72011422R00006 Amendment 0001 - Attachment 1 - Questions and Answers.pdf

Amendment 01, Request for Proposals: Solicitation No. 72011422R00006, USAID Financial Innovation Program

Attachment 1, Questions and Answers List

No. Questions

Answers

1 Section L.5, Pg. L-6, Last Paragraph states that “The Business (Cost)

Proposal should present the price and address related issues such as past performance and responsivity”. However Section L.7 Cost proposal does not include a section for Past performance. Could USAID please confirm if it requires Past performance information to be included in the cost proposal and if yes where in which section.

Past performance information is Section 7. of the Technical Proposal.

Please see revised Solicitation.

Clarification on page limitation:

Technical Proposal: maximum 20 pages

● Technical Approach: maximum 15 pages

● Management and Staffing Approach: maximum 5 pages

Required order of the Technical Proposal sections and their respective page limitations:

1. Cover Page (limited to 1 page and does not count against the page limit)

2. Cover Letter or Executive Summary (limited to 2 pages and does not count against page limit)

3. Table of Contents (Does not count against page limit)

4. List of Acronyms (Does not count against page limit)

5. Technical Approach (maximum 15 pages)

a) Understanding and Approach

b) Description of Activities

6. Management and Staffing Approach (maximum 5 pages)

a) Management Approach

b) Qualifications and Experience of Personnel

c) Staffing Plan

7. Past Performance narrative (maximum 3 pages; does not count against page limit)

8. Required Annexes – subject to page limitation

a) Management Structure Chart (no page limit; does not count against the 5-page limit)

b) Résumés (Resumes for each identified individual:

maximum 3 pages for key personnel, and maximum 2 pages for non-key personnel; does not count against the

20-page limit)

c) Letter of Commitment for Key Personnel (maximum 1 page; does not count against page limit)

d) Project List and Past Performance References (same as the Past Performance Matrix, no page limit)

e) Gantt Chart showing illustrative first-year activities

(maximum 1 page; does not count against the 15-page

Technical Approach limit)

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

2 Section L.6 pg. L-7 point no. 6 Past performance and sub section 3 Past

Performance pg. L-10. Could USAID please elaborate as to what it envisions to be the content of the Past performance section in the main body of the Technical proposal – summary narrative versus a full on

Past performance reports or something else.

Offerors are required to submit a maximum 3-page Past Performance narrative in the main body (Section 7.) of the Technical Proposal.

3 Section L.6 pg. sub section 3 Past Performance – Point 1. pg. L-10, States that “Using the past performance matric included in Section J.

list an annex …. Five (5) of the most resent and relevant awards ….”

Could USAID please confirm if the Five awards are limited to the

Prime contractor, or is total for Prime and major sub.

Both the Prime and major subcontractors must submit past performance information.

4 Section L.6, 3. Past Performance, pg L-10. Can USAID kindly confirm that this section is the same as Section J, Attachment 3 and is not part of the total 20 pages (15 + 5 pages) allowed for the Technical

Approach (15 page limit) and Management and Staffing Approach

(5 page limit)?

Confirmed.

Offerors must submit a maximum 3-page Past Performance narrative in the main body of the Technical Proposal (Section 7.), as well as a

Project List and Past Performance References (same as the Past

Performance Matrix) (Section 8. Required Annexes, d)).

See answer to Q1 above and revised Solicitation.

5 Section L.6, pg L-7, the Cost/Business proposals must be typed on standard 8 1/2" x 11" paper. Would USAID allow submitting the budget tables in 11” x 17” format?

For the purposes of budget tables in PDF format and Microsoft Word format, the 11”x”17” format may be used.

6 Would USAID please advise if Offeror must submit a ceiling for their indirect rates? And if so, would that apply to major SUBs as well?

This requirement has been removed. Please see revised Solicitation.

7 Section L.6, pg L-7 listed the Section K as part of the cost proposal requirements, but there is no specific part of the cost proposal parts that is assigned to Section K. Can USAID advise if Section K is required from offeror, and subcontractors?

Section K information is required and should be submitted as part of the cost/business section of the proposal for both prime offeror and major subcontractors.

8 Section L.6, 1. Technical Approach, C., pg L-8, indicates “The offeror must provide a conceptual approach to identifying potential financial technology solutions that meet the needs of the private sector, including how to incentivize the development and/or deployment of new financial technology solutions. The approach must include a detailed strategy on how a wide array of private sector partners will be identified and engaged to help develop and/or deploy financial technology solutions.” However, Section C., Outcome 1.2, pg C-8 states, “Within

12 months of contract award, the Contractor must develop a strategy for the development or adoption and implementation of at least one locally developed financial technology (fintech) solution that addresses the needs of the Georgian private sector. The strategy must detail how a diverse selection of private sector partners will be identified and engaged to help develop and/or deploy solutions.” Can USAID kindly clarify how these two strategies are differentiated?

This is the same strategy. It is first referenced in C.4. Components as an outcome under Component 1. It is then referenced again in Section L.6 to ensure that Offerors include a description of how this strategy will be developed as part of their technical approach narrative.

9 Section L.6, 1. Technical Approach, F., pg L-9, “The offeror’s proposal must provide an approach and methodology for the use of a pool of

$6.0 million in grants in order to meet Program target. The approach must clearly describe how an investment mobilization platform will be designed … and how the platform will help fill specified gaps in the

Offerors are not expected to provide in-depth detail of these gaps in the proposal, as these indeed will be identified through the Root Cause

Analysis. However, Offerors are expected to clearly articulate the purpose of the platform, and an approach to defining key operational parameters must be included, such as selection criteria, leverage

Georgian financial ecosystem.” However, Section C., Outcome 3.1, pg

C-13. states the

“Within 180 calendar days of contract award, the Contractor must present a strategy for the development and implementation of an investment mobilization platform [and]… the strategy should identify the gaps in the Georgian financial ecosystem that the platform will help fill and the methodology for doing so.” Can USAID kindly clarify what level of specification it expects in the proposal while addressing

“how the platform will help specified gaps in the Georgian financial ecosystem,” given that the Strategy to be submitted within 180 days of award will address gaps identified by the Landscape Assessment and

Root Cause Analysis to be conducted during the implementation?

amounts, and pay-for-performance specifications, along with how private capital mobilization targets will be determined.

Please see revised solicitation

10 Who is they [sic] key counterpart in the Government for this program?

Key GoG counterparts include the Ministry of Economy and Sustainable

Development, the National Bank of Georgia, and the Ministry of

Finance.

11 Is there flexibility in changing position descriptions and the number of key personnel?

Offerors are encouraged to present a management plan that is best able to achieve the goals of the program. Offerors may propose key personnel in addition to the three key personnel positions already listed in the

Solicitation (COP, DCOP and Senior Finance Advisor).

12 What is the intended resource allocation across the different components?

Offerors are encouraged to allocate resources across the three components in order to achieve the identified goals and objectives of the program. Offerors are encouraged to be flexible in their approach.

13 Is there flexibility in the geographic area code?

The Geographic Code for this procurement remains 937 and 110.

USAID may consider exceptions during implementation in specific, isolated cases where justified.

14 What is the exact definition of SME that USAID has for this solicitation?

Offerors must use the definitions of MSMEs officially used by the

Government of Georgia. Please see USAID’s “SME Test Guidelines for

Business Regulations, Final Report: USAID Governing for Growth

(G4G) in Georgia,” April 10, 2019, at https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00TZH8.pdf

Please see revised Solicitation, Section C.3.

15 In our experience in Georgia, as well as across global emerging & developed markets, the significant majority of transactions engaged do not result in financial close. In our company’s experience, we have seen typical close rates in comparable markets at 25 percent. Additionally, engaging a large number of firms would mean most receive only light touch support, which further lowers close rates to less than 10 percent.

Based on this experience, we anticipate closing 250 transactions in

Georgia would require supporting at least 1,000+ transactions. This is extremely large given the small size of the Georgian market and its venture capital and SME ecosystem. Can USAID clarify if the target of

250 “facilitated transactions” refers to transactions that have reached financial close? Or is it transactions that have been provided some level of support through FIP but not necessarily reached financial close?

The objective in Component 3 is to ensure that financing is provided

(either disbursed or is formally committed and accepted) which otherwise would not have occurred and which will enable capital investment (support the enterprises' growth). BAS providers should accordingly be primarily compensated upon transaction close (defined as financing disbursed or a firm commitment accepted by the finance seeker).

See response to Question #114.

16 As demonstrated by the historical figures below, there is relatively little early-stage venture capital (VC) in Georgia. On the other hand, there have been a few large Mergers & Acquisitions and buyout deals in the range of US$100-150 million, which explains why the total capital flow over the course of 5Y+ is almost $900 million. Given the nascent VC history and ecosystem in Georgia, the targets for value of transactions and quantity of transactions to be supported by FIP are potentially unachievable over a five-year period. Would USAID consider revising downwards the target for number of startup and SME firms supported to approximately 100 and quantity of capital mobilized to $200 million?

$300 million capital mobilization target refers to capital mobilized from a variety of sources, including International Financial Institutions, Georgian Pension Fund, private banking and non-banking financial institutions, other private investors, etc. and through a wide variety of financial instruments; therefore USAID believes this target is achievable albeit ambitious. As for the number of supported SMEs, it is unclear from the question what suggested target of 100 SMEs refers to specifically, but in general the definition of SMEs by Georgian legislation is very generous and covers more than 99% of all enterprises.

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00TZH8.pdf

17 Given that firms in the startup and SME phase often face a cash shortfall until they achieve financing or reach sufficient growth and scale, the requirement of cost matching for grants will be very difficult to meet. This creates a chicken and the egg problem for ability to share

TA costs. Would USAID consider waiving the “cost matching” requirement for certain transactions?

The reference to “cost-matching grants” is revised to “leverage”.

Please see revised solicitation.

Leverage requirement will not be waived for any transactions but

USAID is open to considering different leverage thresholds for different types of businesses including for women-owned and managed businesses and businesses that support the green economy.

18 Our experience is that investment mobilization, as envisioned in

Component 3, is best accomplished through multi-year engagements with transaction advisors that engage with multiple transactions

(portfolio approach) while working towards a total investment target of dollars mobilized. Does FIP envision such a long-term approach to

USAID is open to a variety of well-justified approaches.

transaction advisory or are the competitive grant awards envisioned to be allocated on a singular, transaction-by-transaction basis?

19 Can the contractor/subcontractor that establishes the investment mobilization platform as per Outcome 3.1 compete for the grants to facilitate transactions?

No.

20 The RFP mandates $6 million in grants. Would USAID consider making this pool of capital more flexible so it could be used for subcontracts, technical assistance or for establishing a blended finance facility?

Grants for technical assistance and blended finance facilities are envisioned to be awarded through the grant pool. Offerors are encouraged to think creatively and propose a use for the $6 million in grants that best helps achieve the objectives of the program.

Subcontracts may be used to achieve Program objectives, but not through the Grants Under Contracts (GUCs) pool of funds.

21 Would the single bid from several private parties (e.g. tri-party bid) be acceptable, provided these parties have well defined partnership structure for the Program?

USAID will consider joint partnership arrangements and consortium approaches so long as responsibilities and management structure are clearly defined and realistic for implementation and there is a single entity/point of contact.

22 Outcome 1.2: Please specify/elaborate what do you specifically mean by within first 12 months developing strategy for the development or adoption and implementation of at least one locally developed fintech solution in Outcome 1.2? Do these fintech firms need to be created following Program inception or can they be incorporated earlier in

Georgia?

Offerors are required to detail how they will identify and deploy fintech solutions in the Georgian context. This Strategy will be the primary document used to carry out the implementation of at least three fintech solutions (1 local and 2 adopted). It is envisioned that the solutions are then developed, adopted and/or deployed after the Strategy is developed through grants. However, Offerors are encouraged to think creatively and propose other strategies to achieve fintech objectives. Fintech firms could have been incorporated earlier in Georgia; however the solution needs to be new to the Georgian market.

23 Outcome 1.3: Please specify if Public-Private Advisory Council will be funded by the Program?

Yes, it is envisioned that the Program incur costs related to the start-up and implementation of the Advisory Council; Offerors are encouraged to explore opportunities to share the costs of the Council with member agencies wherever possible

24 Will USAID separately or as part of the Program participate as investor in the private equity or quasy-equity funds?

25 Outcome 2.1: IFIs don't usually invest in first time funds; what support, if any, can USAID provide to change such IFI policies for the first time fund managers?

USAID is unable to provide support to change IFI policies, as such the

Offerors should plan work within the structure of existing policy frameworks. As with other potential investors USAID funds can be used to de-risk such investments, if deemed necessary.

26 Contract deliverables, across all components, Result 3: Improved ranking on WEF’s Global Competitiveness Financial Systems Indicator. This criteria seems to be not fully in control of the Contractor. How do you see Contractor influencing the ranking improvement specifically from

#91 to #72? Would you consider Contractor closely working with WEF on this topic?

This indicator has been removed.

27 Contract deliverables, component 1, Result 7: How would you measure strengthening of the financial markets institutions? Which institutions specifically?

Financial market institutions and areas to be strengthened will be identified through root cause analysis. A financial market institution will be considered strengthened if and when the gap identified in the root cause analysis is addressed.

28 Contract deliverables, component 2, Result 10: please specify BAS definition more concretely. Are these licensed financial services intermediaries (such as brokerage houses)?

Definition of BAS is not limited to licensed financial services. It is more broadly defined as an organization which provides professional services to companies and is not limited to financial advisory services. BAS could include incubators and accelerators, tax and management advisors, brokerage houses, law firms, etc.

29 The Capital Market Development Strategy 2021-2026 may not be issued in time of the award of the contract; would this delay Program award?

30 Lending programs are naturally in competition with diversification of funding availability in Georgia. In case the conflict of interest visibly harms the aims of the program objectives, how do you envision dealing with 'competing' stakeholders?

USAID envisions the Program to be complementary to existing financial products and services; therefore the Offeror is encouraged to seek such complementarities rather than compete with other programs.

31 On Page B-2, the RFP states, “A ‘Major Subcontractor’ is a subcontractor that is performing 20% or more of the contract.” Does this mean dollar value or level of effort? If it’s the dollar value of the contract, does this include or exclude grants?

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

32 Are Small Business Offerors required to propose ceiling indirect cost rates?

No. See response to Q6 above and revised Solicitation.

33 Should Offerors propose a fee payment schedule based on the table in

Section C.5 Contract Deliverables?

Offerors may propose a fee payment schedule they consider realistic and appropriate for the work being performed and in accordance with

Section B.5. Note that, while proposed fixed fee will be evaluated, the payment schedule will not.

34 On Page C-5 and C-14, the RFP states that the Program anticipates mobilizing $300 million in additional financing. However, the breakdown of this amount totals $380 million (e.g., $80 million + $100 million + $200 million). Can USAID clarify whether the anticipated amount is $300 million or $380 million? Also, is the $50 million in debt financing from outside the banking sector included in this total?

The minimum target is $300 million (of which $100 million is mobilized from private sector sources, $80 million is for equity financing, $200 million is for startups and SMEs, and $50 million is for women owned businesses). Debt financing from outside the banking sector is also included in the $300 million. There is anticipated overlap between the mobilization targets, which is why the figure adds up to over $300 million.

35 On Page C-5, the RFP states a target of “Developing and/or deploying at least 3 new fintech solutions.” However, on Page C-8, the RFP states that the Contractor must develop…at least one locally developed fintech solution. Then, on Page C-14, one of the results indicates a minimum of two fintech solutions (local or international) adopted to improve financial intermediation. Can you USAID clarify: 1) the number of fintech solutions expected to be “locally developed”; 2) the number of fintech solutions it expects to be “internationally/regionally developed”; and 3) what the difference is between “developed”, “deployed” and “adopted”? Does USAID anticipate that the Contractor will select one or several companies to develop new fintech products?

Or, does USAID anticipate that the Contractor will work with existing fintech providers to grow and/or advance their existing products? What, if any, intellectual property considerations should Contractors account for?

1) USAID expects at least one fintech solution to be locally developed through a competitive mechanism that allows for experimentation and incentivizes a wide range of local technology companies to innovate.

2) In addition, USAID expects at least two pre-developed fintech solutions to be adopted for financial intermediation. These solutions could have been developed abroad or in Georgia but are not yet being used in Georgia. The Program will support adoption of these solutions.

3) “Developed” refers to the development of backend and frontend of the solution; “deployed” refers to making arrangements for its use, while “adopted” refers to the use by its solution’s ultimate users/customers.

36 On Page C-5, the RFP states that it expects the Program to facilitate transactions for 250 startups and SMEs. Considering the $300 million target, this implies an average ticket size of $1.2 million per transaction.

Can USAID confirm that this is the correct average ticket size? Also, will

USAID consider the capitalization of equity and quasi-equity funds as part of the $300 million target?

Yes, USAID considers the capitalization of equity and quasi-equity funds as part of the $300 million target. Therefore the target of 250 startups and SMEs and the $300 million target are not directly related.

Through transaction facilitation USAID expects to mobilize $150 million; moreover 250 transactions does not exclusively refer to start-ups and SMEs. As stated in the Statement of Work, larger anchor firms can be considered for demonstration effect purposes.

In addition, please see response to Question #114.

37 Of the $6 million in grants, does USAID have a breakdown of the percentages to be allocated across the three components? For example, cost-matching grants are called for under Component 1 (action plans and fintech solutions). Grants are also mentioned for stimulating the market for private equity and new financial products under Component 2. And, in Component 3, grants are an integral part of the BAS and investment mobilization activities. Should Component 3 have the highest percentage of GUC utilization? And, should grants be distributed evenly over the lifetime of the Project?

Offerors are encouraged to think creatively and propose a use for the $6 million in grants that best helps achieve the objectives of the program.

38 The NAICS Code mentioned in Section K.2 is 92411 – Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management Program. Can

USAID confirm this the correct NAICS code for this solicitation? If not, what is the correct NAICS code?

This NAICS was included in error. The correct NAICS Code for this procurement is 541618 – Other Management Consulting Services.

39 Are Offerors required to use USAID’s Budget Template (Attachment 4)?

If so, can Offerors make adjustments to this format?

USAID’s Budget Template is for information purposes only. Offerors may adjust the format but must include required information listed in

Section L.7.

40 Are Offerors required to use USAID’s Past Performance Matrix Excel

Template (Attachment 3)? Or, can Offerors use their own Word-based

Past Performance format?

Offerors must use the template provided.

41 USAID’s Local Compensation Plan Summary (Attachment 5) states that salaries are based on average Mission salaries, which may or may not reflect fair market value. Accordingly, may Offerors propose higher salaries than the listed LCP salaries for individuals who qualify for those higher salaries so long as they reflect fair market value?

Local staff salaries should be budgeted as gross, including local income taxes and social payments, paid in local currency, and should not exceed the maximum of the USAID’s Local Compensation Plan Summary

(Attachment 5) unless accompanied by justification for doing so.

Please also refer to Section H.40 AIDAR 752.7007 Personnel

Compensation (Jul 2007) and Section H.41 AIDAR 722.170

Employment of Third Country Nationals (TCNs) and Cooperating

Country Nationals (CCNs).

42 Can USAID confirm that the management structure chart (Annex A) is included in the 5-page limit of the management and staffing approach section?

No. The Management Structure is not included in the 5-page limit of the

Management and Staffing Approach section of the proposals. Please also refer to Q1 above.

43 Section L.6 states that the Past Performance does not count against the page limitation of 20 pages. However, in the section on annexes the

RFP states that annexes are subject to the page limitation and that the project list and past performance references have a 3-page limit? Can

USAID confirm that the PPR 3-page limit is not included in the 20 page limit? Also, because USAID’s Attachment 4 is an Excel document, how should Offerors format the past performance information in 3 pages in Word/PDF?

Page limitation for the Past Performance Information Excel Matrix is removed.

Please refer to Q1 above and see revised Solicitation.

44 Section L.6 seems to indicate the Gantt Chart is included in the 15-page limit for the Technical Approach. But, one Page L-9 it states that the

Gantt chart does not count against the page limit. Can USAID clarify whether the Gantt chart is or is not included in the page 15 page limitation?

The Gantt Chart does not count against the maximum 15-page limit.

Please refer to Q1 above and revised Solicitation.

45 Does USAID expect Offerors to name all personnel (Key and Non-

Key) in their staffing plans? Or, may Offerors leave some positions

“TBD” (e.g., administrative positions, non-essential positions, etc.)?

May Offerors provide Resumes/CVs only for Key and Essential Non-

Key Personnel? We note that Section M.2.B does not reference Non-

Key Personnel as an evaluation criteria. Please kindly confirm this is the case and how non-key personnel resumes/CVs will be evaluated?

Offerors must name all Key Personnel and provide Resumes/CVs for them. Offerors are encouraged to identify Essential Non-Key Personnel and provide Resumes/CVs. Offerors are not required to name or provide

Resumes/CVs for all other personnel.

46 How many PPRs should be included for Major Subcontractors? Is 5 the limit for the entire consortium? Or, should the Prime Offeror submit 5 and each Major Subcontractor submit 5 of their own (total 10)?

There is no numerical requirement for Past Performance References.

Offerors and their major subcontractors should provide information for the most relevant awards performed over the last 3 years.

47 Section H.41 states that Mission Director and/or Assistant

Administrator approval is required for TCNs to be paid in excess of the prevailing compensation paid to personnel performing comparable work in the cooperating country. This FIP Activity, however, will likely require consultants and personnel from EU countries who would be considered TCNs. Would USAID consider issuing a blanket waiver for

TCNs to be paid up to the current CST maximum (i.e., the same as U.S.

expatriate experts), provided that Contractors submit daily rate approvals as part of the technical and travel approval process?

No blanket waiver will be considered at this time. Waivers may be considered on a case-by-case basis with appropriate justification.

48 How will USAID evaluate Small Business Offerors against large business Offerors under M.2.C (“their utilization of small business concerns”)? Will Small Business Offerors be given the highest score possible for this evaluation factor considering they are not required to submit this information?

An offeror’s performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably when:

(1) The offeror lacks relevant performance history,

(2) Information on performance is not available, or

(3) The offeror is a member of a class of offerors where there is provision not to rate the class against a sub factor. When this occurs, an offeror lacking relevant performance history is assigned a "neutral" rating.

49 Can USAID please confirm that attachment 2 – SF LLL – Disclosure of

Lobbying Activities can be included as Part 8 of the Cost/business proposal?

Yes. Standard Form-LLL Disclosure of Lobbying Activities must be submitted as part of the cost proposal.

50 In Section L, page L-13 under Part 2 – Proposed Costs/Prices; the layout of the cost elements is different from that of Attachment 4:

Budget template CPFF. Additionally, the attachment only accounts for

2 years while the period of performance of this activity is 5 years.

have the flexibility to use their own budget templates as long as the required information listed in Section L.7 is addressed. The budget must be submitted for all 5 years of performance.

51 Please confirm offerors may use their own budget templates that align to the cost element breakdown included on page L-13 in the solicitation?

required information listed in Section L.7 is addressed.

52 One of our subcontractors has both a Georgian and US business registrations. Can USAID confirm if there would be any negatives of using its US entity to subcontract under Georgia FIP?

The registration location of Offerors and/or their subcontractors is not an evaluation criteria.

53 Could USAID confirm that its definition of “fintech” includes related technologies such as regtech, suptech, and insurtech?

USAID confirms that its definition of “fintech” includes related technologies provided that they improve and automate the delivery and use of financial products and services.

54 In the contract deliverables table in Section C, page C-14, under contract deliverable 1 “Value of local and foreign capital mobilized for

Georgia’s private sector” can USAID clarify the definitions of the 5 sub-components of the $300 million and provide an explanation of to what extent these sub-components are duplicative? Specifically, the total amount across the 5 sub-components is equal to $480 million, significantly more than the top-level target of $300 million.

The minimum overall target is $300 million. There is anticipated overlap between the mobilization targets, which is why the figure adds up to over $300 million.

Private sector sources refer to funds that originate in the private sector:

international or local private banking and non-banking financial institutions, retail investors, diaspora, etc. The state ownership of these funds should be limited to less than 50% to be considered as a private sector. These funds could be used for equity or debt financing, for

SMEs, or women-owned businesses to meet the targets of other sub-components.

$80 million of equity financing refers to funds that will be mobilized to provide equity financing for private sector enterprises. Similarly at least

$200 million should be mobilized for start-ups and SMEs and $50 million for women-owned businesses, for debt or equity financing. At least $50 million of mobilized debt financing should come from outside the banking sector.

55 The term “investment mobilization platform” appears multiple times in both Component 2 and Component 3, implying a siloed approach. In our experience, these types of platforms are more effective when deployed as a solution to match supply and demand of financing.

Could USAID clarify whether it would prefer that we describe a siloed

vs. integrated approach?

USAID encourages bidders to think creatively and propose the best approach for “investment mobilization platform” that helps achieve the overall objectives of the program and efficient deployment of Grants

Under Contract; however the platform is envisioned to be an integral part of the whole Program.

56 In Section L, page L-9 under Management and Staffing Approach, can

USAID confirm the desired information from the first phrase versus the staffing plan cited in the second phrase below?:

● Phrase 1: “Offerors must describe the composition and organizational structure of the entire project team, including each

Management and Staffing Plan should be included in the 5 page limit of the Management and Staffing Approach.

In support to the Management and Staffing Approach above, Offerrors should include Management Structure Chart and resumes/CVs in required annexes, as described in the Solicitation Section L.6.

proposed personnel’s role and technical expertise, home office functions and technical expertise.” and

Phrase 2: “In support of the staffing approach narrative section, offerors must also provide a staffing plan and resumes/CVs of Key Personnel and other important technical roles in an annex.”

57 Can USAID confirm that the DCOP and Senior Finance Advisor positions can also be Component Leads?

Yes, the DCOP and/or the Senior Finance Advisor may also be

Component Leads, if desired. However the Senior Finance Advisor is expected to provide advisory support across all components.

58 Can USAID confirm that the management structure chart should be submitted as an annex?

Yes, the Management Structure Chart must be submitted as Annex A.

See also Q1 above.

59 Can USAID confirm the desired contents and purpose of the management structure chart?

The management structure chart is equivalent to an organigram or organizational chart and should visually depict the envisioned structure of the Program, including roles/ responsibilities and their relationships to one another.

60 Per Section L.6 “Instructions for Preparation of Technical Proposal”, page L-8, can USAID confirm that all past performance information should be submitted as a required annex, utilizing the Past Performance

Matrix provided as Attachment 3? Is this Past Performance Matrix inclusive of the Project List, or is this a separate item?

The Past Performance Matrix is the same as the Project List.

See also Q1 above and revised Solicitation.

61 We would like to request that USAID consider extending the submission deadline for this proposal for an additional two weeks due to the US and

Georgian holidays.

USAID is extending the submission deadline until February 1, 2022.

Offerors must submit all required documents by February 1, 2022, 10:00

AM Georgia Standard Time.

62 Section H.30, Page H-17

USAID imposes a non-standard clause requiring the contractor to

“exercise due diligence on personnel to be engaged under this contract to ensure that proposed candidates were not directly involved in or associated with any dubious activities, including the recent financial scandals, and that their employment histories and past conduct display

This clause has been removed. Please see revised Solicitation.

integrity congruent with the program goals.” In order to ensure compliance can USAID please define:

(a) what constitutes “due diligence”,

(b) what activities would constitute being “associated” with a dubious activity,

(c) what would constitute a “dubious activity,”

(d) what “recent U.S. financial scandals” are being referenced, and

(e) how USAID would determine whether an employee’s “past conduct display[s] integrity congruent with the program goals?

If USAID cannot define such terms it is unclear how a contractor could comply with this clause and we would respectfully request that it be removed, particularly given the fact that there are multiple other clauses, including FAR 52.203-13 that protect USAID against potential fraud under the contract.

63 Section C.4, Page C-6

The RFP does not mention interventions to build capacity of regulators and overseers. Is there an expectation that the program would undertake activities to address their capacity building?

Technical assistance to regulators and overseers is envisioned under component 1 (page C-8).

64 Section C.4, Page C-8

Does fintech to be introduced need to be locally developed, or could it also be a proven FinTech solution from another country that is adapted to the

USAID expects at least one fintech solution to be locally developed through a competitive mechanism that allows for experimentation and incentivizes a wide range of local technology companies to innovate.

In addition, USAID expects at least two pre-developed fintech solutions to be adopted for financial intermediation. These solutions could have been developed abroad or in Georgia but are not yet being used in

Georgia. The Program will support adoption of these solutions.

65 Section B.5, page B-2, Indirect Costs (for Major Subcontractors)

A company’s indirect rates are acknowledged to be proprietary and sensitive financial information, the disclosure of which would result in competitive harm and, consistent with the Trade Secrets Act, should therefore be protected from such disclosure to third parties (including prime contractors whom may be competitors on other Procurements).

Thus, we respectfully request that the Subcontractor’s indirect rate information not be included in Section B.5 or any part of the final

Contract and that such subcontractors pursue the option of submitting their confidential information directly to USAID. Please acknowledge your acceptance of this clarification and request for protection of proprietary company financial data.

66 Section L.6, Page L-9

As many of the BAS providers are private sector firms, would USAID consider allowing Offerors to allocate a $6 million special activities fund for either grants or pay-for-performance subcontracts to incentivize BAS performance?

USAID envisions engagement of BAS providers through a $6 million grant pool.

67 Section L.6, Page L-9

Are Offerors required to include annual targets for each Result provided in the Results Table?

Offerors are not required to include annual targets for each result provided in the results table;

68 Section C.6, Page C-18

Could USAID provide additional guidance regarding the expectations and the required cost-match ratio for selecting/short listing applications for award of matching grants?

USAID expects the leverage ratio for different types of grants will be finalized and proposed in the Investment Mobilization Strategy due in

180 days after the award. Detailed, transparent and well-justified selection criteria and leverage thresholds will be developed by the

Contractor and approved by USAID.

69 Section L.6, Page L-10

When using the Past Performance Matrix requested, would USAID permit offerors to complete the table using a smaller font size than 10pt if it is legible? Or consider increasing the page limit for the Annex D?

Please see answer to Q1 above and revised Solicitation.

70 Section L.6, Page L-10

We kindly request that USAID allow key personnel references that are older than 3 years if the reference is for previous work of direct relevance to the requirements of the solicitation.

Offerors may provide Key Personnel references within the last 5 years.

71 Would USAID kindly consider granting Offerors an additional 5 pages for the Technical Approach?

72 Under Section C, p. C-14, the indicator “Improved ranking on WEF’s

Global Competitiveness Financial Systems Indicator” is included in the

Results Table with a target. As a sub-index indicator, it is a composite indicator that measures multiple variables related to a country’s financial system and contributes to the ranking of countries in relation to one another’s performance. Georgia’s performance on any one of these variables is influenced by many external factors that are outside the control or manageable interest of USAID assistance – including

Georgia’s performance vis-a-vis other countries who may also be advancing reforms. Thus, due to the nature of this indicator, it appears to be more appropriate for context monitoring purposes than for the purpose of measuring Georgia FIP’s performance. Additionally, per

USAID’s guidance on monitoring contextual indicators, targets are generally not set for contextual indicators. Could USAID please confirm that this indicator should be monitored as a context indicator and therefore the Contractor will not be held to setting or meeting a target?

See response to Question #26.

73 Under Section C, p. C-14-C-15, the Results Table includes three separate but linked indicators related to measuring the value of capital mobilized through Activity assistance: Under Objective (Obj) 2: Value of capital mobilized through new Program-supported financial instruments ($200 Million), Under Obj 3: Value of financing mobilized by BAS providers ($150 Million), and Cross-cutting: Value of foreign and local capital mobilized for Georgia’s private sector ($300 Million].

Please confirm that capital mobilized as a result of Activity assistance can be counted under more than one of these indicators as relevant and

USAID confirms that capital mobilized as a result of Program assistance can be counted under more than one of these indicators as relevant and applicable.

applicable. For example, the values counted under the Obj 2 and Obj 3 indicators will contribute to the cross-cutting indicator that reports on all capital mobilized by the Activity, and if financing is mobilized by a

BAS provider under a new financial instrument, that value would be contribute to both indicators. Conversely, USAID could consider streamlining the monitoring and reporting of “capital mobilized” by expanding disaggregation categories under the cross-cutting indicator to include “capital mobilized by new Activity-supported financial instruments” and “capital mobilized by BAS providers” and remove the need and potential confusion of duplication in reporting these values under three separate indicators.

74 Section C.6, p. C-18, “Cost Matching and Incentives”, the RFP states, “In order to encourage and de-risk these changes, the Program will use a pool of $6.0 million in grants and/or fixed fee awards to cost-match and incentivize change. The Contractor will be expected to manage the pool of cost-matching funds in a manner that (a) ensures the desired outcome; (b) maximizes leverage of non-USAID funds; (c) minimizes the potential for significant market-distortions, and; (d) ensures additionality.” Could USAID please confirm that the US$6M pool will be utilized across all three components or will Component 3, Outcome

3.1 “Establish and investment mobilization platform” utilize the majority of the US$6M?

The $6 million pool will be utilized across all three components. Bidders are encouraged to propose how it is allocated across the components to achieve overall objectives of the Program.

75 Under Section F, p. F-12, the Senior Finance Advisor’s minimum qualifications requires “five years' experience in financial projects, investment banking, or fund management in developing countries”.

Please confirm that relevant professional experience in Georgia qualifies as experience in a developing country.

Yes, relevant professional experience in Georgia qualifies as experience in a developing country.

76 Please clarify if USAID expects offerors to propose Expatriate/TCN personnel for all Key Personnel positions or if CCNs meeting the criteria will also be considered eligible.

Yes, CCNs will also be considered eligible for Key Personnel positions if they meet the required criteria.

77 Please confirm if the Gantt Chart (included as Annex) specified page L-

9 counts towards the page limit of the technical proposal. On page L-9, Please see the Answer to Q44 above.

the RFP states that “This Chart should be included as an Annex and does not count against the page limit” but on page L-7, it says “Required

Annexes specified below will be counted towards the page limit.

78 Section L, pg. L10 states that "Letters of Commitment are discouraged for professional local staff, excluding the COP, DCOP and SFA. ... as it limits USAID’s and Georgia’s ability to receive the best services”

Please confirm that non-exclusive letters of commitment are accepted by USAID for local Georgian staff proposed in key personnel roles?”

79 Please confirm that Offerors may submit the past performance matrix in a separate Excel file with the technical proposal as the format is not conducive to be legible in the requested 8.5x11 inch format.

Please see response to Q1 above and revised Solicitation.

80 Please confirm if the ‘Management Structure Chart’ referenced on page

L-8 refers to an Organigram or Organizational Chart.

81 Under Section L, p. L-9, the RFP states “Targets must at a minimum meet the requirements provided in Section C, C.5 CONTRACT

DELIVERABLES, Results Table. Additional amounts provided by the offeror will become part of the resulting contract as deliverables.”, and under Section M, p. M-2, “The offeror’s technical and implementation approach, and results table will be evaluated on its clarity, quality, innovativeness, ambition and feasibility of contractor's proposed deliverable targets”. While under Section C., p. C-14-C15, the RFP states “The Contractor is responsible for providing contract deliverable targets listed below, which constitute satisfactory contract performance

[to be proposed and incorporated at time of award]”. Please confirm that Offerors should include the targets as provided in Section C and are not required to provide additional targets in their proposal submission, including annual targets that are currently listed as TBD in the Results

Table.

Offerors should include the targets as provided in Section C and are not required to provide additional targets in their proposal submission, including annual targets that are currently listed as TBD in the Results

Table.

82 In Section K.2 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications

(March 2020) (pageK-1,105) the RFP lists the NAICS code for the acquisition as 92411 - Administration of Air and Water Resource and

The NAICS Code for this procurement is 541618 – Other Management

Consulting Services. Please see revised Solicitation.

Solid Waste Management Programs. Please confirm that this NAICS is correct for SOL #72011422R00006 for the Georgia USAID Financial

Innovation Program.

83 In Section F.2 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE (page F-1,32) the “Note to Offerors” mentions further language that will be added to the award, but no language is included. Please confirm that the “Note to Offerors” is relevant to this particular SOL #72011422R00006 for the Georgia

USAID Financial Innovation Program and provide the language mentioned in the note.

The period of performance for this contract is five (5) years starting from the date of award. If the successful contractor/award will be subject to the Foreign Assistance waiver, then the award will be subject to the conditions set forth in Section H.42.

Attachment 4 – Budget Template provided includes sections for

“Contracts” (#6) and “Subgrants” (#9) while Section L.7 Instructions for Preparation and Submission of the Cost/Business Proposal (b) Part2

(page L-12,134) includes “Subcontracts” and doesn’t include a specific section for Grants under Contracts (GUCs). Please confirm that the sections in the template budget provided as Attachment 4 are illustrative and the Offeror can adjust the subsections to fit the costs included in its Business Proposal, as long as the general order of direct costs (Labor, Fringe, Consultants, Allowances, T&T, Communications, ODCs, Subcontractors, Grants under Contract) are presented separately from the indirect costs and corresponding fixed fee.

required information listed in Section L.7 is addressed.

85 Will USAID please consider replacing “cost-matching” with

“leveraging” grants in RFP Section C? The use of cost-matching (cost share) grants is emphasized throughout Section C, which seems to conflict with other RFP sections that discuss the use of fixed amount awards (FAAs) and other pay-for-performance mechanisms (such as page C-13 and clause L.6(1)(F)). Per 2 CFR 200.201(b)(2), FAAs may not be used under a cost share program. The inability to use FAAs on the $6 million grants under contract (GUC) fund would significantly slow down implementation and may make it more challenging to issue pay-for-performance grants, which are conducive to an FAA-type mechanism that focuses on the outcomes and outputs rather than the financial aspect of the grant. Furthermore, the receipts and backup documentation required to substantiate cost share, which are subject to audit, can distract from grantees accomplishing their objectives. By changing the requirement in the RFP from cost-matching to leveraging, offerors will have the opportunity to present to USAID their approach for ensuring grantee buy-in requirements are met and verified throughout implementation to best incentivize innovation and sustainable change through the grants program.

86 Section I.6 includes reference to FAR 52.219-9 Small Business

Subcontracting Plan. Will USAID please confirm whether a subcontracting plan should be included within the cost proposal submission?

87 RFP Section L.6 states that “the most relevant indicators of performance are contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity to the scope.” Will USAID please clarify that we may include contracts and cooperative agreements in the past performance matrix?

Yes, Offerors may include contracts and cooperative agreements in the

Past Performance Matrix.

See revised Solicitation.

88 In Section L, page L-8, Would USAID please confirm that the requirement for past performance in the technical approach. L.6 Past

Performance (Does not count against page limit) can include past performance for all consortia members?

If consortia members are part of the Offeror’s teaming arrangement, past performance is required. Per page L-10, past performance information is required for the Offeror, the contractor teaming arrangements, if any, and each major subcontractor (defined as a subcontractor whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost). Past performance for subcontractors who do not meet the 20% threshold is optional.

In Section L, page L-10, Would USAID please clarify the requirement for Annex (d) Project List and Past Performance References”?