72016822R00003 Diaspora Invest 2 Q and As.pdf

72016822R00003 Questions and Answers

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

A: Yes. USAID confirms it will allow Offerors with Letters of Credit (LOC) to use and make drawdowns from their LOC for disbursements to grantees.

2. Will USAID please consider allowing Letters of Support from resource organizations and collaborating partners to be included in Annex B which is referenced on page 90 of the RFP under L.6.5, Annex B Coordination Plan with Key Stakeholders?

A: Yes, Letters of Support can be included, but are not part of evaluation criteria.

3. The latest Diaspora Invest report submitted to DEC is for the Period April 3, 2020 – April 2, 2021. Will USAID please share the Final Diaspora Invest annual report with offerors?

A: Yes. Please see Attachment J.7a. uploaded with Amendment 1 of the RFP.

4. Attachment J.7 Diaspora Invest Lessons Learned states on page 4, “An updated version of this document will be prepared and appended to the Activity’s Completion Report due in February 2022." Will USAID please share the updated version of this document with offerors?

A: Yes. This is included in the final report. Please see Attachment J.7a. uploaded with Amendment 1 of the RFP.

5. Will USAID please share the IEE for this activity with offerors?

A: Please see Section H.21 Environmental Compliance, Paragraph 2.

6. On page 6 of the SOO, USAID states that “The Contractor will provide a direct grant not to exceed $500,000 during the life of the activity to the local NGO, Nasa Perspektiva.”

Will USAID confirm that Nasa Perspektiva will be a grantee and not an institutional partner on the Activity?

A: Nasa Perspektiva will be engaged under a direct grant. Please see Section C.4.a of the SOO.

Can USAID confirm that the direct grant of $500,000 to Nasa Perspektiva is in addition to the grants under contract component of $2,800,000, which would be a total grants under contract pool of $3,300,000?

A: Yes, this is correct.

Is Nasa Perspektiva expected to provide “at least a one-to-one (1:1) match (cash and/or equity)”, as indicated in the grants under contract component?

A: No.

7. Can USAID please define the distinction between the investment that is expected in “Objective 2: Country-wide direct investment to high-potential diaspora and/or diaspora-related MSMEs startups and/or joint ventures expanded” and the private capital that is expected in “Objective 4:

Access to existing and new financial instruments that enable flow of private capital (either debt or equity) to all MSMEs and startups operating in BiH increased”?

A: Objective 2 will facilitate direct investment (i.e. USAID-funded grants and/or private capital) to diaspora-related MSMEs startups and/or joint ventures while Objective 4 will ensure availability of alternative financial instruments in the market.

Can USAID confirm that investment in Objective 2 refers to direct, or internal, investment (defined as investment by the entrepreneur or company) while Objective 4 refers to external investment (which could be either debt or equity) and involves a financial investment by an outside party (bank or equity investor)?

A: See above answer to Question 7.

8. Under Objective 2, will USAID count direct investments made to MSME startups that have been established by non-diaspora BiH entrepreneurs and are under local ownership before the direct investment, but will become “diaspora owned” or “diaspora-related” MSME startups and/or joint ventures as a result of the direct investment.

A: Yes. direct investment will be considered if a local MSME is established by non-diaspora BiH entrepreneurs established by non-diaspora BiH entrepreneurs and are under local ownership before the direct investment, but will become “diaspora owned” or

“diaspora-related” MSME startups and/or joint ventures as a result of the direct investment.

9. Will USAID please define “social change” with regards to “Objective 3: Business and social change that links diaspora best business practices, investment capital, and knowledge with domestic MSMEs stimulated”?

A: Social change is defined as changes in human interactions and relationships that transform cultural and social institutions. Please see updated Attachment J.1 SOO uploaded with Amendment 1 of the RFP.

10. Page 17 of the RFP states, " Overseas Employees - The work week for the Contractor's overseas employees must not be less than 40 hours and must be scheduled to coincide with the work week for those employees of the USAID Mission and the Cooperating Country associated with the work of this contract." Can USAID confirm that Offerors may bill overtime pay for non-exempt US-based employees to be in line with the Offeror’s personnel policies and U.S.

labor law?

A: No. Please see FAR 22.103-2 Policy and FAR clause 52.222-2 Payment for Overtime Premiums (Jul 1990).

11. Page 90 of the RFP requires “Annex C Proposed Deliverables and Fixed Fee schedule” to be included in the technical application. As page 89 states, “The technical proposal must be entirely separate from the cost proposal and it must not include cost information in the content of the technical proposal”, does USAID expect dollar values attached to the fixed fee schedule included as part of the technical application?

Or should offerors propose percentages in the fixed fee schedule in lieu of dollar values in order to keep the cost information separate from the technical proposal?

A: Offerors will include Fixed Fee Payment Schedule as part of the Cost proposal.

Please see Section L.7.1.xi. of the RFP. This is clarified in Amendment 1 of the RFP.

12. Can USAID please confirm that the acronym list may be inserted after the table of contents within the required order of the Technical Proposal listed on page 90.

A: Yes, the acronym list may be inserted after the table of contents within the required order of the Technical Proposal listed on page 90.

13. Page 91 of the RFP states that offerors must submit an “overall summary chart listing proposed interventions”. Will USAID please consider allowing this chart to not count against the page limit?

14. Page 91 of the RFP states that “For each proposed intervention(s) by component, additional information is as follows:

A plan for coordinating the implementation of the intervention with the BiH government at all appropriate levels;”

o Will USAID consider that for some Activity interventions the offeror may coordinate with other entities in BiH, either in addition to or instead of coordination with a government actor based on the relevance of the intervention to government engagement?

A: Please refer to the SOO.

15. Page 87 of the RFP in section L.6.4.2 Factor 2 Experience/Past Performance states that offerors must submit a 1-page Executive Summary in addition to the 5 pages of Past Performance Information Performance Reports for 4 relevant awards. May the offeror include additional relevant past performance information beyond the 4 relevant awards in the executive summary?

A: The Executive Summary should be a clear, concise, and relevant explanation of your response to the requirements for Factor 2.

16. Would USAID consider moving the level of effort chart to a separate staffing plan annex to allow for enough comprehensive detail about the positions, as required by the RFP?

A: Yes, the LOE chart can be a separate annex and will not be included in the 5-page limit for Factor 4 Management Approach. However, this separate staffing plan annex must not exceed 5 pages. This is clarified in Amendment 1 of the RFP.

Or would USAID consider increasing the page limit of the management section by several pages to ensure sufficient detail for the LOE chart?

A: Addressed above. It will be an annex.

17. Would USAID consider moving the staffing plan organogram to a staffing plan annex?

A: See above, response to Question # 16.

18. Would USAID consider moving the Key Personnel titles, roles, and list of qualifications to a staffing plan annex?

A: See above, response to Question # 16.

19. Would USAID consider moving the illustrative work plan for the first year of the intervention to an annex?

20. Will there be another opportunity to ask USAID questions for Stage 2?

A: There will not be another opportunity for questions for Stage 2.

21. Will USAID please provide the Local Compensation Plan for BiH?

A: USAID provided the maximum rate for the U.S. Mission Local Compensation Plan under Section L.7.1(i) since it is a cap for local employees of the contractor. Offeror's should provide information supporting local professional salaries that should include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure.

22. Is there a minimum or maximum number of Key Personnel required for this Activity?

A: Offeror should propose a key personnel mix that will correspond to their Technical Approach. Per ADS 302, the number of key personnel designated for any contract must not be more than five individuals or five percent of the contractor employees working under the contract, whichever is greater.

23. At H.7(a) it is stated that “Notwithstanding the above requirements, for professional level employees, the COR’s technical concurrence must be obtained prior to commencement of their work under the contract.” Could USAID please provide a definition of “professional level employees?” Does this also include junior level staff such as grant coordinators and administrative assistants for example?

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/302.pdf

A: Professional level employees are those that possess specific expertise related to the contract. Professional level requires a specific amount of advanced training and education.

The COR technical concurrence is not required for support staff.

24. At H.7(d) it is stated that “Annual salary increases (e.g., cost of living and merit increases and other) for the current labor pool may be granted once a year and cannot exceed the escalation rate TBD that was negotiated for this contract. Annual salary increases of any kind exceeding this limitation may be granted only with the advance written approval of the Contracting Officer.” As organizations’ cost of living and merit increases for their staff are done in accordance with their established policies as per AIDAR 752.7007, a % limit on such increases could conflict with such organizational policy and cause an organization to act not in accordance with its own policy. Would USAID consider removing this provision?

A: Offerors must explain and justify the proposed salary increases in their proposal.

25. At C.4d of the SOO at Attachment J.1 it is stated that “If grants are provided, grant beneficiaries are required to provide at least a one-to-one (1:1) match (cash and/or equity).”

Given that the Contractor may need to utilize fixed amount awards (FAAs) and that ADS

303.3.5.3 disallows mandatory cost share on FAAs, will USAID allow the use of leverage on FAAs and allow the Contractor to count this leverage toward the required 1:1 match?

A: The contractor is required to use mechanisms that allow for 1:1 matches.

26. We kindly request that USAID provide a secondary recipient for proposals in addition to lkranjec@usaid.gov in the event of any transmission issues.

A: A secondary point of contact is not needed.

27. Would USAID kindly consider offering a Q&A period/option for the offerors who make it to Stage 2?

A: See the response for Question # 20.

28. Page 87, Section L.6.4.2: Please confirm that Factor 1 and Factor 2 are combined in one document and should only include one cover page.

A: USAID confirms that Factor 1 and Factor 2 are combined in one document and should only include one cover page.

29. Page 87, Section L.6.4.2: Please confirm the following organization for the Stage 1-Advisory:

Case Studies and Past Performance submission:

Cover Page (does not count toward page limit – not to exceed 1 page) Case Study (4 pages)

Bibliography/Citations (does not count toward page limit – not to exceed 2 pages) Executive Summary (1 page) Experience/Past Performance (5 pages) Performance in Using Small Business Concerns (if applicable, 2 pages)

A: Please see Section L.6.4 Instructions for Step 1 – Advisory of Amendment 1 of the RFP for the organization of Stage 1 Submission.

30. Page 77, Section K: Should USAID require a signature confirming information presented in Section K, we kindly ask that USAID provide the signature line.

A: The signature line will be provided in Amendment 1 of the RFP.

31. Page 84, Section L.6.1: Please confirm that the SF-33 Form, which indicates offer validity, is not required for Stage 1 of the submission.

A: Yes, that is correct. The SF-33 Form, which indicates offer validity, is not required for Stage 1 of the submission.

32. Page 86, Section L.6.3: Please confirm whether offerors may provide information regarding their proposed consortium on the Cover Page of the submission.

A: Yes, offerors may provide information regarding their proposed consortium on the Cover Page of the submission.

33. Page 88, Section L.6.4.2: Please confirm whether offerors should use the USAID Contractor’s Performance Short Form (full – J.8) for the Experience/Past Performance section.

A: Offerors should use Contractor’s Performance Short Form (Attachment J.8) for Factor 2 Experience/Past Performance for up to four (4) (active or ended no more than 5 years ago) relevant awards (contracts or agreements) for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal. This is in addition to Experience/Past Performance narrative, limited to 5 pages. This will be clarified in Amendment 1 of the RFP.

34. Page 92, Section L.6.5.2: Please confirm that the Staffing Plan Organogram can be included as a one-page annex (exclusive of page limit).

A: See responses to Question 16-18 above. Also, please refer to the relevant sections (L.6.5 and L.6.5.2) of Amendment 1 of the RFP.

35. Page 90, Section 6.5.1: Please confirm that the illustrative work plan for the first year of the intervention is to be included in the main-body of the PWS/Technical Approach and not as an Annex.

A: Yes, the illustrative work plan for the first year of the intervention is to be included in the main-body of the PWS/Technical Approach.

36. Page 86, Section L.6.3: Please confirm that alternative text may be used for text boxes, tables, graphics, and charts.

37. Page 86, Section L.6.3: USAID states: “Photos and charts are allowed, but cannot contain additional text other than that necessary to briefly label the photo or chart.” Please confirm that text boxes are allowable and that offerors may use a smaller font than size 12 TNR in these boxes.

A: Text boxes are allowable and Times New Roman size 9 may be used for text boxes.

Please note that a character limitation (including spaces) of 150 characters has been added to the instructions in applicable parts of Section L. This limitation applies to photos, charts, and text boxes.

38. Page 86, Section L.6.3: There are references to both a “Cover Page” and a “cover letter (letter of transmittal).” This also occurs on pages 89-90 in the instructions for Stage 2. Please clarify if USAID prefers a cover page or cover letter (or both).

A: Cover letter and cover page are used interchangeably throughout the RFP. For clarity and consistency the term cover page will be used in Amendment 1 of the RFP.

39. Page 87, Section L.6.4.1: We kindly request that USAID clarify what it means by “complementary written” in reference to the two case study briefs. Should there be a direct link or connection between the two case studies?

A: “Complementary written” will be deleted from Section L.6.4.1. Please see Amendment 1 of the RFP.

40. Page 87, Section L.6.4.1: Should the case-study briefs focus on a real-life diaspora investor and an existing government or a non-government institution? Or should offerors present hypothetical examples in their response?

A: Offerors are free to choose whether to present hypothetical or real-life case-study briefs.

This will be clarified in Amendment 1 of the RFP.

41. Page 87, Section L.6.4.2: Should the Past Performance Executive Summary summarize only the four projects that are presented by the offeror?

A: See response to Question 15 above.

42. Page 90, Section L.6.5.1: Given that the QASP is not included within the 25-page limit, can offerors include this as an Annex or after the illustrative work plan (which is included in the 25-page limit)?

A: QASP should be submitted as an Annex to the Technical Proposal. This will be clarified in Amendment 1 of the RFP.

43. Page 17, Section F.5: How many Key Personnel positions should offerors propose? Is there a minimum or maximum number?

A: See response to Question # 22 above.

44. Page 17, Section F.5: Given that Key Personnel are critical to the start-up phase of the program, we kindly request that offerors be allowed to name and provide CVs (with reference information) for these designated staff in Stage 2 of the proposal process.

A: No. Please refer to the RFP.

45. Page 17, Section F.5: Are offerors permitted to name Key and/or non-Key Personnel candidates in the staffing plan organogram and budget?

A: No. Please refer to the RFP.

46. Page 104, Section M: We kindly request that USAID provide the relative percentage weights for each of the evaluation factors.

A: Relative importance of evaluation factors is stated in the RFP, as required by FAR Part 15.

47. Page 6, Section B.1 and SOO: Should activities proposed under Objective 4 (“Access to existing and new financial instruments that enable flow of private capital (either debt or equity) to all MSMEs and startups operating in BiH increased”) have a connection with diaspora engagement? Or does this Objective contemplate interventions that are unrelated to the other three Objectives?

A: While Objective 4 is open to all MSMEs and startups operating in BiH, it is envisioned that all objectives are related.

Cost Questions

48. Would USAID consider eliminating Section B.6 Ceiling on Indirect Cost Rates? Such a provision places a significant burden on Small Businesses that tend to have more changes in their indirect rate cost structures from year-to-year.

A: No

49. Are ceilings on indirect rates applicable to just the Prime Offeror? Or, should Subcontractors (Major and non-Major) also provide ceilings to their indirect rates?

A: Ceilings on indirect rates would need to be reviewed and approved by the Contracting Officer at the time of subcontract approval whether that be before or after award of the prime contract.

50. May Offerors include some of the deliverables specified in F.8.1 of the RFP in their proposed fee schedules under B.8? Or, should all B.8 deliverables be technical milestones that are linked to the MELP?

A: Please see requirements under L.6.5.1 Factor 3 – Performance Work Statement (PWS)/Technical Approach.

51. Page 48, Section H.23 “Consent to Subcontract”: This section states that all STTAs and consultants (other than Contractor employees) must be treated as subcontractors. Because personnel cannot be named at the proposal stage, will Offerors be required to submit consent requests, per FAR § 44.202-2, for all STTA and consultants during implementation? Or, will technical and travel requests suffice for mobilization of STTA and consultants?

A: Consultants are subcontractors, not contractor’s employees, and therefore can be named at the proposal stage. During implementation of the prospective contract, the resulting contractor for this award will be required to submit consent requests for all STTA and consultants requiring consent pursuant to FAR clause 52.244-2.

52. Attachment J.2 lists the detailed budget as the first tab? Should Offerors make the summary tab the first tab, following the order provided in Section L.7.1.1?

A: Yes, Offerors should make the summary tab the first tab, following the order provided in Section L.7.1. This is clarified in Amendment 1 of the RFP.

53. Please confirm that the LOE chart mentioned on Page 95 should be included as a separate tab and not a separate spreadsheet/Excel file.

A: USAID confirms that the LOE chart mentioned on Page 95 should be included as a separate tab and not a separate spreadsheet/Excel file.

54. Can Offerors make changes to Attachment J.2? By example, can some rows be eliminated/deleted if they are not being used? Or, should Offerors make no changes to Attachment J.2?

A: Rows in Attachment J.2 that are not used may be hidden or deleted if that will not affect the formulas across the spreadsheet.

55. Can USAID please indicate whether environmental compliance costs are envisioned under this Contract? Will USAID permit Offerors to not include environmental compliance costs within their proposed budgets if they deem no such costs will be incurred during implementation?

A: Please refer to Section L.7.1(viii) of the RFP.

56. Should Offerors include the $500,000 grant to Nasa Perspektiva as a plug figure? Or, will Offerors be required to provide a breakdown of how the grant will be issued in a separate tab?

What year shall the $500,000 grant be issued? Or, should it be spread out evenly over the lifetime of the Activity?

A: Offerors should include the $500,000 grant to Nasa Perspektiva as a plug figure and spread out evenly over the lifetime of the Activity. The grant will be negotiated post-award.

57. We kindly request that USAID clarify whether the $2.8 million grant figure includes the $500,000 grant to Nasa Perspektiva. Or, is it in addition to the $500,000 grant to Nasa Perspektiva?

A: See response to Question # 6 above.

58. Section L.7.1.i states that USAID will not provide waivers to the Mission’s Local Compensation Plan. This this seems to be contracted by Section H.6 752.7007 “Personnel Compensation” which states that “Direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract.” It also seems to be contradicted by the L.7.3 requirement that requires Contractors to provide their policies and procedures, “especially regarding salary and wage scales…” Finally, it is our understanding that USAID’s revised Form 1420 Biographical Data Sheet requires Offerors to provide a rationale for proposed salaries based on “the market value of the position.” By capping local compensation at BAM 114,321, Offerors will be forced to deviate from their own compensation plans and market survey data for certain senior-level personnel (i.e., COP, DCOP, etc.) who qualify for salaries in excess of this amount.

Moreover, it does not account for the various factors that drive an individual’s salary (e.g., education, years of experience, title, scope of duties, geography, management responsibilities, etc.) Accordingly, will USAID consider removing this Local Compensation Plan ceiling? If not, would USAID consider allowing Offerors to propose staff at their actual current market-based salaries, if they are already full-time employees of the Offeror (consistent with H.7 of the RFP)? We kindly request USAID reconsider this BAM 114,321 ceiling and allow Offerors to propose salaries that are based on:

(i) fair market rates for the position; (ii) the value and the responsibilities of the position (iii) the Contractor’s established compensation policies and practices, including the Contractor’s established pay scale for equivalent classifications of employees; and (iv) proposed personnel’s existing market salaries, if they are already employees of the Offeror.

A: Based on USAID market research U.S. Mission Local Compensation Plan corresponds to or exceeds prevailing compensation paid to personnel performing comparable work in the cooperating country. No waivers to the Local Compensation Plan are anticipated to be provided.