Questions and Answers _ Critical Infrastructure Resilience Activity.pdf

RFP Amendment 2 Date of Issuance: January 4, 2024

Closing Date and Time: February 6, 2024, at 9am Kosovo Time

Subject: Amendment No. 2 to the Request for Proposals (RFP) # 72016724R00002

Activity Title: USAID’s Critical Infrastructure Resilience Activity

The purpose of this amendment is to:

a) provide answers to the questions submitted by interested offerors; and

b) to amend the original RFP.

All changes to the RFP are highlighted for ease of reference in Amendment No. 2

The original RFP#72016724R00002 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the attached RFP included.

Attached are:

1) Amendment No. 2 to the RFP#72016724R00002 for USAID/Kosovo’s Critical Infrastructure Resilience Activity.

2) Attachment J.7 Kosovo e-Governance Activity SOW

Sincerely, Claudio Ballesteros Contracting Officer USAID/Kosovo

Question 1: Section B.7.1 (page 8) states, “When a Fee Bearing Milestone is not completed or achieved, the portion of the total fixed fee allocated to the Milestone in the Fee Distribution

Plan will not be paid.” This section also states that “When a Fee Bearing Milestone is not completed on time or requires more cost/effort to complete than projected, the portion of the total fixed fee allocated to the Milestone in the Fee Distribution Plan may be subject to adjustment of the fee by the Contracting Officer.“ To ensure the fee under this contract remains fixed and is only adjusted as a result of changes in the work to be performed, we request the following sentence be added to Section B.7.1: “Any unpaid fee resulting from the contractor not achieving a certain result beyond its manageable control can be reallocated among other or new deliverables in the work plan for the current or upcoming year.”

Answer 1: USAID confirms that Section B.7.1 will be updated to reflect the suggested change in the solicitation.

Question 2: Section H.4(d), Annual Salary Increases (page 28), limits offerors to administering

3% annual salary increases to long-term project staff. We respectfully request that USAID remove this salary restriction from the RFP because it appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR

752.7007, Personnel Compensation, which the RFP incorporates into the contract under Section

H.3(a) (page 27). AIDAR 752.7007 stipulates that personnel compensation “must be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices,” with reimbursement subject only to the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold. The salary restriction limiting offerors to administering 3% annual salary increases to long-term project staff may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices, as required by AIDAR 752.7007.

Answer 2: Yes. The Section H.4(d) of the Solicitation will be updated to reflect this.

Question 3: Section H.4(f), Work Week (page 29), does not provide guidance on six-day work week authorization. Would USAID please confirm that a six-day work week is authorized for short-term consultants?

Answer 3: USAID confirms that management of the Contractor’s personnel shall be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principle applicable to this contract.

Question 4: Section H.6 (page 30) notes, “The authorized geographic code for procurement of goods and services under this contract is 937.” The Statement of Objectives in Attachment J.1

(page 108) lists the following result under Objective 3: “Hardware/software upgrades for cybersecurity protection and/or responses are procured for select entities or bodies.” Would

USAID please consider changing the geographic code to 935, which would ensure the contractor could procure the necessary IT equipment to deliver this result while providing the best value to

USAID?

Answer 4: USAID confirms that Geografic code for this procurement will remain 937.

Question 5: Section L.6 (page 90) states, “The Technical Proposal will consist of the Technical

Proposal Body and Annexes,” and “The technical proposal must be submitted in Adobe Acrobat

(PDF), along with a Microsoft Word copy of the technical proposal body.” Section L.7 (page 91), however, indicates that offerors must submit several annexes in addition to the technical proposal body in Microsoft Word. Would USAID please confirm that offerors should submit just the Technical Approach Narrative, Performance Work Statement, and Personnel and

Management Approach in both PDF and Microsoft Word — with all annexes to the technical proposal only in the full PDF volume?

Answer 5: USAID confirms that technical proposal and its annexes (1,2 and 3) as a package, must be submitted in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format, along with the Microsoft Word format copy of the technical proposal body. The rest of Annexes (4, 5, 6) may be submitted in Adobe

Acrobat (PDF) format. Section L.6 of the Solicitation will be updated to reflect this.

Question 6: Section L.6 (page 90) states, “Text in graphs and charts must not have a font smaller than 9-point.” Would USAID please confirm that a 9-point typeface other than Calibri is permissible?

Answer 6: USAID confirms that fonts other than Calibri are not permissible.

Question 7: Sections L.6 and L.7 (page 90) note that Annex 1 should contain the Draft Year 1

Work Plan. However, Section L.7 subsequently (page 91) states that “The Performance Work

Statement (PWS), proposed by the successful Offeror, submitted as Annex 1, will become

Section C of the resulting contract.” Would USAID please confirm that the Performance Work

Statement, per Section L.6, should be part of the main technical proposal, not Annex 1, and that

Annex 1 should contain the Draft Year 1 Work Plan?

Answer 7: USAID confirms that the Performance Work Statement must be part of the Technical

Proposal in accordance with section L.6 instructions . The RFP is updated accordingly.

Question 8: Section L.9 lists the instructions for each part of the cost proposal (page 94) but does not include a unique part for Section K provisions. However, there are solicitation provisions shared under Section K of the RFP (page 63). Would USAID please clarify whether the offeror should include the Representations and Instructions of Section K as part of the cost proposal or whether they are not required?

Answer 8: USAID confirms that the offeror should include Representations and Instructions of

Section K as part of the cost proposal.

Question 9: Section M.2 (pages 100-101) lists three technical evaluation criteria: Technical

Approach, Personnel and Management Approach, and Past Performance Information. However, Section L.9, Part 4 (page 98) lists past performance as part of the cost proposal. Would USAID please confirm either that the offeror should include Past Performance Information as an additional annex to the technical proposal or that Past Performance Information is not part of the technical evaluation criteria?

Answer 9: USAID confirms that Past Performance must be submitted as part of the Cost

Proposal (see Section L.9 (d) - Part 4). Past Performance will be evaluated as per section M.2 of the RFP.

Question 10: L.7 Technical Approach components states that the “Performance Work Statement

(PWS), proposed by the successful Offeror, submitted as Annex 1, will become Section C of the resulting contract.” Can USAID confirm that the PWS is not Annex 1, and that Annex 1 is the

Draft Year 1 Work Plan?

Answer 10: See answer to question number 7.

Question 11: The instructions for the PWS state that “The PWS must address the SOO Goal and

Objectives, with clear deliverables, results, and indicators.” However, Annex 2 calls for a Draft

MEL Plan, which would include performance indicators per USAID’s how-to note. Can USAID please confirm whether indicators should be provided within the PWS, the MEL Plan annex, or both?

Answer 11: USAID confirms that illustrative indicators should be provided in the MEL Plan annex, and do not need to also be provided in the PWS.

Question 12: Can USAID clarify if the Management Approach is required to be submitted as a completely separate volume from the Technical Approach volume?

Answer 12: USAID confirms that ”Personnel and Management Approach” is a part of the

Technical Proposal. See instructions under Section L.6.

Question 13: The submissions instructions state that “The proposal must be accompanied by a cover letter typed on official organizational letterhead and signed by a person who has signatory authority for the organization. The cover letter shall be in Adobe PDF format.” Can

USAID clarify if this cover letter should be a standalone document, or if it should be included as part of the Technical volume?

Answer 13: Cover letter must be included as a part of the Technical Proposal. See instructions under Section L.6.

Question 14: Could USAID please confirm that the reference on the top of page 94 to an Annex

5 mobilization plan should actually be Annex 6?

Answer 14: Correct. RFP is updated accordingly.

Question 15: Does USAID have a total number of past performance contracts desired? If not, will the quantity of past performance examples provided impact evaluation?

Answer 15: USAID does not have a total number of desired past performance, but rather past performance information of the contracts involving similar size and work as in Section C of this

RFP. Past performance will be evaluated as per Section M.2(c).

Question 16: In order for USAID to determine size and scope relevance of past performance contracts, is it considered as a whole across all submitted projects? For example, if a contract is highly relevant to the scope, but smaller in size, would that contract still be considered in the evaluation?

Answer 16: Yes, USAID will consider the past performance of the smaller in size.

Question 17: The proposal submission instructions state that individual email size cannot exceed 5 MB, which requires offerors to split up volumes into multiple emails and attachments.

Would USAID consider increasing the email size maximum to allow for ease of transmittal?

Answer 17: Total email size must not exceed 25MB. RFP is updated accordingly.

Question 18: Can USAID confirm that the cost proposal may be submitted in Adobe PDF without a Microsoft Word copy?

Answer 18: USAID confirms that Cost Proposal narrative may be submitted in Adobe PDF.

Please note that “The Offeror must provide a complete budget, including the budgets for each subcontractor, by cost element in Microsoft Excel. All formulas must be displayed, and the budget must not be locked.” See section L.9 of the updated RFP.

Question 19: Can USAID confirm that L.8(c) Key Personnel is to be included as Annex 4 and no other content is required within the 10 pages for this requirement?

Answer 19: USAID confirms that Key Personnel Position Description must be submitted as part of the Annex 4 which is excluded from the 10 page limitation for the Management Approach section. RFP updated accordingly.

Question 20: L.6 states that “The technical proposal is strictly limited to no more than 22 pages for Technical Approach (including Annex 1,2 and 3) and maximum 10 pages for Management

Approach.” Can USAID clarify if Annexes 4, 5, and 6 are part of the 10 page limitation for management approach?

Answer 20: USAID confirms that Annexes 4, 5 and 6 are not part of the 10 page limitation for

Personnel and Management Approach.

Question 21: This section states that “both the COP and DCOP must have demonstrated expertise in cybersecurity or a related field.” Given that cybersecurity is a relatively new sector for USAID, would USAID consider a COP or DCOP with general governance, regulation, and public administration expertise in lieu of specific cybersecurity expertise, if the other candidate possesses this skill?

Answer 21: USAID is open to Offerors making the case for such a blend of key personnel, should they believe it addresses the strategic objective of this activity and aligns with their proposed technical approach.

Question 22: Given that Objective 1. Governance requires the establishment of the Cyber

Security Agency, does USAID anticipate that the program will embed advisors within this agency in the initial stages of its inception?

Answer 22: USAID/Kosovo has moved away from the use of embedded advisors in recent years.

Should there be a strong case for an embedded advisor as part of the capacity building/on the job training/allowing for closer work with beneficiaries, Offerors could consider including it within their proposal.

Question 23: Will USAID allow for the addition of relevant textboxes to highlight the offeror’s experience as part of the Performance Work Statement section?

Answer 23: USAID allows the addition of relevant textboxes to highlight the offeror’s experience as part of the Performance Work Statement section; however, it is counted toward page limitation.

Question 24: Can USAID confirm the anticipated award start date of the Kosovo Critical

Infrastructure Resilience Activity?

Answer 24: The estimated start time of the Award is July 2023.

Question 25: For budgeting purposes, can USAID share the most updated LCP for the Kosovo

Mission?

Answer 25: LCP for the Kosovo Mission can not be shared. For the planning purposes and the offerors' reference, the range of the current Local Compensation Plan for USAID/Kosovo starts from a minimum range of €14,323 to a maximum of €67,069 (gross).

Question 26: The solicitation states: "The amount of up to $1,500,000 is exclusively reserved for subcontracts and grants, IF proposed by the offeror." Can USAID confirm that the $1.5 million figure is allocated for subawards and grants under contract only and does not include major subcontractor or resource partner costs?

Answer 26: Yes. USAID confirms the $1.5 million figure is allocated for subawards and grants under contract only and does not include major subcontractor or resource partner costs.

Question 27: The solicitation states: "The amount of up to $1,500,000 is exclusively reserved for subcontracts and grants, IF proposed by the offeror." Can USAID confirm that if the Offeror chooses to not propose subawards or grants, the $1.5 million of funds can be reallocated towards other cost categories?

Answer 27: Correct.

Question 28: The solicitation states: "The amount of up to $1,500,000 is exclusively reserved for subcontracts and grants, IF proposed by the offeror." Can USAID confirm that Offerors are not required to budget the full $1.5 million figure and that it is a ceiling?

Answer 28: USAID confirms that Offerors are not required to budget the full $1.5 million for subcontracts and grants, if proposed by the Offeror.

Question 29: Can USAID clarify if letters of commitment are required for all subcontractors or only for major subcontractors?

Answer 29: USAID confirms that letters of commitment are required only for major subcontractors.

Question 30: Can USAID also confirm if Evidence of Responsibility is required of only major subcontractors?

Answer 30: USAID confirms that Evidence of Responsibility is required only for major subcontractors.

Question 31: Can USAID please confirm that only major subcontractors require a full detailed budget?

Answer 31: Detailed budget is required for all proposed subcontractors in order for USAID to evaluate cost and price as per Section M.4 of the RFP.

Question 32: The solicitation states "The offeror shall propose ceilings on their final indirect cost rates which will be included in Section B.6 at the time of contract award." We respectfully request that USAID remove the requirement to establish ceiling indirect rates given the burden that managing indirect ceiling rates can pose for small businesses.

Answer 32: USAID confirms that the offeror does not need to propose a ceiling for the indirect cost. The RFP is revised accordingly.

Question 33: In subsection (d) Annual Salary Increases, the solicitation limits the annual increases to 3%. Would USAID allow Offerors to apply increases in line with their policies and procedures and in compliance with AIDAR 752.7007 and FAR Part 31 Cost principles?

Answer 33: See answer to question number 2.

Question 34: In subsection (e) Consultants, the solicitation states that consultants are considered subcontractors. If per offeror’s cost accounting standards, consultants are treated as direct labor and receive a different indirect cost rate treatment than subcontractors, would

USAID allow that Offeror’s follow their standards and practice in this regard when budgeting for consultants?

Answer 34: Yes, Offeror can follow their standards and practice when budgeting for consultants.

Question 35: In Section H.4, (f), the solicitation states that the workday for non-overseas employees should not be less than 8 hours per day and the workweek – 40 hours per week.

Would USAID remove this prescriptive statement as many Offerors practice flex time and total time accounting methods in accordance with their established policies and procedures?

Answer 35: USAID revised Section H.4 (f) of the RFP. The statement on section H.4 (f) “ the workday for non-Overseas employees should not be less than 8 hours per day and the workweek – 40 hours per week’ has been removed.

Question 36: In subsection (d) Past Performance – would USAID please confirm that Past

Performance information should be as submitted as part of the Technical Volume and not the

Cost Volume?

Answer 36: See answer to question number 9.

Question 37. Can USAID confirm if the Business Subcontracting Plan should be submitted as part of the Cost Volume?

Answer 37: USAID confirms that Business Subcontracting Plan should be submitted as part of the Cost Volume.

Question 38: The RFP mentions prioritizing assistance to energy, telecommunications, and e-government services. Could you provide more details whether there is a prioritization order among them? This would help in focusing efforts where they are most needed.

Answer 39: These three sectors are equal priorities for USAID. Should Offerors believe there is a need to prioritize assistance to or within them, they should include justifications for doing so within their proposal.

Question 39: Guidance on the Role of the Cyber Security Agency (CSA): The RFP indicates the establishment and operationalization of the CSA. Given that the Law on Cybersecurity has been passed but the Cyber Security Agency (CSA) has not yet been established, could you provide insights into how the contractor is expected to support and collaborate with the Government of

Kosovo in the operationalization of the CSA? Additionally, what role will the contractor play in the interim period before the CSA becomes fully operational, especially in terms of developing and implementing cybersecurity policies?

Answer 39: If the CSA is not yet established by the start date of the award, Offerors are expected to work with the Government of Kosovo to overcome remaining obstacles. Offerors should propose what they believe to be the most effective way to help with the operationalization of the CSA once it is established.

Question 40: Details on the Coordination with Other Donors and Activities: The RFP specifies that the Critical Infrastructure Resilience (CIR) Activity must strategically collaborate with other

USAID activities, such as the Kosovo e-Governance Activity and the Private Sector Led

Workforce Development (PSWD) Activity. Can you provide more details on the expected level of collaboration and coordination between these activities? Specifically, how should the CIR team integrate its efforts with these existing activities to ensure efficiencies, avoid duplication, and amplify results? Additionally, are there any specific frameworks or mechanisms already in place for this collaboration, or will the CIR team have the flexibility to develop new methods for effective integration?

Answer 40: The Critical Infrastructure Resilience team will have the flexibility to choose the most effective methods for collaboration with other USAID activities. Proposals for how this could or should take place must be included in the Offeror’s Performance Work Statement.

Following the Award start date, the Critical Infrastructure Resilience team will work closely with the Activity’s Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) to ensure effective and successful collaboration.

Question 41: Clarification on Technology and Procurement Objectives: The RFP states the need for supporting the procurement of cybersecurity technology solutions. Considering the goals outlined in Objective 3, which include enhancing the Kosovo government and critical infrastructure operators' ability to evaluate, prioritize, and procure cybersecurity technology and solutions; is there any specific guidance on how the contractor can support the development and enhancement of these procurement processes to ensure alignment with national and international cybersecurity best practices – especially, given that there is a Public

Procurement Legislation in place which might have constrain the ensure alignment with national and international cybersecurity best practices?

Answer 41: No specific guidance. The offeror should propose how it will ensure that the procurement processes of technology solutions are aligned with national and international cybersecurity best practices by also including, when necessary, amendments or drafting of the missing legislation.

Question 42: Further Details on Sub-Awards and Grants Under Contract: It’s mentioned that up to $1.5 million may be used for sub-awards or Grants Under Contract. Can you provide more specific criteria or guidelines for these sub-awards, including preferred areas of focus and any limitations or restrictions?

Answer 42: Limitations or restrictions on the use of sub-awards or grants under contract are included in the solicitation (see Section H.20). The use of sub-awards or grants under contract are not required, therefore, there are no guidelines on how to use them from USAID. Should

Offerors choose to take advantage of this mechanism, they must explain in their proposal how they plan to use these sub-awards, why the mechanism would be useful for that purpose, and what outcome they expect to see as a result.

Question 43: The Government provided a link for the draft MEL Plan (Technical Approach/Annex

2) in accordance with USAID standards https://usaidlearninglab.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/cleared_-_how-to_note_-_activit y_mel_plan_sep2017.pdf). We get a message saying page not found. Will the Government verify the link?

Answer 43: The link is verified. Also, please see answer to question number 72.

https://usaidlearninglab.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/cleared_-_how-to_note_-_activit y_mel_plan_sep2017.pdf

Question 44: Is the $1,500,000 ceiling amount to be used for Grants related work only? Is the

$1,500,000 ceiling amount per year or for the full contract period of performance?

https://usaidlearninglab.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/cleared_-_how-to_note_-_activity_mel_plan_sep2017.pdf https://usaidlearninglab.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/cleared_-_how-to_note_-_activity_mel_plan_sep2017.pdf

Answer 44: See answer to question number 26, 27 and 28. The $1,500,000 ceiling amount is for the full contract period of performance.

Question 45: Are Sections B.3 through B.7 to be completed post award?

Answer 45: Yes. USAID confirms that Section B.3 through Section B.7 are to be completed at the award.

Question 46: For evaluation purposes, will the Government provide Not-to-Exceed plug numbers for the following Costs: Travel and Per Diem, Allowances, ODCs, and

Equipment/Supplies?

Answer 46: No. USAID will not provide a plug number for the Travel and Per Diem, Allowances, ODCs, and Equipment/Supplies.

Question 47: Will the Government confirm that Offerors can show the total price for all tasks by cost element as outlined in Attachment J.2 in order to establish the link between the cost and the technical approach?

Answer 47: In accordance with the section L.9 of the RFP, Offerors must provide a complete and detailed budget supported by the narrative that establishes the link between the cost and the technical approach.

Question 48: Can the Government confirm details contained in the Subcontract 1 Tab and narrative is NOT required for T&M Subcontractors?

Answer 48: The budget narrative that supports item for item is required, including T&M contractors, where applicable.

Question 49: The solicitation states “This Activity will require working with international donors and other institutions to support, promote, and lead cybersecurity and climate change resilience policies and initiatives.” Does the government require support on Climate Change policies in addition to Cybersecurity? If so, can the government please expound on the desired outcome with respect to Climate Change support.

Answer 49: This is a clerical error, the reference to “climate change resilience” has been removed and the RFP is updated accordingly.

Question 50: The solicitation states “In the interest of sustainability, if the offeror proposes a non-Kosovan citizen for COP, USAID expects that the COP position will transition to the Kosovan citizen DCOP after an appropriate amount of time proposed by the offeror.” In addition, there is a clause that the Chief of Party must be an employee of the prime contractor. Is it the intent of this requirement that the Kosovan citizen be an employee of the prime at the time of the transition if the DCOP (Kosovan citizen) is a subcontractor?

Answer 50: The Contractor can propose the employment mechanisms that make the most sense for their proposed approach.

Question 51: Given that this solicitation period covers end of 2023/beginning of 2024 when there are multiple different holidays and observances, would USAID consider extending the deadline by up to 2 weeks? This will allow for more effective coordination of inputs over a period when many individuals take extended breaks.

Answer 51: Yes. USAID has extended the Proposal submission due date to February 6, 2024. RFP updated accordingly.

Question 52: Section B.4 notes that "up to $1,500,000 is exclusively reserved for subcontracts and grants". Can USAID confirm that this amount is just reserved for Grants Under Contract and/or unnamed subcontractors, and that offerors may propose named subcontractors in excess of this amount?

Answer 52: See answer to questions number 26, 27, 28 and 44.

Question 53: The table for fixed fee in Section B.7 requires offerors to break out Fee Bearing

Results or Deliverables by year. We respectfully request offerors to develop a table that is not time bound. For example, if progress is made quicker against certain results, it may disincentivize the offeror from acting quickly if a fee bearing result is not meant to be achieved until a future year.

Answer 53: The table provided in Section B.7 is only for illustrative purposes.

Question 54: Could USAID confirm that offerors propose a fee distribution schedule as part of the cost volume?

Answer 54: Yes, USAID confirms that fee distribution must be proposed as part of the Cost

Proposal.

Question 55: The requirement for all key personnel to be on board within 30 days of the effective start date may be overly restrictive for some individuals who may need to notify existing employers and abide by their existing employment agreement termination clauses. We respectfully suggest removing this as a contractual requirement or making it 45 or 60 days.

Answer 55: USAID confirms the requirement for all key personnel to be on board within 30 days of the effective start date (contingent upon CO approval). RFP updated accordingly.

Question 56: Can USAID clarify whether the expected time for key personnel to begin is within a certain time after the award effective start date or after COR/CO approval of the key personnel?

Answer 56: The key personnel must be on board (i.e., begin working) within 30 days of the effective start date of the award (contingent upon CO approval).

Question 57: For subsequent Annual Work Plans after Year 1, we suggest the due date be 15 or

30 days before the beginning of each fiscal year, rather than 30 days after the beginning of the fiscal year. This will allow work plans to be reviewed and approved with ample time to begin implementing at the beginning of the fiscal year.

Answer 57: USAID confirms that Subsequent Annual Work Plan to be submitted within thirty

(30) calendar days after the beginning of each fiscal year as per RFP.

Question 58: We respectfully request the Annual Reports be due within 30 days, rather than 15 days, after the end of each fiscal year to allow time for compilation and review of materials covering the entire previous year, in particular financial information.

Answer 58: USAID confirms that the Annual Reports are due within 30 days after the end of each fiscal year. RFP is updated accordingly.

Question 59: We respectfully request USAID to include a page limit for Quarterly Performance

Reports and emphasize the need for making reports efficient and focusing on key necessary information. In our experience, Quarterly Performance Reports no more than 15-20 pages provide adequate room for this information.

Answer 59: The Awardee needs to work with the COR to determine such parameters after the award start date.

Question 60: We respectfully request USAID to include a page limit for Annual Reports and emphasize the need for making reports efficient and focusing on key necessary information. In our experience, Annual Reports no more than 20-25 pages provide adequate room for this information.

Answer 60: The Awardee needs to work with the COR to determine such parameters after the award start date.

Question 61: Annual Salary Increases states that “one annual increase of not more than 3% may be granted after the employee’s completion of each twelve-month period of satisfactory services under the contract” and requires advance written approval from the Contracting

Officer for salary increases of any kind exceeding this limitation. However, current and projected annual rates of inflation in Kosovo and the United States significantly exceed 3%. Contractors may reasonably be expected to offer annual salary increases greater than the limitation at

H.4(d) in order to remain competitive on local and international labor markets, creating a significant administrative burden for contractors to comply with this requirement. May USAID therefore remove this limitation on annual salary increases or, alternatively, increase the limit on annual salary increases to 5%?

Answer 61: See answer to question number 2.

Question 62: Could USAID please remove the requirement of consultant compliance with FAR

52.244-2 which includes the requirement for CO Consent? As outlined by USAID, COR concurrence of the Scope and Travel is sufficient and will reduce administrative burden on

USAID and Contractors.

Answer 62: USAID will not remove the requirement of compliance with FAR 52.244-2 for the consultants.

Question 63: Could USAID please confirm that Contractors with an approved purchasing system, may submit advanced notification in lieu of consent, consistent with FAR 52.244-2 Alt 1?

Answer 63: USAID confirms that Contractors with an approved purchasing system may submit advanced notification in lieu of consent, consistent with FAR 52.244-2 Alt 1.

Question 64: The RFP incorporates AIDAR 752.229-71 Reporting of Foreign Taxes. To aid in compliance with this clause and the development of the contractor’s project planning can

USAID please:

1. Confirm that the resultant contract will be exempted from host country taxes – e.g. VAT, duties, and income tax (for US and local teaming partners and their personnel).

Answer 64.1: USAID confirms that resultant contract will be exempted from host country taxes.

2. Provide offerors with copies of any applicable bilateral agreements or similar relevant documents with the applicable government.

Answer 64.2: USAID confirms that copies of the applicable agreements will be provided after the award.

Question 65: The RFP incorporates FAR 52.215-9, Changes or Additions to Make-or-Buy

Program, and its Alternative 1. Does USAID envision that a make-or-buy program will be required for this contract? If so, can USAID clarify the requirements for submitting make-or-buy program plan as part of this proposal?

Answer 65: The clause FAR 52.215-9 has been removed. The RFP is updated accordingly.

Question 66: The RFP incorporates FAR 52.224-1, Privacy Act Notification, and FAR 52.224-2, Privacy Act. Can USAID clarify what system of records the contractor will design, develop, or operate subject to the Privacy Act that would require the inclusion of these provisions?

Answer 66: The clause FAR 52.224-1 has been removed. RFP is updated accordingly.

Question 67: Can USAID please clarify whether a SB subcontracting plan should be included as part of the cost volume? While listed as an attachment in Section J, there is no explicit mention of it in the cost volume.

Answer 67: USAID confirms that the Subcontracting plan if applicable should be submitted as part of the Cost Proposal.

Question 68: Can USAID confirm the email size for submission of offers? The limit is set at 5 MB, but our understanding is USAID can receive emails with a limit up to 25 MB.

Answer 68: See answer to question number 17.

Question 69: May the offeror include a title/covering page in addition to the cover letter, and if so, may this be excluded from the technical page count? This covering page would include volume name, offeror information (UEI, TIN).

Answer 69: USAID confirms that the required Cover Letter is the Cover Page.

Question 70: Would USAID consider increasing the page count of the Draft Year 1 Work Plan to four pages?

Answer 70: USAID confirms that the number of pages for the Draft Year 1 Work Plan remain as it is in the RFP.

Question 71: Can USAID provide a QASP template in which they'd like the offeror to model theirs off of, as well as increase the page limitation for the QASP? It is the offeror's experience that the QASP is typically more than two pages in length.

Answer 71: USAID will not provide a template for QASP. It is up to Offeror to propose a draft

QASP.

Question 72: USAID stipulates that the MELP should be no more than 2 pages, however it also states that the offeror must include a draft MELP in accordance with USAID standards. As

Attachment J5 AMELP is more than two pages, can USAID please clarify the number of pages the MELP should be?

Answer 72: USAID is removing the requirement of utilizing Attachment J.5 AMELP. The Draft

AMELP plan should be no more than 2 pages. RFP updated accordingly.

Question 73: Under the description of requirements within the Management Approach, each of the three components refers to the "Personnel and Management Approach". Is this the same as the "Management Approach"?

Answer 73: USAID confirms that "Personnel and Management Approach" is the same as the

"Management Approach". RFP is updated accordingly.

Question 74: Can USAID remove the cost element breakdown for proposed interventions and activities under each objective in the PWS? Given the fluid nature of delivery under a cost-reimbursable contract, we recommend costing by objective the part of annual planning as specific technical needs are identified.

Answer 74: USAID agrees on removing the cost element breakdown for proposed interventions and activities under each objective in the PWS. The RFP has been revised accordingly.

Question 75: For offerors to develop a compensation plan, can USAID share the embassy local compensation plan?

Answer 75: See answer to question number 25.

Question 76: Indirect rates, as approved by cognizant USG agencies, do change periodically, and indirect ceilings may prohibit companies from recuperating legitimate approved indirect costs. We request USAID remove reference to “ceiling rates” in this section and permit the successful offeror to utilize actual indirects during implementation, providing justification to

USAID should they need adjustment periodically.

Answer 76: See answer to question number 32.

Question 77: In Objective 3 of the SOO, the result includes procurement of hardware/software upgrades for cybersecurity protection and/or response. If project funds are to be utilized for these procurements, can USAID provide an expected plug budget figure for such procurements?

Answer 77: There is no prior decision or expectation. The Statement Of Objectives provides the opportunity for the Offerors to come up with innovative ideas and approaches that promote cybersecurity resilience and technology solutions.

Question 78: Due to the upcoming holiday celebrations, would USAID consider extending the proposal submission deadline by two weeks to February 2, 2024? Many local staff and subcontractors will be unavailable for the first few weeks of January and unable to complete the necessary documentation for the proposal. This two-week extension would allow bidders adequate time to prepare a more informed and competitive proposal.

Answer 78: See answer to question number 51.

Question 79: Page 89, L.5, indicates that total email size cannot exceed 5MB. Given USAID’s preference that each technical and each cost proposal be submitted as a single email attachment, can USAID change the total email size to not exceed 25MB?

Answer 79: See answer to question number 17.

Question 80: Page 62, Part III List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments, J.4, Business

Subcontracting Plan: this is listed as an attachment however no instructions are included for submission. Can USAID advise if this plan should be included in the cost proposal and how it will be evaluated?

Answer 80: See answer to question number 67.

Question 81: Page 91, L.6 General Instructions for the preparation of the Technical Proposal, Annex 3: Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). USAID states on page 107 (J1-SOO), “Each objective includes a set of results. Offers must, at a minimum, propose approaches that meet these results. Offerors are encouraged to propose additional results as they see fit." To adequately respond to the opportunity to include additional results and provide a more comprehensive QASP, would USAID consider increasing the page limit for Annex 3 to three (3) pages?

Answer 81: USAID confirms that page limitation for Annex 3 remains the same as in the RFP.

Question 82: Page 92, L.7 Technical Approach, Annex 1 Draft Year 1 Workplan. USAID states that offerors must include, “description of interventions and tasks, schedule, and inputs and outputs, results and deliverables corresponding to the PWS and the MEL Plan.” To adequately respond to this opportunity to include a full description of interventions and tasks, etc., would USAID consider increasing the page limit for Annex 1 to three (3) pages?

Answer 82: USAID confirms that page limitation for the Annex 1 - Draft Year Work Plan remains the same as in the RFP.

Question 83: For budgeting purposes, what is the expected start date of this project?

Answer 83: See answer to question number 24.

Question 84: For cost realism purposes, would USAID allow the proposal budget to include annual increases to the Contractor Salary Threshold (CST) for subsequent years to reflect likely increases in this ceiling?

Answer 84: Yes, USAID allows that the proposal budget can include annual increases to the

Contractor Salary Threshold (CST) for subsequent years. Note that the salaries that exceed CST requires CO prior approval.

Question 85: Can USAID provide its local compensation plan for Kosovo?

Answer 85: See answer to question number 25.

Question 86: Page 6, B.4: the text below the table states, “The amount of up to $1,500,000 is exclusively reserved for subcontracts and grants.”

a. Can USAID clarify the meaning of “subcontracts” here?

b. Can USAID confirm that technical subcontractors that are implementing this project would not fall under this category and ceiling?

Answer 86. a and b: See answer number 26, 27, 28, and 44.

Question 87: Page 8, B.7.1.(g) states that, “When a Fee Bearing Milestone is not completed on time or requires more cost/effort to complete than projected, the portion of the total fixed fee allocated to the Milestone in the Fee Distribution Plan may be subject to adjustment of the fee by the Contracting Officer.” Given that the budget/LOE will not be assigned per milestone, can

USAID consider removing the following portion of the RFP text: “or requires more cost/effort to complete than projected”?

Answer 87: See answer to question number 1.

Question 88: Page 28, H.4(d) Annual Increases: Can USAID confirm that the 3% limit on the annual salary increase only pertains to the USN/TCN personnel fully dedicated to the project?

Answer 88: See answer to question number 2.

Question 89: Page 28, H.4(d) Annual Increases: Can USAID confirm that the 3% salary increase limit would not apply to:

• Home Office personnel: their compensation is established per the contractor’s corporate policies and procedures as well as their work responsibilities beyond this contract;

• CCN personnel: market rates for local personnel increases tend to be higher than 3%.

Answer 89: See answer to question number 2.

Question 90: Page 95, L.9(b) Part 2 – Proposed Costs: Since the budget is not required to be presented per interventions and program activities, can USAID consider removing the following statement on page 95, Section L.9(b) Part 2 – Proposed Costs: “The budget narrative must explain the cost element breakdown for the proposed interventions and program activities under each objective of PWS.”

Answer 90: Yes. The Section L.9 of the RFP will be updated to reflect this.

Question 91: Page 96, L.9 (b)(3), Indirect Cost Information, states “the offeror shall propose ceilings on their final indirect cost rates which will be included in Section B.6 at the time of contract award.” However, Section B.6 does not currently refer to indirect rates nor ceilings.

a. Can USAID clarify if ceilings on indirect rates are required?

b. If so, can USAID confirm that ceilings on fringe rates do not need to be included?

Answer 91: See answer to question number 32.

Question 92: Page 7, B.7 Payment of Fixed Fee, states “The Offerors must propose a fixed fee schedule tied to the objectives and deliverables or output for Governments review and acceptance.” Can USAID confirm whether the fixed fee schedule needs to be submitted with the proposal or at a later stage as it is not included in the L.9 Instructions for the preparation of the cost proposal?

Answer 92: USAID confirms that the fixed fee schedule needs to be submitted with the proposal.

Question 93: Section L.6 shows the Performance Work Statement as a sub-element of the

Technical Approach and not listed as an Annex. Section, L.7 states that the PWS is an Annex, shows the Draft Year One Work Plan to be listed as Annex 1, and then later states that the PWS should be submitted as Annex 1. Will the Government clarify if the PWS should be provided as an Annex or within the Technical Approach Narrative Section? If submitted as an Annex, will the

Government clarify the numbering and ordering of the Annexes.

Answer 93: See answer to question number 7.

Question 94: L.6 shows Annex 4 as the Key Personnel Position Descriptions, but L.8 shows the

Management and Staffing Plan as Annex 4. Section L.6 shows the Draft Mobilization Plan as

Annex 6, but L.8 shows that plan as Annex 5. Will the Government clarify the titles of Annexes

4-6?

Answer 94: It's a clerical error. RFP updated accordingly.

Question 95: The way section L.9(d)1 is written, it appears offerors can not submit relevant past performance if there is a CPARS. Will the Government explain how offerors can submit relevant past performance that has a CPAR?

Answer 95: USAID confirms that Offerors must not submit past performance information for contracts in CPARS. The offerors should include only the relevant contract numbers and the name of the projects. USAID will generate the relevant assessment reports from CPARS.

Question 96: L.9(d)1 references Attachment 2 and Attachment 3. However, Attachment J.6 is the only attachment provided with the RFP related to Past Performance. Will the Government please clarify this requirement and the Attachments to be completed.

Answer 96: USAID confirms that for contracts not in the Contractor Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS), offerors (including all partners of a joint venture) must use the “Past

Performance Information Sheet” (Attachment 6). RFP is updated accordingly.

Question 97: The past performance form Attachment J.6 has significant detail and 8.5 x 11 will make this form extremely long and cumbersome. Please verify that the offeror can provide

Attachment J.6 past performance in 11x17 format with narrow margins to allow for better readability and presentation.

Answer 97: Yes. It is important to have all the required information from the Past Performance

Information Sheet (Attachment J.6).

Question 98: L.7 provides for only two pages for the MEL plan. However the draft outline provided by USAID is 5 pages including the title page. Please verify if the cover page is required and that the MEL plan can be at least 5 pages to effectively respond to this requirement.

Answer 98: See answer to question number 72.

Question 99: In Att. J.1 please consider moving objective 2 to objective 1 as the governance improvements are in objective 1 rather than objective 2.

Answer 99: Offerors may respond to the solicitation as they see fit. If the Offeror wants to make the case to update any of the sub-objectives, they can do that in their proposed technical approach.

Question 100: In Att J.1 Objective 3, please consider refining this statement from manufactures to suppliers to account for the fact that most cybersecurity services are not provided by manufacturers.

Answer 100: Yes, USAID has updated RFP accordingly.

Question 101: In Att. J.1 Objective 3, will the Government confirm that the contractor will be supporting and identifying hardware and software and will not be procuring hardware or software?

Answer 101: USAID confirms that depending on the Offerors approach, both options are applicable.

Question 102: Can USAID provide a local compensation plan?

Answer 102: See answer to question number 25.

Question 103: In L.9(d)3 the Government states that quality awards and certifications are not included in the page limitation, however the RFP doesn't provide a page limitation for past performance. Will the Government clarify the page limitation for past performance. Also, are offerors to provide the award and certification information within the Excel table or separately in a word document?

Answer 103: USAID confirms that there is no page limitation on the past performance. Offerors can provide the award and certification information within the Excel table or separately in a word document.

Question 104: M.1(d) identifies past performance as a non-cost criteria, however, past performance is within the cost proposal. Will the Government clarify that past performance is part of the technical evaluation, and if so, move past performance to the technical proposal for clarity.

Answer 104: USAID confirms that past performance is a non-cost criteria and it is required to be submitted with the Cost Proposal package.

Question 105: In F.5 Reports and Deliverables Schedule section No. 1 Final Mobilization Plan, can USAID please amend the language to state that contractor will submit final mobilization plan not later than 15 days after receipt of USAID comments to the draft mobilization plan?

Answer 105: USAID confirms that Final Mobilization Plan submission date is within fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of USAID comments to the draft mobilization plan. RFP is updated accordingly.

Question 106: In F.5 Reports and Deliverables Schedule section No. 2 Key Personnel, can USAID please amend the language to state that key personnel must be on boarded within 30 days of

CO approval of key personnel?

Answer 106: USAID confirms that Key Personnel will be required to be onboarded within 30 days of award start date (contingent upon CO approval).

Question 107: We respectfully request USAID to confirm if there is a development objective agreement or bilateral project agreement between the United States and the Cooperating country(ies) covering the support services to be provided under the USAID's Critical

Infrastructure Resilience Activity program? If one in in place, please provide a copy of the agreement or if unable to share the agreement, please share the language that outlines the tax provisions applicable to USG contractors and their expatriate employees present in the cooperating country to implement work covered under the agreement.

Answer 107: USAID has a Development Objective Agreement (DOAG) with the Government of

Kosovo. More information can be found in the Kosovo Country Development Strategy.

Question 108: Section B.5, indirect costs, does not include a section for ceilings and Section B.6 is Cost Reimbursable. Section L.9(b)(3) requires that offerors propose ceilings on their final indirect cost rates to be included in Section B.6. Given that final indirect costs are not available until the rates are audited by the cognizant agency and offerors are required to use existing provisional rates, would USAID please consider eliminating the requirement to include ceiling on indirect cost rates?

https://www.usaid.gov/kosovo/cdcs

Answer 108: See answer to question number 32.

Question 109: Section L.9(b)(2) requires contractors to submit a compensation plan reflecting proposed staffing plan covering all planned positions and corresponding salary rates with salary ranges for all proposed positions with the proposed negotiated rate. However section L.8(c) states that USAID will review and accept proposed KP individuals prior to onboarding after award. Given that offerors are not required to submit names and CVs of proposed individuals, can USAID confirm that the purpose of the compensation plan is to establish a range for planned positions but that actual salaries for approved individuals will be approved once a candidate is submitted to USAID for approval and reimbursed in accordance with this cost reimbursement completion type contract?

Answer 109: Yes,…