Amendment 0001 Attachment 1 Questions and Answers.pdf

Questions and Answers List

Amendment 01, Request for Proposals: Solicitation 72011422R00004, USAID Resilient Communities Program

Attachment 1

No. Questions Answers

1 Section C.1 (p. C-1) lists the objectives of the program as: 1.

Build the capacity of communities to lead their own socio-economic development, including building their own ability to mitigate, adapt to, and recover from stresses and shocks; 2.

Strengthen micro and small enterprises in preparation for improved market opportunities; 3. Integrate enterprises from target communities into wider Georgian markets and potentially international market systems; 4. Attract investments in or near target communities to accelerate micro, small, and medium enterprise (MSME) growth and to diversify the economy; 5.

Respond to the dynamic development context

Section C.4 (p. C-6) lists the objectives of the program as: 1.

Targeted communities have increased cohesion and increased resilience to economic, social, and environmental shocks; 2.

Increased integration of MSMEs in targeted communities into the regional and national markets; 3. Improved productivity of micro and small enterprises (MSEs); 4. Increased private investment in or near ABL communities to accelerate small and medium enterprises’ growth and diversify the economy; 5.

Response to the dynamic development context

Would USAID please confirm which set of objectives offerors should follow?

The Solicitation is revised to match the language of the objectives in C1 with the objectives in C4. Please see revised Solicitation.

Offerors must follow the objectives listed under Section C-4.

1. Targeted communities have increased cohesion and increased resilience to economic, social and environmental shocks.

2. Increased integration of MSMEs in targeted communities into the regional and national markets.

3. Improved productivity of micro and small enterprises

4. Increased private investment in or near ABL communities to accelerate

Small and medium Enterprise’s growth and diversify the economy; and

5. Respond to the dynamic development context.

2 Section C.3 (p. C-6) of the RFP notes that a “list of primary target communities is attached in Annex A of this scope of work.” However, this annex does not appear to be enclosed with the solicitation. Could USAID please provide it?

List of primary target communities is attached. It is the same list that was included in the Request for Information (RFI) document.

3 In Section C.4, some of the objectives reference MSEs, while others reference MSMEs, and others reference small and medium enterprises (SMEs) only. Could USAID please confirm if it is using the micro, small, and medium enterprise categories to define the target beneficiaries for interventions under each objective?

Yes, USAID is using the micro, small, and medium enterprise categories to define target beneficiaries. Different objectives might prioritize different enterprises, hence the differences in the references.

4 The narrative for Objective 2 ends unfinished on p. C-8. Would

USAID please provide the remaining guidance under that objective?

“…by supporting selected clusters and value-chains.”

Please see revised Solicitation.

5 In Section C.5 and in the Results Table in Section C.6, could

USAID please replace “cost-share” with “leverage”? Section

C.5 requires that $7 million of the $9 million GUC fund be used for cost-share grants. Rather than requiring cost-sharing/matching, we propose that USAID require leveraging, which can take a variety of forms (anything of value that is measured, such as financial contributions, third party contributions, or donated services or property). We agree with the need for partner buy-in and believe leveraging instead of cost-sharing would better promote USAID’s goal of sustainable economic development, given the limitations and management demands surrounding cost-share. Per 2 CFR 200.201 (b)(2), FAAs may not be used under a cost-share program. The inability to use the FAA mechanism on $7 million of the $9 million GUC fund would significantly slow down implementation and limit the potential pool of grantees; many potential grantees may not have sufficient systems in place to qualify for cost reimbursement or advance-type grants. We are concerned that a cost-share requirement may discourage organizations who do not have the resources or financial qualifications for a cost-reimbursement grant from applying. The FAA Entity Eligibility checklist was developed in part to address these concerns and to provide a streamlined mechanism that focuses on the outcomes and outputs rather than the financial aspect of the program.

Furthermore, the receipts and backup documentation required to substantiate cost-share, which are subject to audit, can distract

References to “cost-share” are replaced with “leverage”.

from grantees accomplishing their objectives. By changing the requirement in the RFP from cost-share/matching to leveraging, offerors will have the opportunity to present their approaches for ensuring that grantee buy-in requirements are met and verified throughout implementation to best promote USAID’s goal of sustainable economic development.

6 Would USAID kindly confirm its definition of households under target result No. 8 in Section C.6 (p. C-12)?

USAID uses the following definition: “A household is a person or a small group of persons who share the same living accommodation, and pool some, or all of their income and wealth and who consume certain types of goods and services collectively, mainly housing and food”.

7 Section C.7 (p. C-13) notes that there is a sector analysis due within 90 days and a Market Systems Analysis due within 120 days. It also states that a detailed work plan should be based on the results of these analyses. However, Section F.6 (pg. F-2) states that the first annual work plan is due 60 days after award.

Could USAID please adjust the work plan deadline to ensure that the awardee may incorporate the results?

The first annual work plan is due after the award in 60 days. This work plan will include the plans of conducting these and any other analysis identified as needed by the offeror. The first-year work plan will not be based on the findings of these analyses, but the work plans for subsequent years must incorporate those results.

8 Section L.4.(e)(2) (p. L-6) requires offerors to complete the

“Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of

Offerors” in Section K. Section L.5 (p. L-6) states, “For Section

K, Offerors shall comply with FAR Clause 52.204-7, System for

Award Management and complete the annual representations and certifications electronically via the Online Representations and Certifications and other Statements of Offerors website at via the System for Award Management.” Would USAID please clarify whether offerors should submit a completed Section K in the cost proposal or whether being registered in the System for

Award Management satisfies the requirements of this bid?

Offerors should submit a completed Section K in the cost proposal.

9 Section L.5 (p. L-6) states that “the proposal must be accompanied by a cover letter typed on official organizational letterhead and signed by a person who has signatory authority for the organization,” but Section L.6 (p. L-7) allows offerors to include an executive summary instead. Would USAID please

As described in Section L.6, offerors must submit:

1. Cover Page (Limited to one page and does not count against page limit)

2. Cover Letter or Executive Summary (Limited to two pages and does not count against page limit) confirm that offerors may submit either a cover letter or an executive summary as part of the technical proposal?

10 Section L.6 (p. L-7) does not include an acronym list as part of the technical proposal. Would USAID kindly confirm that offerors may include an acronym list as part of the technical proposal and that the acronym list will not count against the page limit?

Yes, offerors may include an acronym list, which will not count against the page limit.

11 Section L.6 states: “Technical proposal is limited to 20 pages.”

Later in the same section, it states, “any pages beyond these thirty will NOT be given to the evaluators.” L.6 also does not provide page limits for the Past Performance section of the body of the technical proposal. Furthermore, L.6 states that the

Management Structure Chart has no page limit and the Project

List and Past Performance References are limited to 3 pages, and it does not confirm whether these annexes are included in the overall page limitations for the technical proposal. Would

USAID please clarify the page limit for the overall technical proposal and confirm which sections and annexes are to be included in the page limit?

Clarification on page limitations:

Technical Proposal: maximum 20 pages

● Technical Approach: maximum 15 pages

● Management and Staffing Approach: maximum 5 pages

Please see below, in detail, the required order of the Technical Proposal sections and their respective page limitations:

1. Cover Page (maximum 1 page; does not count against the overall 20-page limit of the Technical Proposal)

2. Cover Letter or Executive Summary (maximum 2 pages; does not count against the overall 20-page limitation of the Technical Proposal)

3. Table of Contents (no page limitation; does not count against the overall 20-page limit of the Technical Proposal)

4. List of Acronyms (no page limitation; does not count against the overall 20-page limit of the Technical Proposal)

5. Technical Approach (maximum 15 pages; NOTE: a maximum 1-page Results

Table must be included, but it does not count against the 15-page limitation of the Technical Approach)

a) Understanding and Approach

b) Description of Activities

6. Management and Staffing Approach (maximum 5 five pages)

a) Management Approach

b) Qualifications and Experience of Personnel

c) Staffing Plan

7. Past Performance

● Narrative (maximum 3 pages; does not count against the overall 20-page limit of the Technical Proposal)

8. Required Annexes – subject to following page limitations (Annex page limits do not count against the overall 20-page limit of the Technical Proposal):

a) Management Structure Chart (no page limit)

b) Resumes for key personnel (maximum 4 pages for each person)

c) Letter of Commitment for Key Personnel (maximum 1 page)

d) Project List (same as Past Performance Information Matrix;

maximum 3 pages) and Past Performance References (maximum 3 pages)

e) Chart showing illustrative first-year activities (maximum 3 page)

f) Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan (not required with the initial proposal)

Answers to other questions:

May offerors include an acronym list that does not count toward the

20-page limit? Yes.

May offerors use a 10-point font for textboxes in addition to charts, tables, and graphs? Yes.

May offerors use a font other than Times New Roman for charts, graphs, tables, textboxes, and graphics? Yes.

12 Section L.6.3(d)(3)(B) (p. L-11) states that offerors should

“provide a list of recent contracts for which you submitted subcontract reports to eSRS (FAR 52.219-9(d)(10) and a copy of any similarly recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS.” To avoid adding dozens of pages to the technical volume, would USAID confirm that offerors may provide a list of the 5 most recent contracts and 5 most recent reports? Additionally, would USAID please confirm that the list of contracts and subcontracting report copies will not count against the page limit?

1. Offerors may provide a list of the 5 most recent contracts and 5 most recent subcontracting reports.

2. List of contracts and subcontracting report copies will not count against the page limit.

13 Section B.6 Payment on Fixed Fee, page 10: the RFP states that

“the Government shall pay the Contractor the fixed fee specified

Fixed fee will be negotiated with the apparent successful offeror and stated in the

Schedule of the resulting contract at the award stage.

in the Schedule for performing this contract.” Could USAID please clarify what is meant by Schedule in this case?

14 Section C.1 Introduction, page C-1: Section C.1 lists Objective 2 as “Improved productivity of micro and small enterprises

(MSEs)” and Objective 3 as “Increased integration of MSMEs in targeted communities into the regional and national markets.”

However, Section C.4 lists Objective 2 as “Increased integration of MSMEs in targeted communities into the regional and national markets” and Objective 3 as “Improved Productivity of

Micro and Small Enterprises (MSE).” Can USAID please confirm the desired order of Objectives 2 and 3?

Offerors must follow the order and formulation of Objectives in section C.4.

Please see answer to Question 1 and revised Solicitation.

15 Section C.3 Scope of Work, page C-16: USAID states that a map of the target communities is attached as Annex A; can

USAID confirm it is the same map published with the RFI or provide an updated map?

16 C.4 Detailed Work Requirements, page C-8: USAID includes the following incomplete sentence: “The Contractor must make catalytic use of resources to build linkages to viable markets including but not limited to: competitive matching grants, technical assistance, consultations, or any other interventions to improve and address the market system’s gaps, shortcomings or failures by supporting…” Could USAID please provide the complete sentence?

“…by supporting selected clusters and value-chains.”

17 Section C.5, Approach to Providing Cost-share Grants &

Leveraging Investment, page C-10: Would USAID consider allowing offerors to repurpose the $2M meant to facilitate co-investment of the $9M Grants Under Contract budget line item to other mechanisms which have proven effective in de-risking and facilitating private sector investment, such as subcontracts, purchase orders, and technical assistance?”

No.

18 Section C.5.2 Co-investment, page C-11: Would USAID please provide a copy of the MOUs with its existing strategic private sector partners mentioned on page 21, British Petroleum and the

Adjara Group?

USAID is working on this question. If copies of MOUs will be publicly available, we will issue an amendment to this Solicitation.

19 Section L.6 Instructions for Preparation of Technical Proposal, page L-7:

o USAID notes that the “(t)echnical proposal is limited to 20 pages […].” However, USAID subsequently notes that “Any pages beyond these thirty will NOT be given to the evaluators and will not be evaluated.” Can USAID please confirm that the reference to “thirty” pages is in error?

o May offerors include an acronym list that does not count toward the 20-page limit?

o May offerors use a 10-point font for textboxes in addition to charts, tables, and graphs?

o May offerors use a font other than Times New

Roman for charts, graphs, tables, textboxes, and graphics?

o The list of required annexes indicates that the chart of illustrative first-year activities is included in the 20-page limit. Yet later in section L.6., the text indicates that the table does not count against the page limit. Can USAID please confirm that the table of first-year activities does not count against the 20-page limit?

See response to question 11 above and revised Solicitation.

20 Section L.6 Instructions for Preparation of Technical Proposal, pages L-7 – L-8:

o The “Required Order of the Technical Proposal” includes “6. Past Performance” as well as the

“Project List and Past Performance References” annex.

Please see answer to Question 11 and revised Solicitation.

▪ Can USAID please clarify if there is a page limit for the Past Performance section in the main body of the

Technical Proposal?

● If yes, can USAID confirm that this page limit will not count toward the 20-page limit of the

Technical Proposal?

● Can USAID please confirm that this section should include all required past performance information except for the Past

Performance Information

Matrix Sheet, which will be part of the annex?

● Alternatively, would USAID consider eliminating the Past

Performance section in the main Technical Proposal and include only the “Project List and Past Performance

References” annex?

▪ Can USAID please confirm that the

Past Performance Information Matrix

Sheet is to only include projects that are not listed in CPARS?

● If yes, can USAID please clarify what information is required for projects that are listed in CPARS?

▪ Can USAID please clarify if there is a limit on the number of projects offerors can list in the Project List and Past

Performance References annex?

Yes, maximum 3 pages.

Confirmed.

Yes.

No.

Please refer to Section L.6, 3. Past Performance (page L-10) of the RFP.

No, but the information must fit within the maximum 3-page limit of the Past

Performance Information Matrix Sheet.

21 Section L.6 Instructions for Preparation of Technical Proposal, pages L-10 – L-11:

1. Can USAID please confirm that offerors are not required to include projects to the Past Performance

Information Matrix Sheet (Attachment 3) if they are included in CPARS?

2. Does USAID have a limit for the number of projects offerors can include in the Past Performance

Information Matrix Sheet?

3. Can USAID please confirm that the Past Performance

Information Matrix is exempt from the software requirements (Word), paper size, margin, and font requirements?

1. Confirmed.

2. No. However, offerors should only include awards for efforts similar to the work required by this RFP. (Section L.6, 3. Past Performance, (a)1.)

In addition, the offeror’s Past Performance Information Matrix must not exceed the page limit of maximum 3 pages.

3. Confirmed. However, the offeror’s Past Performance Information Matrix must not exceed the page limit of maximum 3 pages. Offerors can use

Times New Roman, Font size 10.

Please see answer to Question 11 and revised Solicitation.

22 Section L.7 Instructions for Preparation and Submission of the

Cost/Business Proposal, Part 2 – Proposed Cost/Prices, page L-

14: The summary budget table includes two lines for Grants, with one line including the $9M for the grants program. Can

USAID please clarify the difference between these two Grants lines?

Only one line for Grants ($9m) should be included in the budget.

23 Section M.2 Technical Evaluation Criteria, C. Past Performance, Page M-4: Can USAID please confirm that a major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor whose total cost exceeds 20%, not 15%, of the offeror’s total cost, as defined elsewhere in the RFP (B.2, L.6.3, L.7.(b))?

A major subcontractor is considered one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost.

24 Attachment J.4 is listed as “Sample Budget Template CPFF” with no mandatory requirement to utilize the aforementioned budget template. Could USAID confirm that offerors have the flexibility to utilize their own budget templates as long as the required information listed in section L.7 is addressed?

Attached budget is for information purposes only. Offerors have the flexibility to utilize their own budget templates as long as the required information listed in section L.7 is addressed.

25 Could USAID confirm that offerors may follow their Cost

Accounting Standards with respect to budget development?

26 For budget and work planning purposes, would USAID please provide a tentative start date of the Program?

USAID expects the Program to start approximately in June 2022.

27 Page B-2, Section B.5 Indirect Cost states “Major

Subcontractor” is a subcontractor that is performing 20% or more of the contract”. Also, page L-10, Section L.6 Instruction for Preparation of the Technical Proposal, Sub-section 3. Past

Performance states “(a) The offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself, the contractor teaming arrangements, if any, and each major subcontractor (one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost)”. Page L-11, Section L.7

Instructions for Preparation and Submission of the Cost/Business

Proposal, Sub-section (b) Part 2 - Proposed Costs/Prices states “A major subcontractor is considered one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost”. However, page

M-4, Section M.2 Technical Evaluation Criteria, Sub-section C.

Past Performance states “A major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor named in the proposal whose total cost exceeds

15% of the offer’s bottom line total cost, including fixed fee.”

o Would USAID please confirm a major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor whose total cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s total estimated proposed cost?

28 Page C-6, Section states “The list of primary target communities is attached in Annex A of this scope of work.”

o Would USAID please provide Annex A?

29 Pages C-6 – C-9, Section C.4 Detailed Work Requirements shows that specific objectives focus on specific target beneficiaries, (e.g., Objective 2 works with MSMEs, while Objective 3 works with MSEs, and Objective 4 works with SMEs).

1. Yes, these are intentional.

2. The name of the indicator #6 is updated: “Number of MSMEs from target communities generating new sales from improved market integration”.

1. Would USAID please confirm this is intentional and the terms MSMEs, MSEs, and SMEs are not used interchangeably across the objectives and the rest of the

RFP?

2. If these terms are not used interchangeably, would

USAID please expand indicators No 6 (Number of micro and small enterprises from target communities generating new sales from improved market integration), and No 7 (Number of micro and small enterprises using improved practices in their production and marketing) on page C-12 to include micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs)?

The name of the indicator #7 is updated: “ Number of MSMEs using improved practices in their production and marketing “

30 Page C-9, Section C.4 Detailed Work Requirements states

Objective 4 as "Increased private investment in or near ABL communities to accelerate Small and Medium Enterprises’ growth and diversify the economy." However, the bullets under this Objective make mention of both private and public investment as well as institutional investors.

1. Would USAID please confirm that both public and private partners are acceptable in stimulating investment under this Objective?

2. Since some host government programs and/or some private sector partner investments could be leveraged to work with and advance small actors, would USAID please include micro enterprises in addition to small and medium enterprises in the target beneficiaries for

Objective 4?

3. If revised, would USAID please expand the language of

Objective 4 to reflect these changes?

1. Yes, the offeror must mobilize and attract both public and private investments for this Objective.

2. Micro enterprises are a focus of both Objective 2 and Objective 3, so investments from the public and private investors must be mobilized to stimulate micro enterprises under those two objectives. Objective 4 is not intended for micro enterprises.

3. No need to revise as micro enterprises are well covered in other

Objectives.

31 Page C-10, Section C.5 Approach to Providing Cost-Share Grants and Leveraging Investments states “This Program is expected to allocate no less than $9 million to direct investments towards the first four Program Objectives. …... With these funds, the project will advance the Objectives through two basic mechanisms, described below: cost-share grants directly with a beneficiary ($7 million), and co-investment with an institutional investor in a third-party/parties ($2 million).”

o Would USAID please confirm that the $2 million co-investment portion of the $9 million grant fund is not similarly subject to Grants Under

Contract considerations outlined on page H-20, Section H.39?

Since both mechanisms described in C.5, are grant mechanisms, they are both subject to the Grants Under Contract Considerations outlined in Section H.39.

32 Page C-12, Section C.6 Contract Deliverables provides a $6.5 million target for the “value of cost-share mobilized by the

Program, and grantees”.

o Would USAID please confirm the $6.5 million dollar value of cost-share mobilized by the

Program, and grantees in the results table is inclusive of the co-investment required under the $2 million co-investment fund?

Yes, a minimum of $6.5 million leverage must be mobilized by the Program, inclusive of all its activities.

33 Page C-13, Section C.7 Technical Guidelines and Considerations, Step One: Required Analysis first two bullets state "Within the first 90 days of the Program, the Contractor must identify the sectors, and one or several value-chains within each sector, with the highest potential of development for the communities and respective Municipalities. Furthermore, within 120 days from the start of the Program, the Contractor must produce a Market

Systems Analysis (MSA) for selected value-chains in targeted locations." Moreover, page C-13, Sub-section Step Two:

Flexible Plan, the first bullet states "Based on the results of these analyses, the Contractor must propose a detailed work plan."

However, page F-2, Section F.6 Reports and Deliverables table

The first annual work plan is due after the award in 60 days. This work plan will include the plans for conducting these and any other analyses identified as needed by the offeror. The first year work plan will not be based on the findings of these analyses, but the work plans for subsequent years must incorporate those results.

indicates that the first annual work plan will be due 60 days after award, and the Market Systems Analysis 120 days after award.

Would USAID please consider changing the timing of work plan submission, i.e., permitting submission of a draft first-year work plan after 60 days, with finalization after the completion of the Market Systems Analysis?

34 Page F-10, Section F.9 Key Personnel, Sub-section Chief of Party

(COP) qualifications states “Language capabilities: Fluency in

English (both verbal and written) is required. Proficiency in

Georgian is desirable but not required.” Moreover, page F-11, Section F.9 Key Personnel, Sub-sections Deputy Chief of Party

(DCOP) and Private Sector Engagement Advisor (PSEA) qualifications both state “Language capabilities: Fluency in

English and Georgian”.

o The language requirements for COP, DCOP, and

PSEA seem to favor local candidates for all three positions. To give more flexibility in staffing configurations allowing offerors to provide the best combination of technical and management expertise and linguistic skills:

▪ would USAID please consider adjusting the DCOP language requirement to

“Proficiency in Georgian is desirable but not required”? or alternatively,

▪ would USAID please consider adjusting the language requirements to have either the COP or the DCOP be fluent in

Georgian based on the offeror’s choice?

The revised Solicitation reflects the following changes:

Section F.9 Key Personnel, Sub-section Chief of Party (COP). Language capabilities: Fluency only in English (both verbal and written) is required.

Section F.9 Key Personnel, Sub-section Deputy Chief of Party (DCOP).

Language capabilities: Fluency in English and Georgian is required.

Section F.9 Key Personnel, Sub-section Private Sector Engagement Advisor

(PSEA). Language capabilities: Fluency in English and Georgian.

35 Page L-6, Section L.4 General Instructions to Offerors state that

“The Government may determine an offer to be unacceptable if the offer does not comply with all of the terms and conditions of the RFP and prospective contract: (1) Completion of Standard

Form 33, Blocks 12 through 18; (2) Completion of the

"Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of

Offerors should submit a completed Section K in the cost proposal.

Offerors" in Section K; and (3) Submission of information required by Section L or any other section of this RFP.” In addition, page L-6, Section Submission/Delivery Instructions states “For Section K, Offerors shall comply with FAR Clause

52.204-7, System for Award Management and complete the annual representations and certifications electronically via the

Online Representations and Certifications and other Statements of Offerors website at via the System for Award Management, www.sam.gov.”

Would USAID please confirm that offerors are not required to submit Section K - Representations, Certifications, and Other

Statements of Offerors as part of the Cost Proposal and that electronic submission is sufficient?

36 Page L-7, Section L.6 Instruction for Preparation of the Technical

Proposal states “Technical proposal is limited to 20 pages……

Any pages beyond these thirty will NOT be given to the evaluators and will not be evaluated. Required Annexes specified below will be counted towards the page limit.” Furthermore, the RFP provides the following page allocations for: “Technical Approach

(15-page limit); Management and Staffing Approach (5-page limit); and Required Annexes –subject to page limitation” that makes the body of the technical proposal, excluding annexes, within the 20-page limit.

o Would USAID please confirm the body of the technical proposal is allowed to be 20 pages excluding required annexes?

o Would USAID please confirm that required annexes have their own page limitations as listed on page L-8?

See response to Question 11 above and revised Solicitation.

37 Page L-7, Section L.6 Instruction for Preparation of the Technical

Proposal lists a Staffing Plan as one of the components of the 5-page Management Plan. While page L-9, Sub-section 2.

Management and Staffing Approach states "In support of the staffing approach narrative section, offerors must provide also a

The Staffing Plan must be in the body of the Management Plan and not in the annex.

See response to Question 11 above and revised Solicitation.

http://www.sam.gov/ staffing plan and resumes/CVs of key personnel and other important technical roles in an annex."

o Would USAID please confirm the staffing plan should be included as an annex and not in the body of the management plan?

38 Page L-8, Section L.6 Instruction for Preparation of the Technical

Proposal lists a Management Structure Chart as one of the required annexes.

o Would USAID please confirm whether this is an organizational chart?

o Would USAID please also clarify whether the

Management Structure Chart can include a staffing plan or a staffing matrix?

The Staffing Plan must be in the body of the Management Plan and not in the

Annex.

39 Page L-9, Section L.6 Instruction for Preparation of the Technical

Proposal, Sub-section 1. Technical Approach states “Section

Offerors should include the targets in the Results Table as described in Section C. ….. This table should be included within the Technical Approach and does not count against the page limit.” However, there is no dedicated annex for a Results Table in the Required Annex List on page L-7.

o Would USAID please add a required annex for a

Results Table to the Required Annex List and revise it accordingly?

A one-page Results Table must be included in the Technical Approach, but it will not be counted toward the 15-page limit. The Results Table will not be among the Annexes.

40 Page L-10, Section L.6 Instruction for Preparation of the

Technical Proposal, Sub-section 3. Past Performance states “For contracts not listed in CPARS, list in the Past Performance

Information Matrix Sheet (Attachment 3) contracts for efforts similar to the work required by this RFP. The most relevant indicators of performance are contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity.”

Offerors may submit past performance information for active and complete awards that are within three years of the completion of performance.

Confirmed, reference to “contracts” is replaced with “awards”

See revised Solicitation.

o Would USAID please clarify the timeframe for which offerors should submit their past performance information?

o Would USAID please confirm contracts in this context mean awards, so the offerors can submit information about relevant cooperative agreements with similar size, scope, and complexity as well?

41 Page L-10, Section L.6 Instruction for Preparation of the

Technical Proposal, Sub-section 3. Past Performance provides details on the submission of Attachment 3 – Past Performance

Information Matrix Sheet. Moreover, page L-7, Required Order of the Technical Proposal, bullet point d) Project List and Past

Performance References provides a 3-page limit for a section.

o Would USAID please confirm that standard past performance reference short forms are not required to be submitted under this solicitation?

● Past Performance Information Matrix (maximum 3 pages; does not count against the overall 20-page limit of the Technical Proposal)

● Past Performance Narrative (maximum 3 pages; does not count against the overall 20-page limit of the Technical Proposal)

42 Page L-10, Section L.6 Instruction for Preparation of the

Technical Proposal provides the Required Order of the Technical

Proposal that does not list a list of acronyms as one of the subsections.

Would USAID please consider adding a list of acronyms to the

Required Order of the Technical Proposal, not included in the 20-page limit?

Yes, offerors may include an acronym list, which will not count against the page limit.

43 Page L-11, Section L.6 Instruction for Preparation of the

Technical Proposal, Sub-section Past Performance states “(B) To supplement the narrative summary in (A), provide a list of the recent contracts for which you submitted subcontract reports to eSRS (FAR 52.219-9(d)(10) and a copy of any similarly recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS.”

o Would USAID please confirm the requirement of submitting a copy of any similarly recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS is part of Annex D: Project List and Past

Performance References and is not included in a

3-page limit?

o Would USAID please confirm that a 3-page limit for Annex D only pertains to a Past Performance

Information Matrix Sheet – Attachment 3 and a narrative write-up on Performance in Using

Small Business (SB) Concerns which are part of

Annex D?

44 Page L-11, Sector L.7 Instructions for Preparation and

Submission of the Cost/Business Proposal states “Cost/Business proposals must be written ……. And submitted in Microsoft Word, Adobe PDF, and Microsoft Excel with unlocked cells. The budget tables must be submitted in both PDF as well as MS Excel format files with cell formulas unlocked to allow for cost analysis.”

Would USAID please confirm that the entire combined

Cost/Business Proposal must be submitted in PDF format with budget files included in addition to the budget tables submitted in Excel format, and only a budget narrative must be submitted in MS Word format?

45 Page L-7 of the RFP states that the "technical proposal is limited to 20 pages" but it also notes, "Any pages beyond these thirty will NOT be given to the evaluators and will not be evaluated."

Can USAID please confirm that the technical proposal is limited to 20 pages, which is inclusive of the Technical Approach and

Management and Staffing Approach?

46 Page L-7 of the RFP, lists “6. Past Performance” as a requirement with no page limit.

1. Can USAID please confirm that the offeror may include a past performance narrative?

2. Can USAID please confirm that the narrative for d)

Performance in Using Small Business (SB) Concerns on page L-

10 and L-11 should be included in this narrative section?

1. Yes. Narrative (maximum 3 pages; does not count against the overall 20-page limit of the Technical Proposal)

2. Yes

47 Page L-10 of the RFP states that, “For contracts not listed in

CPARS, list in the Past Performance Information Matrix Sheet

(Attachment 3) contracts for efforts similar to the work required by this RFP. The most relevant indicators of performance are contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity.” As many offerors have recent and relevant past performance implementing cooperative agreements or other types of projects, we kindly request that USAID will allow offerors to include cooperative agreements in the Past Performance Information

Matrix Sheet.

Confirmed, reference to “contracts” is replaced with “awards”.

48 On page L-8, under required annexes for the technical proposal, the RFP references the “Project List and Past

Performance References (3 page limit).”

● Can USAID please confirm the Project List and Past Performance References refers to the

Past Performance Information Matrix Sheet

(Attachment 3)?

● Can USAID please confirm that offerors may include past performance references in addition to the past performance information matrix sheet?

49 Page M-4 of the RFP states, “A major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor named in the proposal whose total cost exceeds 15% of the offer’s bottom line total cost, including fixed fee. Page B-2 of the RFP states, “A “Major Subcontractor” is a subcontractor that is performing 20% or more of the contract.” And Page L-11 of the RFP states that, “A major subcontractor is considered one whose proposed cost exceeds

20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost.” Can USAID please provide the required threshold and percentage that defines a major subcontractor for this RFP?

50 Page L-8 of the RFP asks to provide a “Letter of Commitment for Key Personnel (Limited to one page and does not count against page limit)." Can USAID please confirm that offerors are to provide a one-page Letter of Commitment for each key personnel candidate?

Yes, that is correct.

51 In reference to nonprofit prime offerors and 2 CFR

200.101(a)(2), would USAID consider allowing foreign subcontractors that do not have NICRAs to use the 10% fixed de- minimis rate?

Yes. Offerors must comply with 2 CFR 200.414 regulations.

52 Considering that AIDAR 732.401 and ADS 636 provide authority and guidance, respectively, for advances to contractors where a contract includes a GUC program, can USAID confirm that they will allow Offerors with Letters of Credit (LOC) to use and make drawdowns from their LOC for disbursements to grantees?

In accordance with AIDAR 732.401 and ADS 636, Contractors authorized to award grants on behalf of USAID may use an LOC that specifically provides for making advances to the grantees.

53 Will USAID please consider allowing Letters of Support from resource organizations and collaborating partners to be included on page L-15 (e) Part 5 Letters of Commitment (Subcontractors) in addition to the letters of commitment from subcontractors?

Letters of Support may be included but will not be considered as a factor during evaluation.

54 USAID has indicated an approximate percentage of program resources to be used for each Objective. As the activities and grants under each component are driven by the offeror’s design and number of beneficiaries reached, may offerors propose their own percentage allocation of grants?

Yes, offerors can propose their own percentage.

55 Page C-6 of the RFP states, “The primary focus of the Program is to strengthen the resilience of up to 93 communities alongside the ABL (all Georgian government-administered territories adjacent to ABL) and potentially other communities of the country that are vulnerable to external malign influence. The list of primary target communities is attached in Annex A of this scope of work.” However, Annex A was not attached to the

RFP. Can USAID please confirm that Annex A is the same

Annex A from the RFI?

56 Page L-9 states that “Offerors should include the targets in the

Results Table as described in Section C…This table should be included within the Technical Approach and does not count against the page limit. In addition to the Results Table, may offerors include a Results Framework that also does not count against the page limit?

A one-page Results Table will be included in the Technical Approach (Section

5), but it will not count against the Technical Approach section's 15-page limit.

Offerors may include a results framework as part of their technical proposal and it will be counted against the 15-page limit.

57 May offerors include an acronym list that does not count against the page limit?

Yes, offerors may include an acronym list which will not count against the page limit.

58 The latest Zrda report submitted to DEC is the 2021 Q2

Quarterly report. Will USAID please share the 2021 Zrda annual report with offerors?

The 2021 Zrda Annual Report has been uploaded.

59 Page L-11, Section L.7(b) Part 2. states, “The offeror must provide a complete detailed budget, including the budgets for each subcontractor, by cost element. A major subcontractor is considered one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost.” Could USAID please clarify if offerors must provide a complete detailed budget for major subcontractors only?

60 On Page C-6, in the second paragraph, the RFP states that

"primary target communities is attached in Annex A of this scope of work." Annex A does not seem to be included in the original solicitation. Could USAID please provide the reference Annex

A?

61 On Page C-8, could USAID please complete the sentence at the end of the third full paragraph in any future revised RFP?

Please see response to question 4.

62 On Page C-12, Section C.6. Contract Deliverables, the Results chart states that the offeror must measure “improved employment.” Could USAID please define “improved employment” for the purposes of measurement in the Georgian context?

Please see revised Solicitation. “improved employment” is changed to “better employment”.

For guidance on “better employment” please refer to the Indicator Reference

Sheet (IRS) for USAID’s standard foreign assistance indicators.

63 On Page C-12, Section C.6. Contract Deliverables, the Results chart states that the offeror must achieve “20,000 households” and

“500 businesses” that will “benefit from improved infrastructure.” USAID uses the term “economic infrastructure” throughout the RFP. Could USAID please clarify or define

“economic infrastructure” as it relates to these results for

“improved infrastructure?”

Economic infrastructure is a broad category and might vary depending on the community context. The Offeror must prioritize improvement of the infrastructure with high impact on community socio-economic development and risk-readiness. Please refer to the page C-14 for more details and illustrative examples of the types of infrastructure that can be supported: “The Program must catalyze investments from central and local governments, businesses, and communities to address identified gaps in target communities. The Program must prioritize investments with high visibility and impact on socio-economic development and risk readiness. Specific interventions benefiting wider communities, such as the rehabilitation of productive economic infrastructure, improvement of public and economic services, building disaster risk reduction and readiness capabilities and related infrastructure, and introducing climate-sensitive actions, may all be supported. These interventions must deliver sustained improvements in the quality of life and economic well-being of people living in target communities. Priority must be given to creating opportunities for youth, women, and the poor, supporting the diversification of the rural economy and employment.

64 On Page C-12, Section C.6. Contract Deliverables, the Results chart states that the offeror must achieve “$4 mln in external, non-

Funds mobilized from public and private investors in addition to the USAID investment can be counted here. Yes, amounts mobilized through $2 million co-

USG funding mobilized for infrastructure projects. Depending on the offeror’s technical approach, would USAID allow the $2 million co-investment portion of the $9 million grant fund from institutional investors to be included as part of this Result?

investment grant fund can be counted, as long as funds are used for infrastructure.

65 On page C-14, Technical Approach Principles, can USAID provide any publicly available “COVID-19 pandemic lessons” that should guide offerors’ proposal development? Are there findings or lessons learned from ongoing USAID programs that we should be referencing?

Please see the Development Experience Clearinghouse - dec.usaid.gov

66 On Page L-7, Section L-6, the first paragraph states that the

"Technical proposal is limited to 20 pages" and then states that

"any pages beyond these thirty will NOT be given to the evaluators..." Could USAID please clarify the total number of pages for the technical proposal?

Please see response to question 11.

67 On Page L-9, Section 2: Management and Staffing Approach, states: “Offerors must describe the composition and organizational structure of the entire project team, including each proposed personnel’s role and technical expertise, home office functions and technical expertise.” Will USAID accept a matrix as part of the Management Structure Chart annex that addresses these points, separate from an organizational chart?

Offerors may include a matrix in this section but must ensure that all required information is included and conforms to page limits. This matrix, if included, will count towards the page limit for this section.

68 On Page L-10, Section 3: Past Performance, could USAID please clarify if there is a page limit for the past performance section of the proposal?

Yes, Section 3, Past Performance narrative section is limited to maximum 3 pages.

69 Could USAID please confirm that the offeror should be using the definition of MSMEs, MSEs and SMEs for the purposes of

Objectives 2, 3 and 4 activity development as defined by the

USAID Governing for Growth in Georgia “SME Test

Guidelines for Business Regulations” Final Report?

Yes, the offerors must use the definitions of MSMEs officially used by the Government of Georgia.

Page C-12, Section C.12. The results matrix deliverable number 4 states “..cost-share mobilized by the Program should be $6.5M.” Can USAID please define cost share and provide further elaboration of items not allowable under this cost share requirement?

Page C-12, Section C.12, the results matrix includes minimum expected deliverable targets. May offerors propose different illustrative targets?

Offerors cannot provide different illustrative targets. Targets must at a minimum meet the requirements provided in Section C, C.6 Contract Deliverables, Results

Table. Additional amounts provided by the offeror will become part of the resulting contract as deliverables. Note that offerors cannot add additional or change target lines to this table.

Page C-6, Section C.3 the solicitation states “…the list of primary target communities is attached in Annex A of this scope of work.” Could USAID please provide Annex A?

Page C-6, Section C. 3, the solicitation Indicates “The primary focus of the Program is to strengthen the resilience of up to 93 communities alongside the ABL (all GOG administered territories adjacent to ABL excluding occupied communities) and potentially other communities of the country that are vulnerable to external malign influence.”

Please confirm if this is inclusive of IDP communities.

The focus of this Program is the communities living within 10 km from the

Administrative Boundary Line. If IDPs are present in this zone, they are considered, otherwise not.

Page C-12. Section C.12. The results matrix deliverable 11 states “...value of external, non-USG-funding mobilized for infrastructure projects.” Can USAID please confirm if this is included in the catalyzed co-investment referenced on page

C-10 of the RFP, “ e.g., public and private investment funds, foundations, financial institutions, local and multinational corporations?”

Yes, it can be included.

Page L-7, section L.6, the solicitation states “…technical proposal is limited to 20 pages […] Any pages beyond these thirty will NOT be given to the evaluators and will not be evaluated.” Please confirm the total number of pages for technical proposal.

Please see response to Question 11.

76 Section C3 – scope of works, mentions up to 93 targeted communities adjacent to ABLs and indicates that “the list of primary target communities is attached in Annex A of this scope of work”, however, Annex is not attached. Is it possible to get the list of the 93 communities defined in the RFP?

77 Section C5 – defines that “The Program will build on lessons and best practices in partnering with existing strategic private sector partners while identifying new potential partners", is it possible to access public reports produced in the framework of previous

USAID funded projects around resilience strengthening in

Georgia?

Yes. See the Development Experience Clearinghouse: dec.usaid.gov

78 Section C5 – defines that “This Program is expected to allocate no less than $9 million to direct investments towards the first four

Program Objectives. The funding identified is over the life of the

Program. With these funds, the project will advance the

Objectives through two basic mechanisms, described below:

costs-share grants directly with a beneficiary ($7 million), and co-investment with an institutional investor in a third-party/parties

($2 million)”.

Please refer to Solicitation Section H.39 Considerations for Grants Under

Contract.

Can strengthening of CBOs (mentioned in objective 1: “The

Contractor will design and implement specific interventions to support community-led economic planning and advocacy efforts with governing institutions to improve public service delivery;

strengthen community-based organizations (CBOs)”) be meant under cost-share grants? Are there any legal modalities defined to be considered?

79 Section C. Objective 4. Defines the following: “Identify approaches to engage with and incentivize institutional investors

(e.g., public and private investment funds, investors, foundations, financial institutions, local and multinational corporations) and other private sector resource partners to provide catalytic capital support for economic development and diversification and ensure resilient enterprise-driven growth.”, in addition in the RFI shared in summer, establishment of Rural Development Fund was also mentioned.

Can the Contractor explore multiple need-based options on modalities for engagement which may not solely result in the establishment of a Fund as initially…