AMENDMENT NO.0001_72012124R00015_RevGRO.pdf

5. PROJECT NO.

CODE

7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODE CODE

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended,

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment of each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR AC- KNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV. 10-83)

is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office. is not, A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

15C. DATE SIGNED

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER

BY

Contractor

16C. DATE SIGNED

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

STANDARD FORM 30 STANDARD FORM 30

(Type or print) (Type or print)

(Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

(No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

(If other than Item 6)

(Specify type of modification and authority)

(such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)

(If required)

(If applicable)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

(X)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

1 15

0001 See Block 16 C.

USAID/Kyiv Regional Contracting Office Dept. of State 5850 Kyiv Place Washington, DC 20521-5850

USAID/Kyiv Regional Contracting Office Dept. of State 5850 Kyiv Place Washington, D.C. 20521-5850

TO ALL OFFERORS x 72012124R00015

June 17, 2024

X x

The purpose of this Amendment No. 01 is to:

1. Provide answers to the questions submitted by potential Offerors regarding Request for Proposal (RFP) No.72012124R00015, USAID Revenue and Expenditure Governance Reforms Operationalized (RevGRO) Activity; and

2. Revise Request for Proposal (RFP) No.72012124R00015.

Jessica R. Faber Contracting Officer

RFP No. 72012124R00015 Amendment No. 0001

PART I – ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS

Questions regarding RFP No. 72012124R00015

# Question USAID Response

1. Section L.7, page 94. The introductory paragraph to the PROPOSAL SUBMISSION says, "Total email size cannot exceed 10 MB". However, the language in the Delivery Instructions on the same page has contradictory language as it says, "The Offeror must submit the proposal via email with up to 20MB limit per email compatible with Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, etc.) and/or Adobe PDF in an MS Windows environment." Could USAID please clarify the email size limit?

USAID apologizes for the typo. The email size limit is up to 20MB. Please see the revised RFP.

2. Please confirm that offerors may submit a two-page Executive Summary that does not count against the 40-page limit.

The RFP does not require an Executive Summary as a stand-alone section of the Technical Proposal.

Therefore, if an offeror chooses to include an Executive Summary it will, indeed, count against the 40-page limit.

3. Section L.B 4 Past Performance.

We request that USAID reduce the minimum cost threshold of projects used for RevGRO past performance from $25M to $20M. A higher threshold creates a bias against U.S.

small businesses, local organizations, and other new and underutilized partners, and. The higher the threshold, the higher USAID is biasing the selection process toward that same very large firms that already have received most of the contracts in USAID’s portfolio. A $20M threshold is aligned with USAID Ukraine's two recent solicitations with higher dollar value: $250M HARVEST (issued December 2023) and $90M Furthering Health Reform & Recovery Activity (issued March 2024). Both required that projects used as past performance be at least $20M, with a period of performance falling in the past 3 years.

Please see the revised RFP. The minimum cost threshold for past performance is revised and lowered from $25,000,000 to $20,000,000.

4. Section L.8.B Content of Technical Proposal. Would USAID confirm if the Resumes, references, and statements may be included in an Annex of the proposal, as they are not included in the 40-page limit? Alternatively, may this be an exclusion to the requirement to number pages sequentially?

RFP, Section L.8 states: Annexes can be included as a part of the Technical Proposal and should be within the 40-page limitation, although no specific annexes are required by the Government.

However, L.8.B Content of Technical Proposal, states: Management Approach and Staffing Plan (Résumés, references and statements (not included in the 40- page limit); so it may be included as an attachment to the Technical

Proposal.

This is not an exclusion to the requirement to number pages sequentially.

5. Section L.8 Short-term consultants (page 97). Would USAID allow for an illustrative STTA roster to be displayed in an annex of the technical proposal?

The RFP does not require any rosters. However, it is up to the Offeror which information will be included under Annexes. Please remember that the RFP states: Annexes can be included as a part of Technical Proposal and should be within the 40-page limitation, although no specific annexes are required by the Government.

6. Page 96, Section L.8.2, Management Approach and Staffing Plan. The RFP reads “The proposal must include a graphical depiction of the roles of proposed primes, major subcontractors, and/or other consortium members in program implementation”. Would USAID confirm if this graphical depiction refers to an organizational chart, and if so, may this be included in an annex of the technical proposal?

It is up to the Offeror to decide how to present and develop its Management Approach and Staffing Plan, including the inclusion of an organizational chart. If you decide to include an organizational chart, please note that Annexes should be within the 40-page limitation.

7. Page 99, Section L.9, Part 3, Proposed Costs/Prices (1) General states (i) Summary Budget - The Offeror must submit a summary budget for the five (5) years of performance. The summary budget must reflect summary cost information for each of the major budget categories for each of the contract years separately as synopsized under the budget template in Attachment J.4.”

a. Can USAID confirm the reference should be to Attachment J.3, not J.4?

b. Can USAID please also confirm that the template is illustrative, and that Offerors may use their own detailed budget template if the structure is followed, and all the information is provided? If the exact template in J.3 is mandatory, could USAID please confirm that it is possible for the Offeror to make edits to the color/fonts of the budget template to comply with the Offeror’s corporate branding policy as well as any necessary adjustments to allow for the Offeror to include its indirect costs appropriately or to remove any unnecessary rows, etc.?

a. Thank you for your comment. We confirm that the reference should be to Attachment J.3, not J.4.

USAID apologizes for the typo. Please see the revised RFP.

b. Yes confirmed. The offerors may use their own standard budget template, provided the major cost items are in the same order as USAID’s budget template.

8. Page 100, Section L.9, Part 3 provides the ceiling of $93,646/year for the U.S. Embassy’s Local Compensation Plan (LCP).

Offerors are expected to conduct their own market research for determining the salary scale for locally hired positions in Ukraine. Alternatively, Can USAID please provide the full LCP plan to Offerors?

offerors may rely on previous work experience and/or other implementing partners’ experience in the region and use these established practices to justify CCN salaries.

9. Page 112, Section M.6, Source Selection seems contradictory to the earlier language in Sections M.1, M.2, and M.4 and Sections L and the cover letter to the solicitation. It seems USAID is seeking to award the Offeror responsible for using a Highest Technical Rated with Fair and Reasonable Price and Realistic Cost (HTR) as discussed in detail in the process in Section M.2. The RFP states in several places that there will not be a tradeoff to justify paying a premium for a higher technical rated proposal and that this competition will not utilize a tradeoff process.

However, in Section M.6 the language is inconsistent with a procurement using HTR for the selection as it repeatedly references “best value” and includes statements that are akin to a tradeoff selection. For instance, the sentence at the end of Section M.6 insinuates best value and trade off.

“If the Contracting Officer determines that competing technical proposals are essentially equal, cost/price and past performance factors may become the determining factor in source selection. Conversely, if the Contracting Officer determines that competing cost/price proposals are essentially equal, non-cost/price factors may become the determining factor in source selection” Page

We respectfully request that USAID delete most of Section M.6 so that there is consistency throughout regarding the source selection process being HTR if that is the methodology that USAID seeks to use in this procurement.

There are no contradictions. The HTR approach follows USAID best practices. Note the use of the word may, not will or must in the quoted language. Therefore, no revisions will be provided.

10. Does the Government anticipate that all work will be performed centrally in Kyiv?

F.3 of the RFP states: The place of performance of this contract is Ukraine.

11. p. 46, H.8

p. L.9, Part 4 - Business/Cost Proposal Annexes (f)

For contractors with an approved purchasing system, please confirm advance notification of proposed Subcontractors, as per FAR 52.244-2 (Alternate 1) is acceptable instead of detailed information to support consent of proposed subcontractors, including FAR 44.202- 2, as required by RFP Section H.8 (on page 46) & Section L.9 Part 4 (Page 104).

USAID does not provide any advance confirmation(s) at the solicitation/pre-award stage. Final determination is subject to the CO decision at the award stage.

12. p. 46, H.8

p. L.9, Part 4 - Business/Cost Proposal Annexes (f)

Note regarding Consent to Subcontract: “If the Contractor chooses not to request consent to subcontract at the time of proposal submission, it still must identify all sub- Contractors and lower tier sub-Contractors proposed to perform work under the contract.”

Can USAID confirm that this requirement shall not be applicable for contractors with an approved purchasing system who may submit advance notification, as per FAR 52.244-2 (Alternate 1), instead of detailed information to support consent for subcontractors, as required by RFP Section H.8 (on page 46) & Section L.9 Part 4 (Page 104)?

FAR 52.244-2 does not prohibit a Federal Agency from utilizing their authority to request Contracting Officer consent to subcontract from a contractor even if the contractor has an approved purchasing system. USAID reserves the right to make a final determination at the award stage.

13. p.54, H.18, Security Management Plan

Clause H.18 requires that subcontractors and grantees implement and maintain the Security Management Plan.

Given the unique circumstances that might apply to each entity (e.g. their size, maturity, location) it would seem more appropriate for each entity to have their own plan than for the Contractor to impose its plan on these entities. Accordingly, can USAID confirm that this requirement means that subcontractors and grantees must establish their own plans and not that the Contractor must require its subcontractors and grantees to adhere to the Contractor’s security management plan?

No, this interpretation is incorrect.

The RFP states: “The Contractor must develop a Security Management Plan to safeguard all project operations. The Security Management Plan is to be implemented and maintained also by all Subcontractors (and/or grantees if the contracts includes a grants-under-contract component).” Please proceed accordingly.

14. p. 93, L.6 and p. 103, L.9

Section L.6 General Instructions to Offerors; (e) Offer Acceptability states that all Offerors and each major subcontractor must complete, sign and date all Representations, Certifications and Acknowledgements as required in Section K in case the Offeror and the major subcontractor is not registered in SAM.Gov prior to submission of the proposal. Further, Section L.9 Instruction For The Preparation Of The Cost Proposal, Volume II, Part 4

- Business/Cost Proposal Annexes (c. Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors), Page 103 states that the Offeror and each proposed subcontractor must complete all "Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offeror" as required www.Sam.gov and Section K.

http://www.sam.gov/

Can USAID confirm that submission of "Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offeror" as required in Section K is applicable to only each Major subcontractor who is not registered in SAM.gov and does not apply to all proposed subcontractors?"

Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offeror should be provided by the Prime Offeror and its major subcontractors.

15. p. 94, L.7 Proposal Submission

What is the max size for proposal submission emails? 10 and 20 MB are both sited in Section L.7.

20MB. See answer to Q.1. Please see the Revised

RFP.

16. p.95, L.8. B Proposal Content

In various places in the RFP, it says that 40 pages is the page limit for the proposal, including annexes. However, it also says in L.8.B under the bullet for Management Approach and Staffing Plan that “(resumes, references and statements (NOT included in the 40-page limit)”. Can USAID please confirm that resumes are not included in the 40-page limit?

Confirmed. Resumes are not included in the 40-page limit.

17. p. 98, L.8, 4. Past Performance

How many past performance references are offerors allowed to submit to USAID for consideration?

The RFP does not dictate the number of past performance references an Offeror may submit.

Per the RFP, an Offeror should provide past performance information for their organization with: (1) a minimum cost of at least $20,000,000 (this threshold is revised through this Amendment 01 to the RFP); (2) a period of performance falling within the last three years; (3) and involving similar work as outlined in the statement of objectives (SOO).

18. p. 98, L.8, 4. Past Performance

Due to the Excel format of Attachment J.2, would USAID permit offerors to submit this as a separate attachment rather than try to fit it into the Content of the Technical proposal? Alternatively, would USAID permit offerors to provide all requested information from Attachment J.2 in a table which fits better into Word page format? Finally, if it is to be included in the Word document, could it be included as an annex that does not count against the 40-page limit?

J.2 A “Past Performance Matrix” may be submitted as an Attachment to the Technical Proposal.

19. p. 98, L.8.B.4 Proposal Content, past performance

Please confirm that if all Offeror’s past performance projects and contracts are in CPARs, then the Offeror does not need to submit past performance information via Attachment J.2?

Confirmed. Per L.8, Part 4, Past Performance, please use the Attachment J.2 for projects not in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Offerors must not submit past performance information for contracts in CPARS.

20. p. 98, L.8.B.4 Proposal Content, past performance

Would USAID allow offerors to submit past performance from within the last four years rather than the last three years?

No.

21. p. 98, L.8.B.4 Proposal Content, Past Performance

Would USAID consider lowering the past performance threshold to $15 million instead of $25 million considering that stand-alone PFM projects tend to be in the range of $15-20M and if the offeror provides at least one PPR for a contract over $25 million?

USAID revised the threshold to $20 million through this Amendment No.0001 of this RFP.

Please see the Revised RFP.

22. p. 98, L.8

Section L.8, page 98, 4. Past Performance – paragraph (1) requires submission of Past Performance Matrix (Attachment J.2) for contracts not listed in CPARS and with a value of at least $25,000,000 for efforts similar to the work as achieving the objectives in the SOO. It also states that “Offerors must not submit past performance information for contracts in CPARS.”

It is our view that Offerors should have the ability to list all contracts that meet elements of relevance that best demonstrate the Offerors’ ability to provide the services outlined in SOO. We respectfully request that offerors be allowed to provide a list of the most relevant contract numbers for past performance references regardless of CPAR status in the Attachment J.2 Matrix.

Threshold changed to $20 million. Please see the Revised RFP.

For consistency purposes, please follow RFP requirements. For contracts and projects in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) – no need to provide info in the Attachment J.2 “Past Performance Matrix.”

23. p. 99, Section L.9, Part 1

Section L.8, Part 1 requires an original signature on the SF-

33. Since proposals will be submitted electronically, could USAID please confirm that an electronic or scanned signature will be sufficient?

Confirmed.

24. p. 102, Section L.9, Part 3, (K) RFP Section L.9 Part 3, (K), requires offerors to submit Fixed

Fee Schedule to be incorporated under Section F.8 and states that “Proposed deliverables for payment of Fee cannot include more than 30% of fee allocated to progress reporting such as quarterly, annual or other technical reports.”

70% of the fixed fee amount will be tied to achievement of objectives and results in Section C. We believe 70% is excessive given the fluid environment, the security situation and wartime challenges in Ukraine.

The contractor may need to rely on iterative implementation planning in coordination with USAID to meet shifting priorities and program demands.

Additionally, RevGRO results will be largely dependent upon GOU commitment to reforms and the impact of the war.

This places some of the results outside of the contractor’s direct control and emphasizes the importance of adaptive management. In this environment a rigid fee schedule developed prior to contract execution may reduce USAID’s and the Contractor’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances and priorities. Accordingly, we respectfully request USAID to either remove the requirement or consider reducing the portion of fixed fee to a level of 30% being linked to performance outcomes/results.

Thank you for your comment. USAID is focused on achieving the realistic life of project targets, therefore a significant portion of the contractor’s fixed fee is tied to them. Section F.8 is revised through this Amendment. Please see the revised

RFP.

25. Page 98, Section L.8

Could you please confirm that this is the structure of the QASP or provide recommended template:

1. Purpose

2. Approach

3. Roles and Responsibilities

4. Surveillance Methods

5. Performance Standards

6. Contractual Deliverables Surveillance Matrix

7. Performance Ratings

8. Documenting Performance

Please refer to Section L.8. Section B. 3. Draft Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) (see M.3 - Factor 3) -- Offerors are encouraged to review FAR Subpart 46.4 and consult appropriate publicly available resources on how to write a

QASP.

It should describe the systematic methods used to measure performance (including identifying and addressing risks and problems), identify the reports or data required, and the resources to be employed. The Draft QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the Contractor understands the overall performance standards identified in the contract and how to go about achieving them. While the QASP may rely on data from or use the MELP, a QASP is not equivalent to an MELP.

Section F.7 A., 8) Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) states:

Consistent with the terms of the contract, the QASP should include:

• What will be monitored.

• How monitoring will take place.

• Who will conduct the monitoring.

• How monitoring efforts and results will be documented.”

26. Section B.4(3), page 6. The RFP requires offerors to “set aside up to $4,000,000 of the total estimated cost to be designated for Grants Under Contract (GUCs) to local enterprises and organizations.” Yet, Section H.10 authorizes grants to U.S. and non-U.S. organizations, as well as in-kind grants to Ukrainian government partners.

Please confirm that potential grant recipients extend beyond Ukrainian enterprises and organizations.

We confirm that potential grant recipients extend beyond Ukrainian enterprises and organizations.

However, $4M of the proposed total estimated cost should be designated for grants to local Ukrainian enterprises and organizations.

27. Section E.3, page 14. The RFP mentions “periodic impact evaluations” as one of the mechanisms that may be used to monitor activity progress and contractor performance.

Could USAID please further define how it is envisioning these “periodic impact evaluations,” and whether those should be covered within the offeror’s cost proposal or if they would be conducted by USAID outside of the RevGRO contract?

Please see the Revised RFP.

Section E.3, “g. Periodic impact evaluations” deleted.

28. Section F.6, pages 16-18. Would USAID kindly consider allowing offerors the flexibility to tailor key personnel roles, responsibilities, and minimum qualifications to better align with the approaches, strategies, and interventions proposed to achieve Activity results?

Offerors may propose to tailor Key Personnel roles/responsibilities to align with approaches to achieve Activity results. Proposed Key Personnel should have the minimum qualifications as specified in F.6.

29. Section F.6.3, page 18. The minimum requirements for the Component One Lead includes technical capabilities in both tax and customs policy and administration. Given most Ukrainian professionals have expertise and experience in either tax or customs, this requirement could be a barrier to identifying and retaining the most appropriate local talent in senior leadership positions on the project. The offeror can also supplement the technical expertise of the chosen Component Lead with other non-key personnel positions. Would USAID therefore consider modifying this requirement to state, “Technical expertise in and

Please see the revised RFP.

experience implementing revenue generation reforms related to tax and/or customs policy and administration?”

30. Section F.6.4, page 18. The minimum requirements for the Component Two Lead encompass a broad range of technical capabilities. Given that few Ukrainian professionals have expertise and experience across all listed areas, while still having the requisite management experience, this requirement could be a barrier to identifying and retaining the most appropriate local talent in senior leadership positions on the project. The offeror can also supplement the technical expertise of the chosen Component Lead with other non-key personnel positions.

Would USAID therefore consider modifying this requirement to state, “Technical expertise in and experience implementing public financial management reforms related to public investment management, public budgeting and expenditure management, and/or public control and audit?”

31. Section F.7, Part B(6), pages 28-29. The RFP states that, “The Contractor must enhance USAID’s outreach and communications efforts in two dimensions. The first dimension is outreach to domestic audiences, focused on describing and explaining USAID’s efforts to advance self-reliant local governance.” Could USAID clarify two aspects:

(1) when referencing domestic audiences, does USAID intend to refer to United States domestic audiences; and

(2) should the offeror interpret that the language that refers to “self-reliant local governance” should refer more broadly to economic governance at the national and sub-national levels?

Domestic audiences refers to audiences inside Ukraine.

Regarding self-reliant local governance, this is a typo. Please see revised RFP.

32. Section F.7, Part C, page 31. The Summary of Reports table requires submission of Annual Performance Reports “within 30 days of the end of each USAID fiscal quarter,” yet on page 27, USAID states that they are due “within 30 calendar days after the end of the U.S. Government fiscal year.” Please confirm the due date for Annual Performance Reports.

October 30 of each year.

33. Section F.8, page 33. The RFP states, “Payment of fixed fee under this contract will be tied to the completion of deliverables specified in Section F.7 of this contract and in accordance with the final approved Fee Schedule. Section F.7 only includes deliverables and required reporting, yet, Section L.9, Part 3(K) states, “Proposed deliverables for payment of Fee cannot include more than 30% of fee allocated to progress reporting such as quarterly, annual or other technical reports. Annual deliverables may break down results included in Section C.”

Could USAID please confirm that the fee schedule should only include required reports and deliverables as listed in Section F.7?

Section F.8 has been revised for clarity purposes.

34. Section L.7, page 94. The RFP states that the submission file size limit is both 10MB and 20MB per email. Please confirm that offerors may send emails up to 20MB in size.

Please see answer to Q.1 and the Revised RFP

35. Section L.8.B, page 95. Please confirm that the résumés, references, and statements are to be included as an annex that does not count toward the 40-page limit despite the wording at the beginning of the section that notes “nothing is excluded from the page limitation.”

Résumés and references are to be included as attachment to the tech proposal and are not included in the 40-page limit.

Please see the Revised RFP. Wording “statements” deleted.

36. Section L.8.B, page 95. Along with résumés and references, “statements” are required. Please clarify what these statements must include.

37. Section L.8.B.1, pages 95-96. As the Performance Work Statement (PWS) must be written with “the Contractor will/must” language, may offerors include an Executive Summary that precedes the PWS?

Executive Summary is not included in the required order and as a separate document. It’s up to the Offeror how to develop its Performance Work Statement and whether the executive summary is critical for the Offeror. Please remember, an Offeror’s Technical Proposal must adhere to the page limit of 40 pages total.

38. Section L.8.B.1, page 96. The PWS instructions state that offerors must respond to “each constraint contained in the SOO” and that the PWS "should offer original critical thinking and analysis for each objective and constraint.”

However, within the SOO in Attachment J.1, there are no specific constraints described that the offeror could respond to (constraints are only mentioned in the cross-cutting considerations under politically informed approach in a general manner). Can USAID please confirm which specific constraints offerors should respond to as part of the PWS?

Generally, all offerors should consider the Ukrainian country context in formulating their Performance Work Statement. The country is currently at war.

39. Section L.8.B.2, pages 96-97. Instructions require “a graphical depiction of the roles of proposed primes, major subcontractors, and/or other consortium members in program implementation” and “an organizational chart…that illustrates the roles of the proposed staff.”

Could USAID please clarify if these are two separate graphics?

Yes.

40. Section L.8.B.2, page 96. Would USAID consider a table in lieu of a graphic to present “the roles of proposed primes, major subcontractors, and/or other consortium members in program implementation?”

Please note, graphical depiction/graphic – this includes a chart/table that represents the distribution of roles.

41. Section L.8.B.2, pages 97. Please confirm that the organizational chart should be included as a counting annex.

Yes. The proposal must include an organizational chart (as an Annex, included in the page limit) that illustrates the roles of the proposed staff.

42. Section L.8.B.4(4), page 98. Please confirm that quality awards can be presented as a non-counting annex.

Page 98 states: Describe any quality awards or certifications that indicate exceptional capacity to provide the service or product described in the statement of objectives (“statement of work” changed to “statement of objectives” – see the revised in RFP). This information is not included in the page limitation.

This information may be presented as a non-counting Attachment.

43. Section L.9, page 100. Would USAID please provide a plug figure for IT system purchases?

We do not provide any plug figure for IT system purchases. It is up to an Offeror to propose a figure.

44. Section L.9, Part 3(1)(ii) and Attachment J.3. Can USAID please confirm whether offerors may use their own budget template, provided the summary and detailed budgets reflect the major budget categories for each of the contract years as synopsized under the budget template?

Additionally, can USAID confirm that offerors may adjust the presentation to incorporate the base and option periods of performance?

Yes, the offerors may use their own standard budget template, provided the major cost items are in the same order as USAID’s budget template.

Section J.3 has been revised accordingly.

45. Section L.9, Part 3(1)(K). Instructions state, “The Offeror must submit completed annual deliverable and fee tables, currently in Section F.8.” Section F.8 includes a table that lays out the deliverables and associated fixed fee, and instructs offerors to provide the information required to complete the table in Section F.8. Additionally, the budget template in Attachment J.3 includes a tab called “Fixed Fee Completion Table,” which has a different format than the table in Section F.8. Can USAID please clarify which format Offerors should use to present their proposed fee schedule?

Section F.8 is revised for clarity purposes. J.3, Budget Template is also revised. Please see the Revised RFP.

46. Attachment J.2, Section L.8.A, and Section L.8.B.4. The Past Performance Matrix is an Excel table that is illegible when placed on an 8 ½ x 11” page. Please confirm that the page size required does not apply to this matrix.

Confirmed.

47. Attachment J.2, Section L.8.A, and Section L.8.B.4. Is the Past Performance Matrix required to be included in the 40-page limit or can it be another non-counting annex?

The Past Performance Matrix is Attachment J.2 to the RFP. Accordingly, it should be Attachment J.2 of the Technical Proposal and is not within the 40-page limit.

48. Section H.10(3) (p. 47) indicates that in-kind assistance to partner government entities is authorized, but direct grants to Partner Government Entities will not be provided. Because in-kind assistance can be provided in the form of a direct in-kind grant to a government entity, and since ADS 302.3.4.13 allows in-kind grants to government entities, would USAID consider revising the last sentence under H.10(3) to state, “The Program will not provide direct funds to Partner Government Entities.”?

No revisions are anticipated at this stage.

49. Section L.6 (e)(3) (p. 93) states “the Offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must complete, sign and date all Representations, Certifications and Acknowledgements as required in Section K.” Section L.9 Part 4 b. (p. 100) states the requirement for “representations and certifications, as set forth in Section K of this solicitation, with the last page signed. This should be completed by any major subcontractors as well.”

However, Section L.9 Part 4 c. (p. 100) states “The Offeror and each proposed subcontractor must complete all ‘Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offeror’ as required www.Sam.gov and Section K, and sign and date on the last page in the space provided and submit as an Annex to the cost proposal.” Would USAID please clarify that the inclusion of a completed Section K is only required for the offeror and proposed major subcontractors rather than all proposed subcontractors?

Confirmed. Also, please see the answer to Q.14.

50. Section L.7 (p.94) states two e-mail size limits, 10MB and 20MB. May USAID please confirm the applicable size limit?

20MB. Please see the answer to Q.1, along with the Revised RFP.

51. L.7 (Proposal Submission)

Page 94 0f 125 Paragraph 3 “Total email size cannot exceed 10 MB.”

http://www.sam.gov/

Page 94 0f 125 Paragraph 4 “The Offeror must submit the proposal via email with up to 20MB limit per email…”

Could USAID kindly clarify the email size limit.

20MB. Please see answers to Q.1 and Q.50 above.

52. L.8.B (Content of Technical Proposal) Page 95 of 125 Paragraph 3

Technical proposals must adhere to the page limit of 40 pages total, including annexes. Any pages beyond these stated limits will not be evaluated. Nothing is excluded from the page limitation. Required order:

● Cover Page

● Table of Contents

● Acronym List

● Performance Work Statement

● Management Approach and Staffing Plan (Résumés, references and statements (not included in the 40-page limit)

● Draft Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

● Past Performance Information

● Annexes

Could USAID please clarify the content order of the technical proposal given resumes, references and statement are not included in the 40-page limit.

Would USAID please provide a list of required annexes?

The Management Approach and Staffing Plan should be described in the Technical Proposal and is included in the 40-page limit. Resumes and references could be presented as an Attachment to the Technical Proposal, as they are not included in the 40-page limit. Please see the Revised RFP.

Wording “statements” deleted.

No specific annexes are required by the Government. It’s up to the Offeror to decide whether any information should be provided through an Annex.

53. L.8.B.1 (Management and Staffing Plan) L.8.A. (Annexes to Technical Proposal)

Page 97 of 125 Paragraph 2 “The proposal must include an organizational chart (as an Annex, included in the page limit) that illustrates the roles of the proposed staff.”

Page 98 of 125 Paragraph 7 “Annexes can be included as a part of Technical Proposal and should be within the 40-page limitation, although no specific annexes are required by the Government.”

Could USAID please clarify whether the organization chart is required by USAID as an annex counted against the 40-page limit.

Your understanding is not correct. The proposal must include an organizational chart (as an Annex, included in the page limit) that illustrates the roles of the proposed staff.

54. H3. Authorized Geographic Code “The authorized geographic code for procurement of goods and services under this contract is 935 defined as the United States, the Cooperating Country (Ukraine), and developing countries other than advanced developing countries, and excluding prohibited sources.”

There seems to be an error in the definition of geographic code 935. Please confirm geocode 935 as defined in AIDAR

310.3.1.1 (paragraph 3) applies.

Section H.3 is revised accordingly and reads as follows: The authorized geographic code for the procurement of goods and services under this contract is 935 (any area or country including the recipient country but excluding any country that is a prohibited source).

II. PART II – REVISED RFP No. 72012124R00015

Based on the questions received for Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 72012124R00015, USAID Revenue and Expenditure Governance Reforms Operationalized (RevGRO) Activity, the revised version of the RFP is posted. USAID edits/revisions are highlighted in yellow in the revised document.

[End of Amendment No. 0001 to RFP No. 72012124R00015]