1. Answer to Questions SPARC RFP 72012124R0004 Amendment 1 November 10 signed.pdf

Amendment Issuance Date: November 10, 2023

Subject: Amendment 01 to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 72012124R00004

Reference: SPARC Activity, USAID/Ukraine

Dear Offerors, The purpose of Amendment 01 is to answer the questions received in response to the solicitation, and as a result revise the RFP. All changes made to the revised RFP are highlighted in yellow for ease of reference. All other terms of the RFP remain unchanged.

Thank you for your interest in USAID/Ukraine SPARC RFP, and we appreciate the thoughtful questions submitted. Your engagement is instrumental in ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the requirements.

Sincerely, Craig Riegler, Supervisory Contracting Officer

USAID/Ukraine

RFP 72012124R00004, Amendment 1 Answer to Questions

SPARC Activity

November 10, 2023

1. Section C.6 of the RFP states that the contractor is “required to engage under the activity an Infrastructure Manager with experience in small-scale, low-cost, context-appropriate infrastructure design and management and be a US-licensed Professional Engineer with a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering. This position will be Key Personnel per Section F” (page 22).

a. Would USAID please confirm that offerors are not required to propose an infrastructure manager in the proposal they submit in response to this RFP and that contractors must only engage an infrastructure manager if construction activities are authorized via a future modification to the contract?

Answer: That is correct. Offerors are not required to propose an infrastructure manager in the proposal they submit in response to this RFP. Contractors must only engage an infrastructure manager if construction activities are authorized via a future modification to the contract.

b. Would USAID please confirm that the infrastructure manager does not count as one of the “two and up to three” key personnel that Section F.7.1 of the RFP (page 28) allows the offeror to propose (in addition to the chief of party)?

Answer: That is correct.

2. Section F.7, Key Personnel, page 28. The RFP indicates that the Offeror will propose key personnel positions other than the Chief of Party. However, in Section C.6, page 22, the RFP indicates that the “Infrastructure Manager … will be Key Personnel per Section F.” Can USAID clarify the instructions to Offerors regarding proposing key personnel positions.

Answer: In accordance with the RFP, the offeror may propose "two and up to three" key personnel in addition to the Chief of Party (COP). The Infrastructure Manager is not a presently required position under Key Personnel but may be added based on need in contract performance.

3. Section F.8 of the RFP states that the contractor must submit the Annual Work Plan (AWP) “Within sixty calendar days (30) after the Contract start date” (page 30). Would USAID please confirm that the AWP is due 60 calendar days (not 30, as indicated within the parentheses) after the contract start date?

Answer: The RFP has been revised to rectify that the Annual Work Plan (AWP) should be submitted within thirty calendar days (30) after the contract start date. This takes into account the inclusion of a draft one-year work plan to be submitted as part of the Phase 2 requirements.

4. Section F.8 of the RFP states that the contractor must submit the AWP “Within sixty calendar days (30) after the Contract start date” (page 30). The section also states that the contractor must submit the Grants Under Contract (GUC) Management Plan “45 calendar days after the contract period of performance start date” (page 33). Given that the AWP “must form the basis for activities to be implemented each year of the contract” (page 30) and that the contractor’s overall implementation approach will inform the development of the GUC Management Plan, would USAID please consider requiring the GUC Management Plan 90 days (rather than 45 days) after award?

Answer: The RFP has been updated to extend the deadline for GUC plan submission under Section F.8.6 to "60 days." This adjustment allows for a 30-day period following the submission of the AWP.

5. Per Section H.5 of the RFP, “An Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) DCN: 2024-UKR-

0XX has been approved” (page 44). Would USAID please provide a copy of this IEE?

Answer: The RFP has been updated to rectify Section H.5. for clarity, indicating that the IEE is currently awaiting approval.

6. Section H.1(g) of the RFP limits offerors to administering 10% annual salary increases to long-term project staff (page 42). This restriction on salary increases appears inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007, Personnel Compensation, which Sections H.1 (page 41) and I.4 (page 60) of the RFP incorporate into the contract. Per AIDAR 752.7007, personnel compensation must be implemented “in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices,” with reimbursement subject only to the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold. Thus, the salary restriction above may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices as required by AIDAR 752.7007. Would USAID please remove this restriction on salary increases?

Answer: USAID will closely ensure that all contractor costs incurred are reasonable throughout contract performance. Further, it’s a pre-approval requirement, not a prohibition.

7. Section L.6, page 85 indicates that total email size cannot exceed 10MB. Given USAID’s preference that Offerors consolidate individual parts of each proposal into a single document for submission, can USAID change the total email size to not exceed 25MB?

Answer: In response to your request, and considering Gmail's email size limit of 25MB, we have adjusted the RFP language in Section L.6 to increase the total maximum allowed email size to 20MB for Phase 2 submission, allowing for more flexibility while maintaining efficient communication.

8. Per Section L.9, Part 3(3) of the RFP, “Labor cost for CCNs must not exceed the thresholds in the US Embassy’s local employee compensation plan (LCP) at $86,541/year, unless authorized by USAID” (page 90). This salary threshold restriction appears inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007, Personnel Compensation, which Sections H.1 (page 41) and I.4 (page 60), incorporate into the contract. Per AIDAR 752.7007, personnel compensation must be implemented “in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices,” with reimbursement subject only to the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold. Thus, the salary restriction above may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices as required by AIDAR 752.7007. Would USAID please remove this salary threshold restriction?

Answer: Our market research indicates that a significant majority of the anticipated Sparc activity positions will be within the current LCP. As per AIDAR 722.170(c), stipulated in Section H.1- Compensation, including merit or promotion increases paid to TCN's and CCN's may not, without the approval of the Mission Director having program responsibility for the project, exceed the prevailing compensation paid to personnel performing comparable work in the cooperating country as determined by the USAID Mission. Requests for waivers will only be considered on a case by case basis and must be accompanied with sufficient justification.

9. Section L.9, Part 6 of the RFP requires offerors to list “contracts” in the “Past Performance Information Sheet” (page 93). Would USAID please allow offerors to list relevant cooperative agreements in addition to relevant contracts?

Answer: The RFP language in Section L.9, Part 6, regarding past performance, has been updated to include the term "projects" to encompass all relevant mechanisms.

10. Section L.9, Part 6 of the RFP states offerors “must use the ‘Past Performance Information Sheet’

(included as Attachment 2)” (page 93). However, Attachment J.2 (page 101) is the “Past Performance Matrix.” Would USAID please clarify whether the “Past Performance Information Sheet” is the “Past Performance Matrix” included in the attachment?

Answer: The RFP language was revised to correct the reference and instruct offerors to use the “Past Performance Matrix” provided in attachment J.2 and not the “Past Performance Information Sheet”.

11. Would USAID please share annual and other relevant reports from the current USAID Energy Security Project to assist offerors in preparing tailored and responsive proposals across both phases of this acquisition?

Answer: We are in the process of preparing the relevant reports for sharing, and they will be made available on the DEC within the next 1-2 weeks. The reports will serve as supplemental information particularly useful for offerors in Phase 2.

12. Cover Letter and Section H.2, pages 1 and 42, list the geographic code as 935, but Section H.2 includes the definition of 937 (“935 defined as the United States, the Cooperating Country (Ukraine), and developing countries other than advanced developing countries, and excluding prohibited sources.”). Can USAID confirm that Section H.2 should instead read “935 defined as any area or country but excluding prohibited sources?”

Answer: The RFP language in Section H.2 has been updated to rectify the definition for the 935 geographic area code, which now reads, "935 defined as any area or country, including the cooperation country (Ukraine) but excluding foreign policy-restricted countries."

13. Section B.5, Indirect Costs and Advanced Understanding on Ceilings, page 9.

● In response to this request, can USAID allow the Offeror to use its table (rather than use the table featured on page 9) that is structured based on our NICRA with ceiling rates included as applicable, etc.?

● Can USAID clarify what is expected in the row marked “Source” in the provided table?”

Answer: Offerors are allowed to use their standard NICRA template. If the information is derived from the NICRA letter, please specify "NICRA" under the "Source" cell.

14. Section C.4.1 Component 1: Enhanced Energy Supply, page 12. This sub-objective includes “2.

Implementation of an adopted plan for the removal of all non-market mechanisms,including those governing renewable energy development.”

● Can USAID clarify whether removal of all non-market mechanisms imply renewable capacity development via merchant generation investments only or market-oriented mechanisms such as green auctions and contract-for-differences as well?

Answer: Non-market mechanisms include Public Service Obligations, cross-subsidies and feed-in tariff based power purchase agreements. Merchant power generation investments and market-oriented mechanisms such as green auctions and contract-for-differences are welcomed.

15. Section C.4.2 Component 2: Improved Demand-Side Management, page 15. The sub-objective indicates that the Contractor must “…support initiatives that reduce energy consumption through conservation and technological advancements that will lead to decreased demand for energy supply, ultimately leading to lower costs for all energy consumers.”

● Can USAID clarify if this implies that demand side response (including active customers, load aggregators and their active participation in the market) will be included in the scope as it is an integral part of the EU Clean Energy Package that Ukraine should implement?

Answer: Yes, the demand-side management with active customers and aggregators will be included, as well as energy consumption reduction in consumer groups.

16. Section C.4.3 Component 3: Strengthened Energy Markets, page 16. The sub-objective refers to “A minimum of 15% of spot electricity market executed trades are done through market coupling trades.”

● Can USAID clarify the scope of the “spot electricity market”?

● Can USAID clarify if this means the percentage calculated considering the day-ahead market volume only or the volume also including any of the other organized trading segments (e.g., intra-day, real-time balancing, or bilateral/forward contracts)?

Answer: The RFP has been updated with further clarification including “real-time markets, such as EU’s Single Day-Ahead Coupling framework, intraday markets, as well as bilateral/forward contracts and real-time balancing”.

17. Section C.6 Construction, page 21. The RFP states that “The Contractor must submit all construction and A/E subcontracts to the Contracting Officer (CO) for consent prior to their award and follow all required analyses and steps unless granted an exception in writing in advance by the CO.” This and other references in Section C.6 indicate that USAID expects that any construction work under the contract will be performed by a subcontractor procured/identified post-award. As such, please advise what construction capabilities must be demonstrated as part of the Corporate Experience presented in Phase One Proposal.

Answer: Corporate experience in managing construction subcontractors will be desirable at this time. Further and sufficient capabilities information must be included in subcontract submission to the CO.

18. Page 11. C2. The RFP calls for "focusing on enhancing the resilience, reliability, affordability, and security of the electricity, natural gas, and district heating sectors". Can you give guidance as to the relative priorities of these objectives? There are interconnected as well as competing outcomes of enhancement to each individually and collectively. For example, improving the resilience of the energy grid will cause a decline in the affordability of power. Is it up to the Contractor to outline and quantify trader-offs? Or should the contractor seek guidance from USAID/GoU on their priorities given the complexities around the effects of Russian aggression on the energy infrastructure investments?

Answer: The enhancing resilience, reliability, affordability and security of electricity, natural gas and district heating sectors are equally important for the desired impact of USAID assistance. All proposed solutions must address these factors. A consultative process with all stakeholders is needed for consensus decisions and implementation. Final prioritization will be addressed during this process.

19. Page 12. C.4.1, Sub-component 1.1 Related to prohibition on assistance to “coal mine operation, development...without USAID prior approval.” Would assistance to coal miner safety improvements be possibly considered for approval, especially in cases of critical continuation of coal production that are disrupted or otherwise affected by suboptimal coal mine safety conditions and practices?

Answer: It is not the intent of this contract to provide direct support to the coal industry or its operational practices. Assistance may be given by the Contractor to individuals/firms that are transitioning out of the coal industry to low-carbon energy production. Any exception case will be addressed to the USAID/COR for a technical direction.

20. Page 17. C.4.4, end of last paragraph. “If the recipient does not have the ability to operate or maintain the equipment or goods, the Contractor must either present a plan to bring the recipient to the required level...”. Would the cost of training (and spare parts) as service features of equipment and commodity procurement awards be permitted to achieve such?

Answer: Thank you for your question. Yes.

21. Given that no prohibitions are mentioned, if necessary and appropriate for advancing energy reforms, may assistance be provided related to already existing energy-related unionized labor in the coal, power, gas, oil, and other supply and delivery sectors of the energy economy?

Answer: Yes - the assistance may be provided to unionized labor or other non-governmental organizations after a thorough due diligence of malign, vested-interest and corruption concerns.

22. Although not specifically mentioned, may assistance be provided to improve billings and collections and reduce arrearages, in order to reduce cyclical energy debt within the economy?

Answer: Yes - proposed interventions may include those that aim to improve utility billings and collections and reduce arrearages.

23. Does the scope entail a comprehensive review of existing energy sector-related legislation and assistance in drafting legislation based on international best practices and ensuring consistency across the large swath of current and future legislation?

Answer: Yes - the scope does involve all tasks included in your question.

24. Does the scope envision an educational and communication campaign to educate the energy consumers of the benefits of market-based transparent pricing as well as the programs to mitigate the costs of such changes to the low-income segment of the population?

Answer: As per C.5.4 Stakeholder Participation, “The Contractor must actively engage in public outreach efforts, organizing dialogues between public and private sectors. These efforts should yield tangible outcomes in the implementation of energy sector reforms and energy market development.” USAID envisions “educational and communication campaign[s]” that are designed to educate energy consumers about the referenced topics to be congruent with the Contractor actively engaging in “public outreach efforts.”

25. Coal Mining. Does the Contractor need to plan to work with the donor community at large to integrate all the drafted and proposed legislative and regulatory changes coming from multiple stakeholders ?

Answer: As per C.5.3 Donor Coordination, “At the direction of the COR, the Contractor must perform comprehensive coordination with key stakeholders, including the Energy Community Secretariat, the EU, World Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. State Department Bureau of Energy

Resources, as well as other relevant sector donors. A consultative process with all stakeholders is a requirement for reaching a consensus for both legislation development and reform implementation.”

26. Coal Mining. Transitioning to low-carbon energy resources will entail a critical look at existing coal mining operations within Ukraine. Does the project scope entail assessing and mitigating the social impact of reevaluating the viability of the Ukrainian coal industry?

Answer: Any proposed intervention associated with supporting the transition from the coal industry to low-carbon energy generation should include a critical assessment of the social and economic impact of the transition. It is not within the scope of SPARC to explore means for the Ukrainian coal industry to be more socially, economically, or environmentally viable. Any exception case will be addressed to the USAID/COR for a technical direction.

27. There is a significant number of population centers in Ukraine where the main economic activity is centered around coal mining. Can we incorporate the formulation of a training/resettlement plan for the affected working population within this Contract?

Answer: USAID does envision the inclusion of training for individuals looking to transition out of the coal industry into clean energy as part of the SPARC implementation strategy.

However, it is not expected that the SPARC contractor will be involved in the formation of resettlement plans for these individuals. Any exception case will be addressed to the USAID/COR for a technical direction

28. Could you confirm that the total capital mobilization target for the program is $2Bn - $1Bn under component 1 and $1Bn under component 2?

Answer: Minimum capital mobilization targets are $1 billion for Component 1: Enhanced Energy Supply (C.4.1) and $1 billion for Component 2: Improved Demand-Side Management (C.4.2).

29. What is the expected split of transactions that USAID (COR) has identified in partnership with the Ukrainian government, vs. the Contractor originated transaction and is there a preference of one approach over the other?

Answer: All procurements in Component 4 will receive COR approvals whether through the annual work plans or amendments as conditions necessitate. There is no split of procurements between the COR or other means. The same applies to facilitation of investments, primarily sources from the private sector in Component 1 and 2.

30. Is reconstruction / refurbishment of existing infrastructure within scope or is the priority new build?

Answer: Yes, they're within scope. If construction activities are required to achieve contract results and are therefore added via a contract modification, as prescribed in C.5.10, then priority areas will be established.

31. Section L.7 Phase One: Instructions for Preparation of the Phase One Proposal, page 86. Can USAID allow Offerors to include the required Cover Page information on a separate page outside of the nine-page submission, including:

(1) the RFP name and number,

(2) the name of the Offeror,

(3) the Offeror’s address,

(4) Name, title, and signature of the authorized representative,

(5) date of submission, and

(6) the Offeror’s UIE number.

Answer: No, the Cover Page is included in the body of the technical proposal and counts towards the page limit.

32. Section L.7 Phase One: Instructions for Preparation of the Phase One Proposal, page 86. The RFP does not outline instructions on font type and size for Phase One. Would USAID allow Offerors to:

● Use Times New Roman font size 12 for paragraph narrative.

● Use Times New Roman font size 9 for tables, text boxes and graphics.

Answer: Yes, so long as the text is legible. RFP section L.7, L.8 was revised to confirm this.

33. Section L.7, Corporate Experience, page 86. Can USAID confirm that the Corporate Experience request in the Phase One proposal is not relevant to the Past Performance request for the Phase Two Proposal (Section L.9, Part 6)?

Answer: Yes, they are separate.

34. Section M.2, Phase One, Factor 1: Corporate Experience, page 96:

● Can USAID clarify if Offerors are to respond to construction activities (Section C.6) with a focus on the process and how to effectively manage subcontract agreements related to A&E activities?

● Can USAID confirm that Offerors should not include references to past project examples of construction activities?

Answer: Offerors should focus for Phase 1 on Section C areas C.1-C.5. The RFP updated Section M.2 accordingly.

35. Section L.10 Format, page 84. The RFP does not outline any instructions on font type and size for tables and text boxes for Phase Two. Would USAID allow Offerors to use Times New Roman font size 9 for tables, text boxes and graphics?

Answer: Yes, offerors may use smaller font size for text in graphs, charts, tables, and text boxes, so long as the text is legible. RFP section L.7 and L.8 was revised to confirm this.

36. Sections B.2, B.7, F.5, F.6 and L.9. The following sections refer to Section F.5 in discussing level of effort. However, Section F.5 on page 27 is titled Performance Standards and it is Section F.6 that is titled Level of Effort. Please confirm that references to Section F.5 on the following pages should instead refer to Section F.6:

● Section B.2 Contract Type, page 8,

● Section B.7 Payment of Fixed Fee, Page 9,

● Section L.9 Cost Proposal Instructions, Part 3 – Proposed Costs 2) Level of Effort table, page

89.

Answer: The RFP has been revised to correct the reference numbering to “Section F.6” in the RFP Sections B.2, B.7 and L.9.

37. Section L.9, Cost Proposal Instructions, Part 3 – Proposed Costs (1)(a) 2) Level of Effort table, page 89: The budget instructions indicate that our MS Excel LOE table should match Section F.5.

● Please verify if this should reference Section F.6 Level of Effort (LOE) instead?

● The LOE table in Section F.6 does not have a line for key personnel LOE whereas the J.1

Budget Template, “LOE Summary” tab adds a line for key personnel LOE. Please clarify if the Section F.6 Level of Effort table should be used and that the line for key personnel LOE should be removed from the “LOE Summary” tab in the Excel template.

Answer: Key personnel LOE will not have a distinct line; instead, it will be integrated into the Long-Term Technical Assistance (LTTA) category. J.1 was revised accordingly.

38. Section L.9, Cost Proposal Instructions, Part 3 – Proposed Costs (1) on page 89 includes instructions for submitting Biographical Data Sheets. Given that L.8 (C) on page 88 states that no Biodata Form 1420s are required, can USAID confirm that Biodata Sheets do not need to be submitted?

Answer: Section L.9, Cost Proposal Instructions, Part 3 – Proposed Costs (1) on page 89 was updated to remove the instructions for submitting Biographical Data Sheets.

39. Section L.9, Cost Proposal Instructions, Part 3 – Proposed Costs (2) Indirect Cost Information on page 91 states that Offerors “may propose a single ceiling rate covering the term of award or a ceiling rate in each applicable contract year.” Can USAID clarify if proposing a ceiling on indirect cost rates is optional?

Answer: It is not optional. The RFP has been revised to clarify in Section Section L.9, Cost Proposal Instructions, Part 3 – Proposed Costs (2) Indirect Cost Information to state:

“Offerors must propose ceiling rates. Offerors may propose a single ceiling rate covering the term of award or a ceiling rate in each applicable contract year.etc”

40. Section L.9, Cost Proposal Instructions, Parts 4 and 5, pages 92-93: Can USAID confirm that Part

4 - Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors and Part 5- Evidence of Responsibility are only required for prime contractors?

Answer: USAID confirms that Part 4 - Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors and Part 5- Evidence of Responsibility are only required for prime contractors.

41. Section L.9. Cost Proposal Instructions, Part 6 – Past Performance, pages 93-94. USAID indicates that “Offerors must not submit past performance information for contracts in CPARS,” however can USAID help Offerors with contracts in the CPAR system to understand what is required to submit with our proposal.

● Should Offerors with contracts in the CPAR system not include an Attachment J.2 in our proposal submission?

● Does USAID want Offerors with contracts in the CPAR system to respond to the request (in bullet points 3 and 4) to include extraordinary problems and quality awards or Certifications?

● Can USAID confirm that the Past Performance request for the Phase Two Proposal (Section L.9, Part 6) is not relevant to the Corporate Experience request in the Phase One proposal (Section L.7, page 86)?

Answer: If all relevant projects are in the CPAR system, the offeror does not have to include attachment J.2. Past Performance in Phase 2 and Corporate Experience in Phase 1 are distinct.

42. J.1 Budget Template, Summary tab, states that a “by line-item explanation” should be provided. Please confirm that the explanation should be included in the budget narrative and not in the Excel.

Answer: USAID confirms that the explanation should be included in the budget narrative and not in the Excel sheet.

43. J.1 Budget Template: Can USAID confirm that tabs such as “Office Equipment,” “Procurement,” and “Fixed Fee Calculation,” can be removed if this information can sufficiently be included in the Detail Prime tab?

Answer: Yes.

44. J.1 Budget Template: The “Security Costs” tab includes budget categories like labor, travel, and indirect costs. Can USAID confirm that these costs should be duplicative of costs in the Detail Prime tab? In other words, kindly confirm that any costs listed in the “Security Costs” tab would also be in the “Detail Prime” tab?

Answer: Correct.