for Offerors, will USAID please provide the Investment Transparency Study as an Amendment to the RFP and make it available during Phase 1 of the procurement at least 2 weeks in advance of the submission deadline?

Response: We confirm that USAID conducted an Investment Transparency Study/Landscape Analysis in the E&E region under INVEST. The Study, however, has not been finalized. The Contracting Officer will endeavor to make the Investment Transparency Study available to interested offerors upon request and upon receipt of an executed Non-Disclosure Agreement. We anticipate that an Amendment to the RFP with additional information will be issued in early March.

The design of ACCELERATE was independently derived by USAID and was not informed by preliminary drafts of the Transparency Study.

USAID has also conducted Investment Transparency Rapid Assessments under the USAID EDGE mechanism on the following topics, 1) Ultimate Beneficial Ownership Laws And Registers, 2) Complying With Eu-Acquis-Chapter 5, 3) Cost-Benefit Analysis For Public Investment Projects, 4) Investment Promotion Study Tours Benefiting Selected E&E Countries. These reports have been attached to the RFP (Attachment J.6).

We appreciate USAID’s release of the EDGE mid-term evaluation with the solicitation. As of the RFP release date, we could not find any EDGE reports posted on DEC. Could USAID please provide relevant technical reports and assessments from the EDGE project to ensure a level playing field among prospective offerors?

Response: USAID intends to post the EDGE technical reports and assessments on the DEC no later than March 15th, 2024. However, please note that USAID cannot guarantee this date due to the multiple levels of approval required.

RFP Cover Letter

Cover Letter (p. 1): USAID notes that the Phase Two proposal submission deadline will be 30 calendar days after USAID’s notice to Offerors to submit Phase Two proposals. Would USAID kindly provide offerors with an estimated timeline or range of the Phase One review period so that all potential offerors can adequately prepare for when the 30-day Phase Two stage may begin?

Response: With the current estimated timeline, USAID anticipates Phase Two to begin (notices sent out) mid to late April. This is only an estimate.

For planning purposes, could USAID please give an approximate anticipated time frame (after the March 14, 2024 Phase One Proposal Submission deadline) of when Offerors will receive notices of whether they are a viable/competitive Offeror or not for Phase II?

Response: see response above.

Given that 30 calendar days only allows Offerors 22 business days to prepare and submit Phase Two proposals, would USAID kindly consider extending the submission due date to 45 calendar days (the same number of days initially cited in the draft RFP)?

Response: Prospective Offerors had access to about 90% of the solicitation requirements since December 2023, when the draft RFP was shared. Therefore, USAID does not consider extension to Phase Two submissions.

The RFP cover page indicated that there are two (2) twelve-month base periods and three (3) option years. Usually, you only have a single base period and then option periods, so usually this would be stated as a twenty four month base and three option years. Can USAID clarify that the first two years are effectively a binding POP before we get into any options that might not be exercised.

Response: USAID confirms that the base period (base POP) is two years or 24 months.

Part I-The Schedule

Section B - Supplies or services and prices/costs

Section B.4

As described in Section B.4 Budget (p.4-5), would USAID please confirm that fee on the Grants under Contract (CLIN X005) should be budgeted for as a part of CLINs X002 and X004?

Response: Confirmed.

Given the CLIN structure shown in Section B.4, can USAID please confirm that the $10M GUC plug figure is inclusive of applicable indirect costs and fixed fee?

Response: See response above. The GuC plug figure is inclusive of indirect costs. Fixed Fee on GUCs should be presented under the appropriate Fixed Fee CLIN.

Section B.4 pages 4-5: The solicitation confirms there will be a two-year base period followed by three one year option periods; can USAID please confirm that offerors should price their budgets assuming closedown costs in Year 5?

Response: Confirmed.

Section B.7

In Section B.7 (p.7), the RFP states that “[t]he Fixed Fee Schedule below will be updated with each buy-in, throughout the period of performance”, and the referenced Schedule labels Column 1 as “Performance Objective/Deliverable/Outcome”. The matrix in Section F.9 of the RFP also presents minimum expected outcomes and results (p. 22-24). Considering that this is a multi-year contract and that the Activity will be functioning in a dynamic geo-political and economic environment, tying fixed fee to the outcomes may negatively impact the Contractor for events beyond the Contractor’s control.

Given this is a CPFF and not a CPAF contract, can USAID please confirm that by including objectives and outcomes in the fee schedule, the Contractor will not be penalized for changes in objectives/outcomes that are caused by factors outside of the Contractor’s control?

Response: Confirmed.

Considering that buy-ins are not yet defined and will have their own fee structures to be agreed upon at the time of buy-ins, can USAID confirm that Offerors should prepare separate fixed fee schedules for core and buy-ins?

Response: Confirmed. Fixed fee schedule for only the Core Component is requested in the

RFP.

Section B.7 of the RFP states that 70% of the fixed fee will be paid according “to the completion of the performance objectives/deliverables/outcomes.” However, objectives, deliverables, and outcomes set as part of the proposal process may change during implementation due to evolving technical needs, newly emerged opportunities, and stakeholders’ priorities. To account for these potential shifts, would USAID consider adding the following language to Section B.7: “The fixed fee schedule may be adjusted during annual work planning to reprogram any unpaid fees from partially completed or non-accepted objectives/deliverables/outcomes from the past year into other or additional objectives/deliverables/outcomes as mutually agreed to between the COR and the contractor, ensuring the fee remains fixed.” Adjusting the fee distribution plan with each annual work plan allows the contractor to readjust and reallocate effort and resources as needed to achieve the most results attainable within the total estimated cost.

Response: The following modified language is added to Section B.7: “The fixed fee schedule may be adjusted during annual work planning to reprogram any unpaid fees from partially completed or non-accepted objectives/deliverables/outcomes from the past year into other or additional objectives/deliverables/outcomes as mutually agreed to between the COR and the Contractor, ensuring the fee remains fixed. Reprogramming any unpaid fees will only be considered by USAID when partial completion and/or non-acceptance of the objectives/deliverables/outcomes was due to reasons beyond the manageable control of the Contractor.”

Section B.7 states that 70% of the payment of the fixed fee is tied to the completion of the performance objectives/deliverables/outcomes and payment of the remaining 30% of the fixed fee may be made upon receipt of a proper invoice.

We strongly believe that the above proportion does not represent the achievable approach for the RFP requirement due to the following factors:

Core: Section F.9 lists activity outcomes and results under the Core Component for which 70% portion of the Core Component contractor’s fixed fee is tied to fully achieving contract targets.

Implementation under a CPFF contract requires flexibility due to shifting demands and priorities.

Outlining a 5 year fee schedule at the outset of a program can increase risk or be administratively burdensome to adjust as program needs change. For these reasons, we respectfully request USAID to either remove this limitation or that the fixed fee assigned to performance outcomes be reduced to 30% and allow the contractor to allocate fee to contractual deliverables, i.e.

Quarterly Reports, Annual Reports, etc.

Response: See response above on Section B.7 update. No other changes will be considered by USAID at this point.

Buy-in: The RFP states that the Fixed Fee Schedule in Sections B.7 and F.9 will be updated with each buy-in, throughout the period of performance to reflect both Core and Buy-In Components and associated Performance Objectives/Deliverables and Outcomes. Although buy-in provides a streamline mechanism for procurement of services upon demand, the fixed fee updated/approved at the buy-in level creates many uncertainties and risks for the prospective offerors/contractor. At this time, it is not known what the scope, or complexity of the buy-ins will include. We believe that it is reasonable to have a smaller portion of the fee tied to possible/potential performance outcomes under the Buy-in Component.

We respectfully ask USAID to either remove this limitation or consider allowing offerors to tie up to 30% of their proposed fixed fee to potential/possible performance outcomes under buy-in mechanism in the RFP and resulted contract.

Response: See response above on Section B.7 update. No other changes will be considered by USAID at this point.

We seek to achieve ambitious targets for ACCELERATE, reflecting the resources and time available for Activity implementation. Given the need for core funding of $30 million to cover long-term staffing and other direct Activity costs as well as the much of grants program, we respectfully request USAID to confirm that the minimum required results represent the total potential funding and period of performance of the Activity and actual results will be in proportion to the level of relevant buy-in funding and term of period of performance of

ACCELERATE.

For example, if the Activity has a total period of performance of four years and receives $30 million in buy-ins under Objective One out of the total potential pool of Activity buy-ins of $50 million in addition to the $30 million core funding, then the average time and cost to move goods across four selected border crossing points is reduced by (4yr/5yr x $60m/$80m x 30% =) 18%

If USAID considers that the minimum required results stated in the RFP should be achieved by ACCELERATE regardless of the total level of funding and period of performance, then we respectfully request a reduction of the required results for Objectives One and Two.

Response: Confirmed. Minimum required results to be tied to available resources and time under this contract.

Section F - Deliveries or Performance

Section F.3

Section F.3 page 14: The solicitation states that exercise of the option periods will be conditional on the contractor’s submission of FAR 52.204-24 or 52.204-26 representations no later than March 31, 2028, however if the Base Period is two years starting in August or September of 2024, it will expire as of 2026. Can USAID kindly confirm that exercise of the first option period is conditional on the contractor’s submission of FAR 52.204-24 or 52.204-26 representations by March 31, 2026?

Response: The Modified Foreign Assistance Waiver will expire on September 30, 2028.

Therefore, USAID has to assess whether the Contractor still uses covered telecommunications equipment or services six months before the expiration of the modified FA waiver. See Section H.1 as well. Both Section F.3 and H.1 are Agency-mandated standard language to be included in solicitations with option years. Please note, Option Year 1 is still within the waiver’s validity period (September 2028), if we assume the period of performance of the award will begin in August/September 2024. It’s really Option Year 2 that will be subject to the Contractor’s recertification/representation requirement, as described in Section F.3 and Section H.1.

In reference to Section F.3 (p. 14), to assist Offerors in proposal planning and cost estimation, may USAID provide an estimated start date for the EU ACCELERATE Activity?

Response: The RFP indicates an anticipated award date of August/September 2024. We can not provide a closer estimate at this point.

Section F.5

F.5 Key Personnel and Other Staff (p. 15): USAID notes that it “anticipates that this Activity will be managed by a mix of long and short-term expatriate and local/regional staff, along with home office support staff and management. The Contractor must utilize the most appropriate and cost-effective staffing mix to achieve the objectives of this project. The Contractor will identify and develop local/regional talent and expertise in this sector or sectors in the region. The project office must be based in one of the USAID E&E presence countries.” Further, in Section L.11.2 (p.87): USAID notes that “Offerors must provide a justification for the chosen location of the key personnel and the primary project office within an E&E presence country.” Would USAID please clarify if they expect all proposed key personnel to be located in the same E&E project office? Further, are any proposed long-term personnel (either key or non-key staff) eligible to work from the US or another non-E&E country for this Activity?

Response: Key personnel do not need to be in the same project office. Long-term personnel (key or non-key) are eligible to work from the US or another non-E&E country.

“The Contractor must utilize the most appropriate and cost-effective staffing mix to achieve the objectives of this project.”

This Section states that the contractor use “the most appropriate and cost-effective staffing mix” to perform the contract. As to ensure that the contractor has reasonable discretion over its staffing plan would USAID consider revising this statement to required the use of “an appropriate and cost-effective staffing mix” or alternatively confirm that USAID’s approval of the contractor’s Staffing Plan constitutes agreement that the contractor is using the most appropriate and cost-effective staffing mix?

Response: Section F.5 updated accordingly.

Section F.7

Section F.7 page 17: The solicitation states quarterly reports are due 15 calendar days after the end of each contract quarter. Can USAID kindly confirm that the Annual Performance Report can replace the Q4 quarterly progress and financial reports?

Response: Confirmed.

Section F.9 F.9 Activity Outcomes and Results Matrix (p. 23): USAID notes that the minimum expected outcomes/results for Objective 1 are “Average time to move goods across five selected border crossings reduced by at least 30%,” and “Average cost to move goods across five selected border crossings reduced by at least 30%.” However, on page 3 of Attachment J.1 Statement of Objectives, USAID lists the required minimum results as “Average time to move goods across four selected border crossings reduced by at least 30%” and “Average cost to move goods across four selected border crossings reduced by at least 30%.” Could USAID please clarify what the correct total number of selected border crossings is?

Response: We have updated the language in the SOO/Section F.9 and the correct total number of selected border crossings is four.

Page 3 of the SOO states that the minimum required results for Objective 1 include, “Average time and cost to move goods across four selected border crossings by at least 30%.” However, page 23, Section F.9 of the RFP states that the minimum expected outcome/result for Objective 1 is the “Average time/cost to move goods across five border crossings reduced by at least 30%.”. Can USAID please clarify if the expected results for moving goods are for either four or five border crossings?

Response: See response above.

The required minimum results for Objectives 1.1 and 1.2 are not consistent between section F.9 of the RFP and the statement of objectives. Can USAID please clarify if the minimum requirement is to decrease the average time and cost across four or five selected border crossings?

Response: See response above.

The Minimum Expected Outcome/Result for the below indicators are different between the RFP’s Result Matrix section (F.9) and the SOO (J.1). Will USAID please confirm that the expected results in the SOO (J.1.3.a) are correct?

F.9 J.1.3.a

O bj.

1.

Average time to move goods across *five* selected border crossings reduced by at least 30%

Average time to move goods across *four* selected border crossings reduced by at least 30%

Obj. 1.2 Average cost to move goods across *five* selected border crossings reduced by at least 30%

Average cost to move goods across *four* selected border crossings reduced by at least 30%

Response: See response above.

F.9 Activity Outcomes and Results Matrix (p. 23): USAID notes that the minimum expected outcome/results for Obj 2.3. is the “Increase in the number of new financial products and services for SMEs should reach a minimum of 10 over the life of the Activity.” Would USAID please confirm if this should be “new financial products and services for SMEs” or alternatively, “new financial products or services for SMEs”?

Response: We have updated the language in the SOO/Section F.9 to state “new financial products or services for SMEs” .

Section F.9 (page 24) states the Minimum Expected Result 4.1 requires 10 new laws, regulations, or policies to be adopted that comply with EU standards"; given that ratification of government regulations is at the discretion of the given government body or agency, we kindly request USAID consider adjusting this result to require the presentation of complete draft laws, regulations, or policies to the relevant approving body?

Response: As described in Section L.11.1 FACTOR 5 - TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS, Annex A, Offerors shall propose additional indicators and propose corresponding minimum outcomes and results for the Core Component, as aligned with their unique technical approach and PWS. Please note that AMELP and QASP will be finalized 90 calendar days after the award which provides an opportunity for USAID and the selected Contractor to evaluate and adjust accordingly.

In Section F.9 Activity Outcomes and Results Matrix (p.22-24), USAID lists Minimum Expected Outcomes/Results for the Core Component. For the purposes of the Activity Outcomes and Results Matrix, is the “Core Component” defined to include both the base periods AND the three option periods?

Response: Yes.

In Section F.9 (p.22-24), the Activity Outcomes and Results Matrix contains outcomes / results that are dependent on many factors outside of the Contractor’s control. For example, the average time to move goods across borders could be affected by geopolitical, security and infrastructure considerations, particularly in certain countries covered by ACCELERATE. Additionally, time could be influenced by the reimposition of EU requirements that were relaxed immediately after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Average time also could be a function of the composition or volume of trade, such that bumper harvests could increase exports or imports and thereby slow border crossings.

Thus, would USAID consider allowing Contractors to identify and propose alternative indicators and outcomes / results that align with the performance outcomes for Objective 1 (“Improved trade facilitation both within the E&E region and with the EU”)?

Response: As described in Section L.11.1 FACTOR 5 - TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS, Annex A, Offerors shall propose additional indicators and propose corresponding minimum outcomes and results for the Core Component, as aligned with their unique technical approach and PWS. Please note that AMELP and QASP will be finalized 90 calendar days after the award which provides an opportunity for USAID and the selected Contractor to evaluate and adjust accordingly.

The Section F.9 Activity Outcomes and Results Matrix (p.23) contains a list of indicators and minimum expected outcomes/results for Objective 2. However, in the SOO Objective 2 states:

“Increased access to finance by way of introducing regional alternative financial products and services.” The phrasing of Objective 2 in the SOO suggests that alternative financial products and services must themselves be regional in nature. This is inconsistent with the F.9 Indicators and the way financial institutions typically design and market financial products.

Would USAID consider rephrasing the Objective to match the target outcomes, e.g., as “Increased access to finance by way of introducing *alternative financial products and services to the region*”?

Response: Our intention is for financial institutions to offer regional products and services that span more than one country. For example, the USAID CATALYZE Engines of Growth activity has been working on this through digital platforms that offer different financial products to SMEs in more than one country. As described in Section L.11.1 FACTOR 5 - TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS, Annex A, Offerors shall propose additional indicators and propose corresponding minimum outcomes and results for the Core Component, as aligned with their unique technical approach and PWS. Please note that AMELP and QASP will be finalized 90 calendar days after the award which provides an opportunity for USAID and the selected Contractor to evaluate and adjust accordingly.

In the Section F.9 Matrix (p.23), the OBJ 3.1 Indicator measures outcomes that are a function of many political economy factors, both within the assisted E&E country and in the EU (which provides this rating).

Would USAID permit Contractors to identify and propose indicators and outcomes / results that align with the performance outcomes for Objective 3 (“Increased support to the public and private sectors to comply with EU requirements and standards”)?

Response: As described in Section L.11.1 FACTOR 5 - TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS, Annex A, Offerors shall propose additional indicators and propose corresponding minimum outcomes and results for the Core Component, as aligned with their unique technical approach and PWS. Please note that AMELP and QASP will be finalized 90 calendar days after the award which provides an opportunity for USAID and the selected Contractor to evaluate and adjust accordingly.

In the Section F.9 Matrix (RFP p.23) and p.5 of the SOO for Objective 3, Performance Outcome

3.2 is “Government and private sector capacity is increased to meet the requirements of EU accession in the economic space and to respond to the priorities put forth in the EU Status Reports”, and its Minimum Expected Outcome/Result is: “Develop and implement APS with private sector business associations that increases private sector compliance with EU regulations and standards that reach at least 500 firms.”

Given that “increased compliance” by regional businesses is outside of the Contractor’s control, would USAID rephrase the minimum expected outcome/result to “Develop and implement APS with private sector business associations to build the capacity of at least 500 firms to comply with EU regulations and standards.”? This would better reflect an outcome that is in the Contractor’s control, as how firms use this capacity (i.e. whether or not they comply with EU standards) is outside of the Contractor’s control and the scope of this Objective.

Would USAID consider eliminating the Section F Minimum Expected Outcomes / Results for “time” (OBJ 1.1) and “cost” (OBJ 1.2) as stated in the RFP, and instead allow Offerors to propose their own Minimum Expected Outcomes / Results to evaluate tangible progress in line with the SOO’s Performance Outcomes of “1. Increased trade within the sub-region and between the region and the EU; 2. Increased customs harmonization between countries within the region;

3. Increased adoption of digital practices that support more efficient trade practices.”?

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

Section J - List of attachments

Attachment J.1.

Page 3 of the SOO, for the required minimum results for Objective 1, could USAID clarify if these border crossings can all be within the three regions (Western Balkans, Caucasus, UMB Region)? Or are these also required for border crossings with the European Union (EU)?

Response: Yes, the border crossings can be between the region and the EU, but USAID assistance can only be provided to support the countries in the E&E region.

In Section J.1.3 on page 5, Minimum Result 3 under Objective 3 refers to developing and implementing an “APS,” but does not define this acronym. Please clarify whether this intends to refer to an Annual Program Statement in connection with the Activity’s GUC component.

Response: After further review, we removed language referring to the “APS” and reworded the Minimum Result 3.3 to state: “Work through business associations to reach at least 500 firms to increase private sector compliance with EU regulations and standards.”

Under the Objective 3.3 minimum expected result, USAID requires the use of an Annual Program Statement (APS) to increase “private sector compliance with EU regulations and standards that reach at least 500 firms.” Can USAID remove the APS requirement so that the contractor may use different tools at its disposal (e.g. subcontracts and grants via a request for applications) to achieve the desired results?

Response: After further review, we removed language referring to the “APS” and reworded the Minimum Result 3.3 to state: “Work through business associations to reach at least 500 firms to increase private sector compliance with EU regulations and standards.”

Would USAID kindly remove the following language from Section 4 (Pg 6) of the SOO: “All grants must have a lead partner to administer and report to USAID on the financial and programmatic results”? While all grants will have a lead partner, as a contractor hired to manage the grants program on behalf of USAID, administration of the grants under contract (GUC) would be handled by the contractor selected for award, and any financial and programmatic reporting from the grantee would go through the contractor. Summaries of grant results can, of course, be provided to USAID as part of the contractor’s quarterly/annual reports.

Response: We want to confirm that all grants have a lead organization to coordinate with the contractor on financial and programmatic reporting. However, for clarity, we adjusted the language from Section 4 (Pg 6) of the SOO to state, “All grants must have a lead partner coordinate with the contractor on reporting to USAID on the financial and programmatic results.”

On page 7 of Attachment J.1: SOO, Section 5.a contains: “Recently, the E&E Bureau has developed a new strategic framework, Strengthening the Foundations of Freedom (SFF), that will guide regional programming in the new environment and respond to the new opportunities and challenges that have resulted from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.” Would USAID please share their strategic framework, Strengthening the Foundations of Freedom (SFF)?

Response: Strengthening the Foundations of Freedom (SFF) is not available for public release at this time. The SFF will be shared with the selected contractor after award.

On page 10 of Attachment J.1: SOO, Section 7.a contains: “USAID Missions in the region currently implement more than 50 country-specific projects in the economic growth area, including competitiveness, economic governance and business enabling environment, innovation, workforce development, and trade and investment promotion, among others. The ACCELERATE activity must ensure it does not duplicate bilateral programming.” Would USAID kindly provide a list of these active projects?

Response: Information regarding active projects in the region is available publicly. USAID will not provide a list of active projects at this time.

Page 11, “d. Gender Integration and Social Inclusion” of the SOO, states “A gender analysis will be produced that identifies the key constraints faced by women in each of the technical areas proposed.” Could USAID clarify if the implementing partner is expected to conduct the gender analysis, or will another entity conduct a gender analysis that the implementing partner is then expected to integrate into project implementation?

Response: The Contractor is expected to conduct their own gender analysis and integrate gender considerations into implementation as appropriate for their technical approach.

Attachment J.2

The budget template does not appear to allow offerors to present Core and Buy-in costs separately. Does USAID wish for offerors to combine those costs in the current template’s Summary and Detail tabs, or would USAID consider adjusting the budget template to allow offerors to present their Core and Buy-in costs separately, to more clearly correspond to the cost breakdown shown in Section B.4?

Response: We do not believe that the budget template does not allow Offerors to present Core and Buy-In costs separately. Both the Summary and Detailed Budget worksheet can be duplicated or edited, as necessary, to present Core and Buy-In costs separately.

Section J.2 Budget Template. Regarding the Subcontractor Budget tab in the provided Budget Template, can USAID confirm that offerors can modify the Budget template to conform with a Firm-Fixed-Price or Time & Materials/Labor Hour pricing for subcontractors with such contract type(s)?

Response: Confirmed.

Part IV-Representations and Instructions

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

Section L.6

On page 74 of the RFP, Section L.6.d contains: “Unless otherwise notified by an amendment to the RFP, no questions will be accepted after the date and time indicated on the cover page.”

Would USAID please consider offering an additional questions period during the Phase 2 process? Having an additional Q&A period for multi-phased USAID proposals helps strengthen submissions to USAID.

Response: Offerors participating in Phase Two will have another opportunity to ask USAID questions. RFP is updated to include another round of Q&A for Phase Two.

Will offerors have another opportunity to ask USAID questions regarding Phase Two after receiving an invitation to participate in Phase Two?

Response: See response above.

Will Offerors who receive USAID's notice to submit Phase Two Proposals also receive another opportunity to ask Phase Two Proposal clarification questions to USAID, in addition to Phase Two questions asked during Phase One?

Response: See response above.

As we have seen in recent multi-phase RFPs from USAID, there is often an additional Questions and Answers session for phase two of the evaluation. Will USAID consider an additional Questions and Answers session for the second phase of the ACCELERATE source selection?

Response: See response above.

Can USAID confirm whether there will be an additional Q&A period during Phase 2 of the proposal?

Section L.7

Page 75 (the Offeror who submitted this question quoted Page 69 here), Section L.7 states, “No revisions of an offeror’s Phase One submission will be permitted.” Could USAID please confirm Offerors may make edits to the Organizational Chart, including adding confirmed names of identified personnel – as required in Phase 2?

Response: Confirmed.

Section L.8

On page 78, Section L.8.b of the RFP contains: “The Technical Submission in Phase One and full Technical Proposal in Phase Two must be…formatted…with font not smaller than 12 pt.

Times New Roman font… [and] Charts, tables, and graphics may be in a smaller font, but not less than 10 pt.” Would USAID kindly allow fonts other than Times New Roman for Charts, tables, and graphics?

Response: Allowed.

Section L.8 General Proposal Submission (p. 78): As with charts, tables, and graphics, may Offerors present text boxes in a font no smaller than 10pt?

Response: Yes, however, the usage of text boxes should be limited.

Will USAID please confirm that callout boxes may appear in 10-pt font, in addition to the charts, tables and graphics noted in Section L.8.b on page 78?

Response: See response above.

Page 78, Section L.8 states, “Charts, tables and graphics may be in a smaller font, but not less than 10 pt.” Could USAID confirm that text boxes can also be in 10 pt font?

Response: See response above.

Section L.9

Could USAID please confirm a 1-page cover letter / transition letter following the Cover/Title Page, is permitted and will not be counted against the page limit?

Response: Confirmed (for both Phase One and Phase Two).

Page 79, Section L.9 states “Please include a one-page illustrative organization chart (excluded from the 3-page limit for the “Introduction” that identifies proposed staffing…”. Could USAID confirm that this organizational chart also does not count toward the 15-page maximum for the Phase One Technical Submission (i.e., the Factor 1 Introduction would be a 4-page section comprised of the Factor 1 – Introduction narrative and the one-page illustrative organizational chart)?

Response: Confirmed.

L.9 Instructions for Preparation of the Phase One Technical Submission (p. 79): Factor 1 – Introduction requires a one-page illustrative organizational chart. However, on page 75 in section L.7 “Evaluation and Source Selection Methodology,” USAID notes that “No revisions of an Offeror’s Phase One submission will be permitted.” Can USAID please clarify if Offerors are able to modify the organizational chart that is to be submitted in Phase One in their Phase Two proposals?

Response: Offerors are able to submit an updated organizational chart in Phase Two that matches their proposed PWS and technical approach.

An organizational chart is required in both Phase One (Section L.9, page 79) and Phase Two (Section L.11, page 87). The chart in Phase One (Factor 1) is termed “illustrative” and is described as showing “proposed staffing structures” without naming proposed staff. Section L.7, Item 5 states “No revisions of an Offeror’s Phase One submission will be permitted.” Please confirm that the structure of the Offeror’s implementation team can evolve between their Phase One and Two submissions – i.e., that adding or removing positions or changing reporting lines would not be considered “revisions” that are prohibited under L.7.

Response: Confirmed.

Section L.9 (page 79) states that the Offeror must submit an “illustrative” organizational chart as part of Phase 1. Will USAID please confirm that the “illustrative” organizational chart is intended to reflect the structure of the ACCELERATE implementation team for the base period under the Core Component only?

Response: Confirmed, but we also consider the option years being part of the Core Component.

Page 80, Would USAID consider removing the two-page limit from each response to the technical questions and increasing the total page limit to 15 pages (3 pages for each question) for Factor 3 – Response to Technical Questions?

Response: No.

Sections L and M for Factor 2 (Institutional Capacity) [p.79-80 and p.96] contain a variety of requirements that cover institutional capacity and ability, as well as home office and administrative systems, all to be addressed within 2 pages. Would USAID consider increasing the page allocation for this section to 3 or more pages?

Response: Due to the limited maximum page count and allocations to other sections, Institutional Capacity [p.79-80 and p.96] page allocation will stay at 2 pages.

Section L.10

For the Past Performance Information submission, will USAID please confirm that Offerors may refer to projects that were performed under mechanisms other than contracts (such as cooperative agreements).

Response: Confirmed. Section L.10 reflects this.

Section L.10 Factor 4 - Past Performance Information Submission (p.81), part (a)1 requires submission of “recent… and relevant *contracts*”. However, many non-contract assistance mechanisms can also demonstrate relevance in terms of size, technical scope, complexity, and recency.

L.10(a)3 seems to suggest USAID will accept such mechanisms that do not receive CPARS. Will USAID confirm that it will also accept non-contact assistance mechanisms, such as Cooperative Agreements, Grants, Global Development Alliances, etc. for the Past Performance Information Submission?

Response: See response above.

Does USAID have a preferred Past Performance Information template they would like for Offerors to use?

Response: There is no preferred template.

Section L.10.a.2 (page 81) states that the Offeror’s Past Performance Submission must “describe successful experiences using subcontractors to implement major technical components.” Please confirm that (in addition to the required CPARs) Offerors may include a narrative addressing this requirement, as well as Sections L.10.b, L.10.c, and L.10.d (extraordinary problems encountered, quality awards or certifications, and utilization of small business concerns).

Response: Confirmed.

Page 82, Could USAID confirm there is no page limit required for describing projects that are not in the CPAR system?

Response: no page limit, but the description should be as succinct as possible.

Will USAID clarify if a Title Page, Table of Contents, and Acronyms List should be included with the PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION submission? Is there any guidance on page limits for these sections or the PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION submission overall?

Should PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION be submitted in PDF format?

Response: Title Page, Table of Contents and Acronym List are not required for the past performance information submission. No page limits other than what is indicated in Paragraph 4 (A). PDF format is acceptable.

Section L.10.1 (page 82) states “Major Subcontractors’ reports can be submitted to the USAID POCs directly by the Major Subcontractor. This separate submission shall follow the same submission requirements and closing date/time outlined in this solicitation.” Please clarify how the prime Offeror’s evaluation would be affected if a major subcontractor fails to submit CPARs by the deadline.

Response: The major subcontractor should not miss the deadline. USAID is not able to offer more details or a firm answer on this scenario at this point.

Section L.11

On page 83 of the RFP, Section L.11, Item b contains: “Submissions must contain a PDF and a Microsoft Word copy of the Technical Proposal…”. Since Microsoft Word files can get quite large and may go above the 25MB email submission limit, would USAID allow Phase Two Full Technical Proposals and Past Performance Information to be submitted as PDF only?

Response: We need both PDF and Word versions for various reasons. Offerors can split the submission into multiple emails, as needed, as long as the emails are numbered and technical proposal submission is separate from cost proposal submission.

On page 84 of the RFP, Section L.11.1 contains: “As part of the Technical Requirements section of the proposal, the Offeror is requested to submit a Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Technical Approach for the Core Component.” Please confirm that USAID wants separate sections under Factor 5—one addressing the PWS requirement and another addressing the Technical approach requirement.

Response: Confirmed.

On page 86 of the RFP, section L.11.1, item iii references a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. However, there is no page allotment given for the QASP. Would USAID consider allowing the QASP to be submitted as Annex E to the technical proposal and not subject to the 24-page, Factor 5: Technical Requirements limit?

Response: USAID will allow this. RFP language is updated accordingly.

Section L.11.1. (page 84) states “As part of the Technical Requirements section of the proposal, the Offeror is requested to submit [1] a Performance Work Statement (PWS) and [2] Technical Approach for the Core Component.” Instructions are detailed in two sub-sections (i and ii) on pages 84-85. A *third* sub-section (L.11.1.iii) then implies that a QASP is also part of the 24-page limit for Factor 5.

Page 86 states “USAID has no preferred or required format or template for the QASP,” though Sections E, F, and L all contain guidance on what should be addressed. QASPs for USAID-funded programs often vary in length. Given the detail requested by the RFP and the length of available examples, we respectfully suggest that Offerors be allowed to submit it an additional allowed annex that doesn’t account the page limit for the Technical Requirements.

Response: See response above.

In Section L.11.1 (p.84), Factor 5 the RFP states that "As part of the Technical Requirements section of the proposal, the Offeror is requested to submit a Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Technical Approach for the Core Component”. The detailed requirements for these inputs are described in sub sections (i) and (ii). However, the section also includes a sub-section (iii) describing the QASP.

Can USAID clarify whether the QASP is a required sub section of the technical requirements section under Factor 5?

Response: See responses above. QASP has been moved to the Annex.

If the QASP is required, would USAID permit Offerors to submit it as an Annex, i.e., outside of the page limit?

Response: See response above.

Section L.11.1, Factor 5 – Technical Requirements: Would USAID kindly consider allowing offerors participating in Phase 2 to include the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) as an annex to the technical proposal that does not count against the page limit? An annexed QASP would allow offerors to comprehensively address requirements in FAR 46.401 without compromising the level of detail in the Performance Work Statement and technical narrative.

Response: See response above.

In Section L.11.1 (p.85), Factor 5 part (ii) the RFP states "Indicators listed and described in the SOO must be included in the Offeror's PWS. The Offeror must also propose additional standard and custom indicators tailored to the proposed development approach. Offerors must propose yearly targets for all indicators and clearly describe the results and outcomes to be achieved."

However, part of the proposal submission will be Annex A- Minimal Outcomes and Results Matrix, which includes listing indicators and substantiation of targets and outcomes for each year and LOA, and which will be included in Section F.9 of the contract.

To avoid duplication, would USAID allow Offerors to use Annex A for yearly and LOA targets and minimum outcomes--inclusive of those added by the Offeror--and eliminate the requirement on page 85 that these also be included in the proposal’s PWS section?

Response: This is allowed. RFP language is updated accordingly.

Per Section L.11.2 (page 88), should Offerors elect to submit the optional Letters of Commitment for key personnel, please confirm these may be submitted as part of Annex D and will not count against the 4-page limit for each CV.

Response: Confirmed.

Section L.11.2 page 88 states Letters of Commitment are optional; can USAID kindly confirm that should offerors wish to include LOCs, they do not count against the prescribed page limits?

Response: Confirmed.

Section L.12

On page 88 of the RFP, Section L.12 contains: “The following Cost Assumptions are provided for the Buy-In Component of $50 Million that Offerors may take into consideration in the Preparation of the Cost Proposal … I. For budgeting purposes, USAID assumes there will be a total of ten buy-ins during the five-year period of performance.” Could USAID confirm if there are buy-ins already secured for Year 1 of the program and, if so, please share which USAID missions have committed funds?

Response: Buy-ins have not been secured yet.

On page 88, USAID provides a list of cost assumptions for the buy-in component. Please confirm that the core funding of $30 million or a portion of it will be available upfront to cover cross-cutting costs associated with managing the mechanism (buy-in scope design and work planning, MEL reporting, general invoicing, procurement, and communications/marketing). If not, could USAID please clarify how each Mission is going to contribute to these costs?

Response: The core funding will be used for the initial development of scopes of work for buy-in design. Once a buy-in scope is approved, all costs associated with the buy-in will be funded by the buy-in itself and not come from core funds.

On page 88, USAID notes that Offerors should assume 10 buy-ins within the 5-year period of performance, each with an implementation period of two years. USAID also notes that Offerors should assume four buy-ins in Years 1 and 2; four buy-ins in Years 2 and 3; and two buy-ins in Years 4 and 5. Can USAID please confirm that Offerors should assume that the start dates of the two buy-ins for Years 4 and 5 will be the start of Year 4 to ensure they are completed by the end of the 5-year period of performance?

Response: Yes, it should be assumed that the two buy-ins for Years 4 and 5 will begin at the start of Year 4 to ensure they are completed by the end of the 5-year period of performance.

Section L.12 (p.88) II, III, IV, states that an illustrative buy-in budget is based on programming within one of the countries within the E&E region outlined in Attachment J.1 under Geographic Coverage. To level the playing field for Offerors and determine best value to the Government:

What country (i.e., costs, LCP, etc.) should Offerors utilize for the illustrative buy-in budget and cost structure?

Response: Please use Serbia for the illustrative buy-in budget and cost structure. Section L.12 has been updated to reflect this change.

Will USAID please provide the LCP for the designated country?

Response: See response below.

Would USAID consider providing a template for the standard cost structure which may include plug figures?

Response: USAID will not provide a template.

On page 89, USAID notes that the detailed salary and benefit information for professional employees that the Offeror provides in its cost proposal will be considered the Offeror’s professional compensation plan and will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.222-46 contained in this RFP. Given that activities could be implemented in each of the countries mentioned on page 8 of Attachment J.1 Statement of Objectives, would USAID consider providing the Local Compensation Plans or salary charts for these countries?

Response: LCPs are non-public documents. USAID gathered (sharing as Attachment J.7) local staff salary ranges and/or salary caps for ten of the twelve countries mentioned in the SOO. Montenegro and Belarus LCP could not be located.

Could USAID please provide the relevant countries’ Local Compensation Plans or at a minimum the maximum FSN salary for each country?

Response: See response above.

Can USAID provide the Local Compensation Plan for the places of performance for the ACCELERATE Activity?

Response: See response above.

Page 89, Section L.12, Part 2 - Proposed Costs referring to Attachment J.2, states “Please note, the budget template including the categories included in the budget summary and detailed budget are purely illustrative.” However, further down on that same page, it states “Offerors must use the template provided in Attachment J.2. BUDGET TEMPLATE (“Detailed” worksheet).”

Could USAID please confirm that Offerors may use their own budget format provided it includes all the information required in the J.2 template?

Response: Confirmed. Language has been updated from “must use” to “may use”.

Per the Section L.12 Instructions for the Cost Proposal (starting on p.88), can offerors utilize their own budget templates for development of the Phase Two cost proposal, so long as the same cost elements outlined in Attachment J.2 are included?

Response: See response above.

Biographical Data Sheets are required for all long-term, short-term expatriate personnel and all long-term cooperating country personnel being proposed. Can USAID clarify and confirm that Biographical Data Sheets are only required for key personnels?

Response: As indicated in the RFP, “Biographical Data Sheets are required for all long-term, short-term expatriate personnel and all long-term cooperating country personnel being proposed.” Key personnel or not key.

“The detailed salary and benefit information for professional employees that the Offeror provides in its cost proposal will be considered the Offeror’s professional compensation plan and will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.222-46 contained in this RFP.” Can USAID confirm that outside of the detailed cost information provided in the Budget Template, a Total Compensation plan pursuant to FAR 52.222-46, is not required? If the Total Compensation plan is required, can this be submitted post award by the successful Offeror?

Response: Detailed cost information provided in the budget template is required. Total compensation plan is not required.

There are several references to a “major” subcontractor in the RFP, Can USAID provide its definition of a major subcontractor?

Response: See footnote in Section L.9.

On page 90, USAID notes that Other Direct Costs must not include the cost of non-professional salaries or locally employed salaries.