Advancing Digital Democracy (ADD) RFP Q and A 1 - Attachment B.pdf

Attachment B

Advancing Digital Democracy (ADD) RFP Q&A #1 - Attachment B

General

1. On page 1, the NOFO states, “USAID anticipates the award of a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee

(CPFF), Term Type Contract for a five (5)-year period of performance as a result of this

RFP.” However, on page 29 under Section F.2, Period of Performance, the NOFO states, “The period of performance is one year, effective from TBD to TBD, with four additional option years.” Could USAID please confirm the duration of this award?

Ans.

● The information in both sections of the RFP is correct. One is indicating the total period of performance anticipated, including all option years, and as it is required by the UCF, the breakdown of the period of performance is indicated in F.2.

2. On page 95, Section L.7 does not state any inclusion of a table of contents or an acronyms list. For organization, could USAID please allow the inclusion of a table of contents and acronyms list that does not count against the page limit?

Ans.

● Yes, USAID will allow the inclusion of a table of contents and an acronyms list that does not count against the page limit.

3. Section L.9 on page 99 requires an SF-33; however, there is no SF-33 included in the RFP.

Could USAID please provide an SF-33?

Ans.

● The SF-33 is attached. Please see Attachment C.

4. In Section L.7, page 95, could USAID allow for tables, charts, graphs, and graphics to be presented in no smaller than 10-point type?

● Only charts, graphs, and graphics can be 10-point font.

5. Page 1: The cover letter to the RFP includes the following language: “The Offeror shall identify the utilization of U.S. Small Business Concerns and non-US businesses/organizations by filling out and submitting the attached forms located in the Excel Template (J.7) as part of

Phase Two submissions.” However, on page 105 the RFP indicates that applicable offerors should submit the Subcontracting Plan “either if a competitive range is established or before the contract award if no competitive range is established.” Would USAID please clarify when applicable offerors should submit the Subcontracting Plan?

● Offerors are required to complete Attachment J.7 as part of Phase Two submissions.

6. Section J.5: As the maximum row height in Excel is 409 points, may offerors present the required information for past performance references in Word rather than Excel so long as all required content/fields are included?

● Offerors may present the required information in Word rather than Excel but each past performance reference cannot exceed three pages.

7. Section J.5: As the maximum row height in Excel is 409 points, may offerors modify

Attachment J.5 to accommodate longer descriptions (up to 3 pages as referenced in L.8.)?

● Please see response in question #6 above.

8. Section J.5: May offerors modify Attachment J.5 to include the information required in L.8 3

(such as UEI number)?

● No, rather offerors should include the UEI number as part of the entity name.

9. Section J.5: Attachment J.5 includes a tab entitled “Performance Assessment QA”. Please confirm that offerors are not required to fill out this tab. If offerors are required to fill out this tab, we kindly request that USAID provide instructions for its completion.

● Offerors are not required to fill out this tab.

10. Section L.5, page 94: How does USAID intend to determine whether an Offeror is likely or unlikely to be a viable competitor? Will offerors who submit phase 1 proposals need to reach a certain minimum evaluation score in order for USAID to determine that they are likely to be a viable competitor?

Ans.

● USAID will evaluate all Phase One proposals per the Phase One evaluation criteria in section M.2.

11. Section L.5, page 95: The RFP notes that “Offerors will not be provided feedback or a debriefing after the Phase One submission. After Phase One submission, USAID will provide an Advisory Notification regarding viability only.” Will offerors who submit Phase 1 proposals but are deemed unlikely to be a viable competitor be able to request a post-award written debrief in accordance with FAR 15.506?

● Yes.

12. Section L.6, page 95: Is there a file size limitation for email submissions?

● Total email size cannot exceed 25 MB. Multiple emails may be sent to accommodate the proposal size and content. All attachments must be in MS Word, Adobe PDF, or MS

Excel readable format. OFFERORS MUST NOT SUBMIT ZIPPED FILES.

● If an Offeror sends an application by multiple emails, indicate in the subject line of the email whether the email relates to the technical or cost proposal, and the desired sequence of multiple emails (if more than one is sent) and of attachments (e.g. "no. 1 of 4", etc.).

USAID’s preference is that each proposal be submitted as a single email attachment, e.g.

that you consolidate the various parts of a proposal into a single document before sending it.

13. Section L.7, page 95: Would USAID allow offerors to submit Phase One on A4 or U.S.

letter-sized paper (8 ½ x 11”)?

● A4.

14. Section L.7, page 95: Would USAID allow offerors two additional pages for the Phase One technical proposal: one for a table of contents and one for an acronym/abbreviation list?

● See Question 2. Yes.

15. Section L.7, page 95: May offerors use a smaller and different typeface/font for graphics, tables, and textboxes?

Ans. Only charts, graphs, and graphics can be 10-point font.

16. Section L.8.1, page 97: Please confirm that offerors may use a PowerPoint slide deck as part of the Oral Technical Presentation. If yes, please also confirm that the PowerPoint slide deck should be submitted with the other written portions of the Phase Two technical proposal (45 calendar days after USAID’s notice to offerors).

● Correct.

17. Section L.8.2, page 97: Please confirm that the organizational chart graphic is not subject to the five-page limit for the Management and Staffing Plan section, and that this limit applies to narrative portions only.

Ans.

● Pages that contain a table, chart, graph, etc. that are not otherwise excluded are subject to the page limitations.

18. Section L.8.3.a.1, page 98: The RFP states that “Each award [past performance reference] is limited to no more than three pages.” However, attachment J.5 allows up to 5,000 characters for the description of each contract. Generally, 5,000 characters amounts to approximately

1.5 pages of content. Please confirm that offerors may exceed the 5,000-character limit referenced in J.5 so long as each past performance reference does not exceed three pages.

● Confirmed.

19. Section B.4 (pages 4 through 7) states that the contract will consist of one one-year base period and four one-year option periods. The envisioned one-year base period may diminish results by precluding the project from fully committing to longer-term collaborations with partners such as grantees and host-government entities. Further, the one-year base period may hinder the ability of offerors and contractors to attract top talent given that candidates will not be assured of a reasonably long duration of employment on the project. A longer base period would allow offerors the time needed to cement relationships at the local level, recruit and retain top talent, ensure sustainability of newly created multistakeholder coalitions, and enact a more robust grants program. Would USAID consider increasing the base period to two years, or even three years, with one-year option periods after that?

● No.

20. Section L.7 (page 95) states that the “proposal must use 12-point Times New Roman font on standard A4 paper” for the Technical Proposal. Would USAID confirm that this font requirement does not apply to graphics, tables, and text boxes and that offerors may use a 9-point sans serif font for graphics, tables, and text boxes?

● See response to Question 4 above

21. Section L.9(g) (page 105) specifies that offerors should include “letters of commitment signed by each person proposed as key personnel confirming their present intention to serve in the stated position.” Would USAID clarify whether these letters of commitment should appear in the technical or cost volume within the Phase 2 proposal?

● Technical

22. Regarding the geographical scope of implementation, is the Contractor required to work in all three 2025 focus countries (Armenia, Peru and South Africa), or can they work in a subset of them?

● All three.

23. With respect to the program timeline, are activities in each focus country limited to their designated year of selection, or can programming extend beyond the initial year?

Ans.

● They are envisioned to be multi-year programs subject to the availability of funding, and the terms and conditions of the acquisition instrument.

24. Would USAID please confirm that Offerors may include an Executive Summary which does not count against the page limit in their Phase 1 proposals?

25. L8.3: Should Contractor Performance Information be submitted in the Excel spreadsheet from Attachment 5 or does USAID want it in a Word document format?

Ans.

● Offerors may present the required information in Word rather than Excel but each past performance reference cannot exceed three pages.

26. L8.3: Please confirm bidders may submit Contractor Performance Information forms for both subcontractors and major subcontractors.

Ans.

● Offerors may present the required information for major subcontractors in Word rather than Excel but each past performance reference cannot exceed three pages.

27. L.7: “The proposal must use 12-point Times New Roman font on standard A4 paper, single-spaced, with no less than 1-inch margins, and be submitted in an MS Word readable file.” Is

10 point font acceptable in graphics and tables?

● Only charts, and graphs, and graphics can be 10-point font.

28. L.8: Oral Technical Presentation: USAID does not provide guidelines for the format of the oral presentation – font on slides, can we include video, can we introduce new graphics or only re-use graphics from the proposal?

Ans.

● As stated in Section L.8.1, the Power Point will support a 60 minute, succinct oral presentation. Any additional limitations or guidelines, if any, will be provided prior to

Phase Two submission due date.

29. To summarize the significant elements of our proposals for reviewers, may offerors include an executive summary that does not count against the page limit?

Ans.

● Offerors may include an executive summary of 1 page. The RFP has been edited to reflect this change.

30. May offerors use 10-point font for tables, charts, graphics, text boxes and footnotes?

● Only charts, and graphs, and graphics can be 10-point font.

31. Section L.7, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal – Phase One, Page 95 provides instructions on the font, page size and margins for Phase One proposals.

Section L.8, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal – Phase Two, Page 97 does not give similar instructions for the written parts of Phase Two proposals. Do the instructions regarding fonts, page size and margins given in Section L.7 apply to both phases of the proposal process?

32. Section L.7, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal – Phase One, Item 1, Page 95 describes a cover page for Phase One proposals. Section L.8, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal – Phase Two, Page 97 does not provide similar instructions for the written part of Phase Two proposals. For Phase Two, may offerors include a cover page that does not count against the page limit?

● No. A cover page will not be necessary for Phase Two.

33. Section L.8, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal – Phase Two, Item 3 (a) 3., Page 98 instructs offerors: “If the award is in CPARS, indicate the full contract/task order number, along with the UEI number it is under.” Would USAID kindly confirm that for contracts in CPARS offerors may provide just a list of awards instead of filling out Attachment J.5 (Past Performance Information Template)?

● Confirmed

34. Section L.9, Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost Proposal, Item (a) Part 1 –

Standard Form (SF) 33, page 99 requires Standard Form 33 for the cost proposals in Phase

II. However, SF33 is missing from the RFP. Would USAID please provide the required form?

● Please see response in question #3 above.

35. Section L.8 (page 97) does not provide formatting requirements for the Phase Two technical proposal. Would USAID accept Factor 4, Management and Staffing Plan, in PDF format given that it may contain signatures in letters of commitment (please see Question 18)?

● Offerors may submit their technical proposal in Microsoft Word or PDF.

36. Section L.8.3 (page 98) directs offerors to “List in an annex to the technical proposal” recent, relevant “contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal.” The section notes that “Each award is limited to no more than three pages” and refers offerors to Attachment

J.5. However, Attachment J.5 is an Excel file. Should offerors submit contractor performance information within the Excel file and format it to print on A4-sized pages, or should offerors instead transfer the matrix within Attachment J.5 into a Word file with A4-sized pages and submit contractor performance information in that Word file within the Phase Two submission?

Ans.

● Offerors may present the required information in Word rather than Excel but each past performance reference cannot exceed three pages.

37. Will the Government allow offerors use smaller than 12-point font for tables, graphics, callouts, figures, headers and footers?

● Only charts, graphs, and graphics can be 10-point font.

Technical

1. Section L.7 on page 95 lists “Programmatic Approach and Institutional Capacity” before

“Illustrative Program Designs.” However, Section M.2 on page 108 lists the reverse, giving

“Illustrative Program Designs” as Factor 1 and “Programmatic Approach and Institutional

Capacity” as Factor 2. Is USAID able to confirm the correct order of Factors 1 and 2?

Ans.

● Only Section M.2 specifically states the order of importance and the numbering of the factors. Offerors are advised to follow the order and numbering as stated in the RFP.

2. Section M.1.(e) on page 108 states, “The most important factors are the Illustrative Designs

(FACTOR 1) and the Programmatic Approach and Institutional Capacity (FACTOR 2) in

Phase One.” Could USAID please clarify whether Factor 1 and Factor 2 are equally important, or whether one factor is more important than the other? Can USAID indicate importance as a percentage?

● Factors 1 and 2 are not equally important. Factors are listed in descending order of importance and the factors that are equally important were indicated as such. The RFP has been updated to further clarify this.

3. Section L.7 on page 96 states, “Propose an illustrative program design for Objective 1 of

Section C of this RFP for USAID/Kenya, based on the information provided in the most recent Digital Ecosystem Country Assessment (DECA) and Freedom on the Net (FON) reports for Kenya. The design will consist of Level II activities as described in Section C.4 of this RFP; Propose an illustrative program design for Objective 2 of Section C of this RFP for

USAID/Kenya, based on the information provided in the most recent Digital Ecosystem

Country Assessment (DECA) and Freedom on the Net (FON) reports for Kenya. The design will consist of Level II activities as described in Section C.4 of this RFP.” Is USAID able to confirm whether these program designs should be developed as separate activities with independent budgets ($3 million in Y1 and $3 million in Y2), or as an integrated one, in which both objectives are interrelated, with a combined budget of $3 million in Y1 and $3M in Y2?

Ans.

● For clarification–the total budget for Years 1 and 2 is $6 million. Objectives 1, 2 and 3 are interrelated and the budget is an integrated one. This is indicated in the the sub-section of L.7 titled, “Requirements Specific to Objective 2,” which reads as follows, “

Detail how this Objective will be leveraged to strengthen the outcomes and impact of activities carried out under Objectives 1 and 3 of Section C of the RFP.”

4. Section L.9(b).(1) (iv).b, page 101, states, “Biographical Data Sheets are required for all identified Professional Technical long- and short-term personnel (U.S. nationals, cooperating country nationals [CCNs], and third-country nationals [TCNs])”; however, Section L.9(g) on page 105 requires only biodata for key personnel. Given that at this point, it is unknown which Advancing Digital Democracy (ADD) focus countries may be included in the option years and the scope of activities in each country also is unknown (e.g., additional activities that will be requested by each country), could USAID consider requiring biographical data sheets only for the key personnel named in the Phase 2 proposal?

Ans.

● Offerors are required to submit biographical data sheets only for the key personnel named in the Phase 2 proposal.

5. Section L.9(b).(1) (iv).h, page 102, states, “Offerors included in the competitive range will be required to submit a small business subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR Part

19.704.” However, Section L.9(f), page 105, requires a subcontracting plan at Phase 2. Could

USAID please confirm that the small business subcontracting plan is required only for offerors selected to participate in a competitive range?

● The small business contracting plan is required only for offerors in the competitive range.

6. Per Section M4, Phase 2, on page 109, are the Factor 1 Oral Presentation and Factor 4

Management Approach equally weighted, or is one factor more important than the other; also, can USAID please express the weighting in percentage terms?

● Please see question 2 response above.

7. Section F.6, page 30: We kindly request that USAID consolidate the professional technical

LOE into fewer labor categories than the five presented in the RFP. In our experience implementing similar global contracts with a CPFF-Term structure, applying these five labor categories presents both USAID and the successful offeror with significant management challenges upon award and limits the ability of USAID and its implementing partner to deliver adaptive management. We recommend that USAID consolidate to either a single labor category that includes all professional technical LOE or three categories that do not differentiate between expatriate and local staff – Long-Term Technical Assistance Key

Personnel, Long-Term Technical Assistance, and Short-Term Technical Assistance.

● No, the labor categories will not be amended.

8. Section L.8.1, page 97: The RFP states that “The oral presentation must be succinct and delivered by the proposed COP and up to three (3) additional individuals from the Prime

Offeror.” Will USAID allow additional prime offeror staff to attend the presentation in an administrative capacity, for example to advance slides and troubleshoot any connectivity issues?

9. Section L.8.1, page 97: Given the RFP's emphasis on the important role that local organizations, small businesses, and other stakeholders will play in supporting ADD’s objectives, would USAID consider allowing representatives from consortium partners to present along with the prime contractor during the Phase 2 Oral Presentation?

● Yes, as long as the total number of presenters does not exceed four (4).

10. Section L.8.1, page 97: Would USAID please clarify the requirement for offerors to present an “explanation of proposed targets/outcomes”? Specifically, please confirm that offerors should focus on program-wide, global outcomes rather than objective-specific targets that would be dependent on the design of each buy-in activity.

Ans.

● Yes. The “proposed targets/outcomes” for L.8.1 should focus on program-wide, global outcomes.

11. Section L.8.2, page 97: As with the CVs, would USAID please exclude role descriptions and lists of minimum requirements from the page limit for the Management and Staffing Plan section, so that offerors may concentrate the available five pages on the qualifications, expertise, and experience of proposed candidates.

● The role descriptions and minimum requirements should be included in the page limit.

12. Section L.8.3, page 98: Considering the large Grants Under Contract pool and fluid nature of work under the Buy-In Component, would USAID please consider revising the definition of a major subcontractor to read “one who will provide a substantial portion of the technical effort”?

● No. The definition of a major subcontractor provided in the RFP will not be amended.

13. Section L.8.3, pages 98-99: Please confirm that all information required by RFP Section 8.3

Contractor Performance Information is due 15 calendar days after USAID’s notice to offerors.

● Confirmed.

14. Section L.10, pages 106-107: Please confirm that offerors should anticipate activities in 2025 in all countries listed in Section F.3 of the RFP when considering Section 889 compliance requirements and preparing required documentation.

15. Section M.1.e, page 108. Would USAID please clarify that Factor 1: Illustrative Designs and

Factor 2: Programmatic Approach and Institutional Capacity are weighted equally? If not, can

USAID please clarify the weighting of these two factors?

Ans.

● Please see question 2 response above. For further clarification, USAID has updated the

RFP to state that Factors 1 and 2 are listed in descending order of importance.

16. Section M.4, page 109. The evaluation criteria for Factor 4 references the quality of a

“procurement and infrastructure management approach.” Would USAID please clarify this statement and its relevance to the Advancing Digital Democracy Activity?

Ans.

● This statement has been edited as follows: “procurement and infrastructure management approach”

17. Section F.7 (page 31) lists the chief of party as an approved key personnel position and lists four positions as “TBD” under the chief of party. Could USAID confirm that the chief of party is the one required key personnel position and that offerors may name up to four additional key personnel positions but have the flexibility to name fewer than four additional key personnel positions?

18. Section F.8.1 (page 32) states that the revised startup work plans are due 15 calendar days after contractor period of performance start date. Could USAID confirm that this submission timeline for the startup work plan should refer to be the initial submission the startup work plan or clarify when the initial submission is expected?

Ans.

● This language has been edited as follows: “Revised Start-up Work Plan is due 15 60 calendar days after contract period of performance start date, with the revised Work Plan due 15 days after receipt of edits provided by USAID”

19. Section L.7.3 (page 96) states that the illustrative program design for Level II activities in Kenya must provide the level of effort (LOE) “proposed, including expatriate, local, STTA, and LTTA, and whether they are mid- or senior-level.”

Should offerors include the proportionate amount of LOE forecasted that project leadership (e.g., the chief of party) would dedicate to this USAD/Kenya buy-in? If so, should offerors assume two additional Advancing Digital Democracy focus countries will run Level II activities concurrently with the Kenya-based activities?

Ans.

● No. The RFP does not request the offeror to include the proportionate amount of LOE forecasted. References to LOE throughout the RFP refer to, “professional technical staff person days,” as described in Section F.6.

20. L.8.2 (page 97) notes that in the Management and Staffing Plan that “Offerors must provide a graphic representation of roles and organizational structure, accompanied by a narrative rationale.” Would USAID consider allowing a one-page annex to include a graphic representation of roles within the program and its organizational structure during Phase 2?

Ans.

● No. Section L.8.2 states that the graphic representation of roles and organizational structure will be included as part of the five-page submission.

21. F.7.1 Approved Key Personnel (pg.31). Can USAID please confirm that offerors have the option to submit fewer than five Key Personnel positions and candidates?

22. F.7.2 Key Personnel (pg.31). Considering that the Chief of Party (COP) Key Personnel position is required for all Offerors, would USAID please consider providing the minimum qualifications for the COP during the proposal process rather than requiring offerors to propose them? This would facilitate an apples-to-apples evaluation for a role that is defined by USAID and not the Offeror (such as the other Key Personnel positions).

Ans.

● No. USAID will evaluate how the role and the qualifications for the role are defined by the Offeror.

23. F.6 Professional Technical Level of Effort (LOE) and Support LOE (pg. 30). In previous

RFPs for cost-plus-fixed-fee, completion-type contracts, USAID has commonly provided

LOE estimates per labor category to facilitate a common understanding of USAID’s requirements by potential Offerors. Would USAID please provide such estimates for this RFP for the labor categories defined in section F.6 on page 30? Would USAID also please provide a breakdown of the estimated LOE by labor category between the Base Period and each

Option Period?

● ADD RFP is not a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Completion-type contract. It is a Cost-Plus-

Fixed-Fee Term-type contract and as such we’re not able to provide estimates, ranges, and or ceilings.

24. M.2 Phase One (pg. 108). Factor 2 notes that USAID will evaluate Offerors on “The extent to which the introduction demonstrates an understanding of USAID’s vision, needs, and objectives as described in Section C.” a. Could USAID clarify what section of the Proposal should include the “introduction” and what USAID expects Offerors to detail in the

“introduction” as this element is not included in Section L? b. How does USAID define

“needs” in Factor 2 given that there are not needs specific to USAID explicitly identified in

Section C?

Ans.

● This has been edited as follows, “The extent to which the introduction programmatic approach and institutional capacity provided by the offeror demonstrates”

25. M.2 Phase One (pg.108). USAID states under Factor 1 that the Offerors will be evaluated on several factors including “Feasibility, innovativeness, and ambition of proposed activities and long-term results in achieving successful performance of Section C.4 while applying the crosscutting technical operating principles referenced in Section C.6.” Can USAID clarify how “ambition” is defined and how “ambition” will be evaluated for this evaluation factor?

Ans.

● USAID will apply a standard definition for the word “ambition,” such as that provided by the Miriam Webster dictionary here. Section M.2 provides a description of how Factor 1 will be evaluated.

26. M. 2 Phase One (pg. 108). USAID states under Factor 1 that “Offerors will be evaluated based on the quality of the illustrative program designs.” Could USAID please provide quality standards or definitions related to Section C so that Offerors understand on what basis

USAID is defining and evaluating “quality”?

Ans.

● USAID provided two bullet points under Factor 1 to describe how the quality of illustrative program designs will be evaluated.

27. C.4 Work Requirements (pg. 13-14). Under the headers “Support Supplied by the

Contractor,” USAID includes the sub-headers “Level I Activities Supplied Through the

Global Mechanism” and “Level II Support Supplied in ADD Focus Countries. Under both sub-headers, USAID refers to “Level I Activities” and “Level 2 Activities.” Could USAID confirm they are using the terms “support” and “activities” interchangeably, and, if not, how these terms are differentiated?

Ans.

● For the purposes of Section C.4, “Support Supplied” is a broad heading that is further defined by sub-headings. The sub-headings that further define “Support” are the headings labeled, “Level I Activities” and “Level 2 Activities.” In other words, the activities described in Section C.4 constitute support.

28. L.7 Instruction for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal – Phase One (pg. 96). Given the level of detail Offerors must include in the illustrative program designs to sufficiently address https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ambition the multiple components within Section C, will USAID please confirm that Offerors may provide information on local partnership strategy and proposed LOE in separate annexes?

Ans.

● As stated in Section L.7, the Offeror will have an 8 pages limit to provide the information requested for the Section titled, “Illustrative Program Designs.”

29. C.4 Work Requirements (pg. 18) and L.7 Instruction for the Preparation of the Technical

Proposal -Phase One (pg. 96) mention “information manipulation.” a. Would USAID provide a definition or citation related to the definition of “information manipulation”? In the absence of such a definition, it is unclear how USAID will evaluate Offerors’ differing interpretations and resulting technical approaches related to Section C. b. USAID notes “Consistent with that commitment, the Contractor must take care to ensure that any proposed activities under ADD do not censor protected free speech.” How is USAID defining “protected free speech” for the

ADD Program? Is this explicitly based on the framing of “free speech” according to applicable law in the countries ADD will work? Does “protected free speech” also refer to international conventions, standards, or regulations, such as those that protect “freedom of expression,” and, if so, which specific conventions, standards, or regulations is USAID using to define “protected free speech” or related terms?

Ans.

● USAID refers to the definition of “information manipulation” set forth on page 96 of the

Agency’s Digital Policy, which read as follows, “INFORMATION MANIPULATION:

A set of tactics that alter, modify, or mischaracterize data to shape public opinion, undermine trust in the authenticity of information, or disrupt democratic decision making.

The U.S. government prefers the use of “information manipulation” over terms such as

“disinformation” or “misinformation.” Information manipulation broadly encapsulates these other terms.”

● In the RFP, USAID references its commitment to promoting freedom of expression online and ensuring that USAID funded activities do not censor protected free speech, consistent with the US government’s commitments under the International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights and the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

30. M.1 General Information (pg. 108) The RFP notes “The submitted technical information will be evaluated by a technical evaluation committee using the technical criteria shown below.

The evaluation committee may include industry experts who are not employees of the Federal

Government. When evaluating the competing Offerors, the Government will consider the written qualifications and capability information provided by the Offerors, and any other information obtained by the Government through its own research.” Can USAID elaborate on what “any other information obtained by the Government through its own research” entails, the process by which USAID will conduct this research, and how research or analysis resulting from this research will apply to specific evaluation criteria and which evaluation criteria?

● USAID will not provide additional information beyond what was included in the RFP.

31. B.1 Purpose (pg. 4) and C.1 Purpose (pg. 9). B.1 Purpose states “The purpose of this contract is to provide technical services, and the C.1 Purpose states that “The services or supplies acquired and directed under the resulting contract will enable the Bureau for Democracy, https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2024-07/DigitalPolicy_USAID_FINAL_24JUL.pdf

Human Rights, and Governance (DRG) to implement activities under the Advancing Digital

Democracy (ADD) initiative.” However, there is no additional detail as to the type of supplies USAID anticipates to acquire or direct. Could USAID share information related to the nature of these supplies to be acquired, define “supplies” to be directed under the ADD

Program, and/or the objective(s) or goal(s) to be achieved related to these supplies? Or could

USAID confirm that USAID does not anticipate directing the contractor to procure “supplies” under this contract?

Ans.

● USAID does not anticipate directing the contractor to procure “supplies” under this contract other than supplies incidental to the performance of the technical requirements.

32. M.1 General Information (pg. 108). “The most important factors are the Illustrative Designs

(FACTOR 1) and the Programmatic Approach and Institutional Capacity (FACTOR 2) in

Phase One.” a. Can USAID please clarify whether these factors are weighted equally or whether one factor is weighted more than the other? b. Given that USAID has included a case study for illustrative purposes in its evaluation of offers, and that it has chosen Kenya rather than provide an illustrative scenario, the potential exists for major inequities in the evaluation of Offeror’s bids solely due to the specific country USAID has chosen and Offeror’s relative experience in that country that may have little to do with an Offeror’s ability to perform the requirements in Section C. In light of this, would USAID consider weighing Factor 2 more heavily than Factor 1? c. Given that select Offerors may have access to additional relevant information produced under previous or existing USAID activities they are implementing in or related to Kenya that may not be publicly available or uploaded on the DEC, and therefore would prevent Offerors from having equitable access to relevant information pertaining to the case study scenarios, would USAID please provide all relevant research or analytic documents or reports produced under previous or existing USAID activities related to digital democracy, digital repression, digital authoritarianism, internet freedom, information manipulation, cybersecurity, digital surveillance, censorship, internet shutdowns, or e-governance in Kenya (e.g., analysis or reports from the Greater Internet Freedom activity, Digital APEX activity, Transform (TFGBV activity), SEGA, LER, LER 2 and/or the most recent DRG Strategic Assessment Framework Report in Kenya, etc.)?

Ans.

● Factors 1 and 2 are listed in descending order of importance and therefore not weighted equally.

● USAID will not evaluate offerors on the basis of their knowledge of or experience in

Kenya. Evaluation will be limited to the Factors set forth in the RFP.

33. C4: Will Level I activities include buy-ins from country level USAID-Missions?

● Individual USAID-Missions could buy-in for Level I activities, however, the scope of such activities would be limited to the description of Level I activities set forth in the

RFP.

34. L.6: Should the budget be broken by Level 1 and Level 2 activities?

● Note that CLIN numbers for Year 5 have been corrected in the RFP to read 4001, 4002, and 4003. The budget can be broken down by Level 1 and Level 2 activities as follows:

○ CLIN 0001–Level 1 activities

○ CLIN 0002-Level 2 activities

○ CLIN 1001–Level 1 Activities

○ CLIN 1002–Level 2 Activities

○ CLIN 2001–Level 1 Activities

○ CLIN 2002–Level 2 Activities

○ CLIN 3001–Level 1 Activities

○ CLIN 3002–Level 2 Activities

○ CLIN 4001–Level 1 Activities

○ CLIN 4002–Level 2 Activities

35. C.4: How many analytical tasks, DECAs, and workshops/etc. do you anticipate annually?

● As described in the RFP, “Level I activities must be determined by USAID in partnership with the Contractor and in consultation with local digital stakeholders. The scale of these activities will be determined by the availability of funds for Level I activities on an annual basis and specified in the Annual Work Plan.”

36. C.4 and F.3: How will ADD select the focus countries annually?

● As described in the RFP, “Level II activities must be primarily implemented in ADD

Focus Countries that are selected by USAID in consultation with the Contractor and other stakeholders…ADD Focus Countries will be re-evaluated on an annual basis and the number of ADD countries may increase or decrease over the life of the Contract depending upon availability of funds. This must be reflected each year in the Annual

Work Plan and Budget.”

37. C.4 and F.3: What criteria will be used to select the focus countries?

● Selection of ADD focus countries is a policy decision made by USAID consistent with agency procedures. The current ADD focus countries, as specified in the RFP, are Peru, South Africa and Armenia.

38. M.2 and M.4: Are each factor equal weight?

● As stated in the RFP, “ The most important factors are the Illustrative Designs (FACTOR

1) and the Programmatic Approach and Institutional Capacity (FACTOR 2) in Phase

One. • The Oral Presentation (FACTOR 3) and the Management Approach (FACTOR 4) in Phase Two are of equal importance but are both slightly less important than Factors 1 and 2.”

● USAID additionally notes that Factor 1 and Factor 2 are listed in descending order of importance and not equally weighted. The RFP has been revised to reflect this additional note.

39. M.2: Are the bullet points under each factor of equal weight?

● Yes, each bullet point under each factor will be equally important among other bullet points within the corresponding factor.

40. M.2: Are the bullet points under each factor fully inclusive of the evaluation criteria?

● Please see response to question #39 above.

41. M.4: Are the clauses in each of the compound sentences under each factor of equal weight?

42. M.4: Are the clauses in each of the compound sentences fully inclusive of the evaluation criteria?

43. C.4: The RFP contains this description of additional potential SO1.2 activities "[t]his may include support for infrastructure, hardware and/or software as appropriate." Can USAID confirm/clarify if hardware or software procurement on behalf of beneficiaries is required or envisioned under ADD activities?

● As stated in the RFP, SO1.2 activities, “may include” this support.

44. Section L.7 under the Illustrative Program Design component (page 96) notes that “The design will consist of Level II activities as described in Section C.4 of this RFP.” Would

USAID please confirm that offerors are not expected to address additional activities described in Section C.4 in the Illustrative Program Designs as part of Phase One?

Ans.

● The inclusion of additional activities in the Illustrative Program Design is a decision to be made by the offeror, not by USAID.

45. Section L.8.3(a).1 (page 98) concerning contractor performance information states that the offeror must “list in an annex to the technical proposal up to 10 of the most recent, within the last three years, and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal.”

Would USAID consider allowing offerors to feature projects that ended in the last five years within the Phase Two submission?

● The RFP specifies “the last three years.”

46. Section L.8.3(a).1 (page 98) states that half of the past performance references must be references for the prime. If the offeror has no major subcontractors, could USAID confirm that offerors are only expected to provide five past performance references within the Phase

Two submission?

47. Section L.8.3(c) (page 98) asks offerors to “describe any quality awards or certifications that indicate exceptional capacity to provide the service or product described in the statement of work.” Attachment J.5 also asks offerors to describe any quality awards or certifications by project. Could USAID confirm that offerors are only expected to describe quality awards or certifications in a separate narrative within Microsoft Word as part of the Contract

Performance Information annex and are not expected to provide this information in the three-page-limited description for each discrete contract listed in Attachment J.5 within the Phase

Two submission?

48. Can USAID provide all documents and reports related to the announcement of the ADD

Academy on March 17, 2024, 3rd Summit for Democracy that will help support the ADD

Academy Level 1 Activity and Objective 3 Core Activity?

● There are no documents or reports related to the announcement of ADD Academy.

49. Will the Government allow offerors submit the Technical Proposal Volumes in PDF format?

● Offerors may submit their technical proposal in Microsoft Word or PDF.

Cost or Budget

1. Section F.6, on page 30 of the RFP states, “In order to understand the magnitude of USAID’s requirement, the Government estimates sixty-four thousand and five hundred and forty-six

(64,546) professional technical staff person days [level of effort] (LOE) (this is an estimate only).” To aid the development of the cost proposal and align it with the LOE breakdown requested for the program designs in Phase 1, can USAID provide the ceiling value in dollars of the award and/or confirm that the final LOE for the five years of the award will be 64,546 days?

● The estimated LOE for the five years of the award will be 64,546 days.

2. Section B.4.1., page 6, provides grants under contract (GUC) plugs for each year, for a total of $21 million; however, Section C.6, page 24 states, “USAID anticipates awarding up to $20 million through grants under contract, which will be critical for achieving Sub Objectives across all three program Objectives.” Could USAID please clarify the GUC amount?

Ans.

● Thanks, USAID has edited Section B.4.1 to correct the computational error such that the total in both Sections now match.

3. Section F.6, page 30, states, “The Contractor must provide the LOE of professional technical employees (not including subcontractors) for the contract period of performance specified in

Section F.2 above.” Considering that USAID encourages subcontracting with U.S. small businesses and local stakeholders, having partners contributing to the professional technical

LOE is important. Would USAID allow the LOE estimate (64,546 days) in Section F.6 to include the LOE of subcontractors and consultants?

Ans.

● For clarification, subcontractors and consultants can perform part of the LOE, as determined by the offeror.

4. Could USAID clarify in which section of the cost proposal offerors should include the LOE table presented in Section F.6(a), page 30?

● The LOE table in F.6(a) should be submitted as an attachment to the cost proposal.

5. For buy-in components, could USAID please allow offerors to present their budgets as an aggregated total, as opposed to a separate budget for each focus country (e.g., separate budgets for Peru, Armenia, and South Africa)?

● Offerors may present their budget as an aggregated total.

6. In the table under Section F.6(a), CCN and TCN are grouped together, whereas we understand, based on AIDAR 722.170, that compensation for TCNs is treated the same as for

CCNs unless approved by the Mission Director. In practice, however, offerors always budget expatriates and TCNs together, assuming the TCNs will receive waivers to propose salary rates above established salary rates for CCNs’ comparable work. Could USAID consider revising the table and combining TCNs with expatriates for LOE-tracking purposes?

● Yes, additionally the table in Section F.6(a) has been revised.

7. Section M.6 of the RFP states that offerors must provide past performance information for each “major subcontractor,” defined as “one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost.” To ensure accurate reporting, please clarify whether the 20% threshold for determining “major subcontractor” status is calculated based on the following:

The total proposed cost for the base year (Year 1) of the contract, or 3 / 3

The total proposed cost for the entire five-year period of performance, including all option years

● It’s based on the total cost for each contract year.

8. The budget format in Section L.9(b)(1) has two lines for fixed fee excluding GUC and fee on

GUC. Considering that the contract type is CPFF term, in which a fixed fee is earned based on the LOE provided, please confirm that the fee can be presented as a single line.

Ans.

● No, but if the offeror’s indirect cost rate does not allow charging a GUC management fee please leave the GUC fee line blank. Note: Offerors that charge GUC management fee must make sure the fee charged is not counted twice as it is supposed to be included as part of their indirect cost.

9. Section B.4, pages 4-6: Would USAID please provide a ceiling amount or range for the total cost-plus fixed fee of this award over the full potential period of performance, in keeping with other recent procurements for comparable global CPFF-Term contract structure buy-in programs?

● This is a CPFF-Term RFP, no range or ceiling will be provided.

10. Section B.4.1, pages 6-7: The Cost Element table on page 100 of the RFP includes Line 16 for “Fee on GUCs”. For offerors proposing a fee on GUCs, please clarify how offerors should present that fee at the CLIN level. For example, should offerors include any fixed fee associated with Grants under Contract within CLIN 0003, 1003, etc. or in a different line item? Or, in keeping with the CPFF-Term structure, would USAID consider creating a separate fixed fee CLIN that captures total fixed fee amount across Level 1, Level 2, and

GUC activities?

Ans.

● Only offerors that have GUC management fee in their NICRA (indirect rates) are allowed to charge fee on the GUC. Such fee, where applicable, is to be included in the offeror’s indirect cost.

11. Section B.4.1, pages 6-7: Since Grants Under Contract is presented as a separate CLIN, please confirm that USAID anticipates the Advancing Digital Democracy Activity will issue

Grants Under Contract as part of both Level 1/Core Component and Level 2/Buy-In

Component activities.

12. Section B.4.1, pages 6-7 and Section C.4, pages 13-14: Please confirm that offerors should budget for “Level I Activities Supplied Through the Global Mechanism” under CLIN 0001, 1001, etc. (Core Component).

● Correct. See Question 34 above.

13. Section B.4.1, pages 6-7 and Section C.4, pages 14-23: Please confirm that offerors should budget for “Level II Support Supplied in ADD Focus Countries” under CLIN 0002, 1002, etc. (Buy-In Component).

● Correct. See Question 34 above.

14. Section B.4.1, pages 6-7 and Section L.9, pages 99-106: The number of ADD Focus

Countries/buy-ins is unknown at this time, as is duration of each buy-in activities, the level of funding available, and whether USAID will include additional SO-level activities beyond the core required activities in each buy-in (C.5 notes “Each mission buy-in would identify the specific services requested and the related budget for those services”). Therefore, we kindly request that USAID provide plug figures and an LOE estimate for the Buy-In Component

CLIN to ensure comparability across offers, rather than requiring a detailed budget submission for work at the Buy-In Component level.

● USAID will not provide plug figures. However, the RFP has been revised to provide estimated LOE for the full period of performance for Level I and Level II activities as follows:

○ Level I activities LOE: 6,043

○ Level II activities LOE: 58,503

15. Section B.4.1, pages 6-7: To guide offerors in allocating LOE and budgeting for other direct costs, does USAID intend that a certain percentage of total funds is allocated to the Core

Component CLIN and to the Buy-In Component CLIN?

● Please see Questions 34 and 14 above.

16. Section B.4.1, pages 6-7 and Section C.6, page 24: RFP Section C.6 states that “USAID anticipates awarding up to $20 million through grants under contract”. However, the sum amount for Grants under Contract across CLINs 0003, 1003, 2003, 3003, and 4003 is $21 million. Would USAID please clarify the envisioned amount of grant under contract awards, revising Section B.4.1 as needed?

● Please see the response to question #2 above.

17. Section B.4.1, pages 6-7: Would USAID please confirm that under Option Period 4 (Contract

Year 5) the listed CLINs should read CLIN 4001, 4002, 4003, revising the table as needed?

● Yes. The RFP has been revised.

18. Section C.5, page 23: The RFP states that “The Activity ceiling will provide sufficient room for USAID missions to buy-in for more specific services under one or more of the activity objective areas.” Would USAID please provide the Activity ceiling?

Ans.

● The activity ceiling may be impacted by USAID mission buy-ins and has not been included in the RFP.

19. Section F.6, page 30: The RFP states that “the Government estimates sixty-four thousand and five hundred and forty-six (64,546) professional technical staff person days LOE.” Did

USAID make this estimate assuming a 260-day LOE working year? Or a “productive days”

240-day LOE working year?

● 260 per year.

20. Section F.6, page 30: The RFP states that “the Government estimates sixty-four thousand and five hundred and forty-six (64,546) professional technical staff person days LOE.” Does this

LOE estimate apply to both the Core Component/CLIN and the Buy-In Component CLIN? If so, we kindly request that USAID provide separate LOE estimates for each CLIN, considering the difficulties in estimating LOE for Buy-In Component/Level 2 activities when the number of ADD Focus Countries/buy-ins over five years is unknown, as is duration of each buy-in activities, the level of funding available, and whether USAID will include additional SO-level activities beyond the core required activities in each buy-in.

● Please see response to Questions 34 and 14 above.

21. Section F.8, pages 31-33: Please confirm that offerors should budget for resources required to complete required plans and deliverables under the Core Component CLIN.

● Please see response to Questions 34 and 14 above for additional guidance.

22. Section L.9.b.1.i, page 100: May offerors revise the budget by cost element presentation to align with their CAS, for example including Overhead (4) within Indirect Costs (13)?

● No, offerors should not revise the budget structure as presented in the RFP.

23. Section L.9. b.1.ii, pages 100-101 and Section…