72016921R00001 Ammendment 01 Q and A.pdf

MIA Questions

1. It is the responsibility of offerors to ensure that USAID has received our proposal submission prior to the due date and time (per RFP page 110). May 31st is a US national holiday. Will USAID/Serbia staff be at work on May 31st to confirm receipt of proposals for offerors? If not, would USAID please consider adjusting the due date of the proposal to ensure that USAID staff will be available to confirm receipt of proposals?

USAID Response: The date has been extended.

2. L.7, Part 2, 4.b. (page 117-118), the RFP states, “For the locally employed staff, the Fringe Benefits rate is 16.65% deducted from the employee's gross salary amount and paid by the employer.” However, attachment J-10 to the RFP states, “with 29.9% of tax and benefits of the employee share included, but exclusive to 16.65% of tax and benefits of the employer share.” Please confirm that Offerors are to assume that the gross pay per the LCP (attachment J-10) is exclusive of the local fringe of 16.65%, which offerors would propose separately under Fringe for local staff?

USAID Response: We confirm the gross pay per the LCP (attachment J-10) is exclusive of the local fringe of 16.65%. 16.65% represents fringe benefits of the employer’s share and should be budgeted as a separate line item. This applies to the locally employed staff only.

3. L.7, Part 2, h. Grants Under Contract (page 118): Please confirm that if offerors are using the RFP-stipulated 20% of total proposed budget towards GUCs (or $2.3 million if submitting at $14 million), that no further detail is required other than showing the estimated yearly total GUC $ amount? Detailed information documenting basis for proposed costs for GUCs beyond using the plug is premature at this stage.

USAID Response: The offeror may include up to to 20% of total proposed total estimated cost towards grants under contract. Please note that the PWS should include all technical aspects of the proposal, including how GUCs fits in their approach.

4. L.7, Part 2, RFP page 120, the following sentence is placed with no heading/reference at the very bottom of the section discussing indirect rates: “Offeror may propose modifications to this illustrative Fee Schedule above. The Fee Schedule above may be modified based upon mutual agreement of the parties and included at award.”

USAID Response: This line will be deleted through this amendment.

a. Please confirm that other language/instructions were not inadvertently left out, including meaning/reference to “this”, of the cost instructions.

USAID Response: Confirmed.

b. Please provide a detailed explanation on award fee instructions for the cost proposal.

USAID Response: Please see L.6 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

c. Please confirm whether offerors can modify/propose adjustments to the award fee schedule/Attachment J.4?

USAID Response: Not in this stage. Offerors should focus on the overall amount of an award fee to be proposed.

5. Section L.7, at the bottom of page 116, the RFP requests a breakdown per component that inserts high level figures (not a breakdown of the figures) to support USAID in performing a cost realism analysis. We respectfully request that this requirement be removed from the RFP given that the budget template itself does not provide a template for this and given that cost realism can be performed on the total submitted budget. If USAID does not remove this requirement, can USAID please provide a template indicating how to capture cross cutting management of the contract?

USAID Response: This has been revised with Amendment 1. Breakdown per component requirement is deleted from RFP.

6. For cost purposes, can USAID provide a fixed exchange rate for the proposal?

USAID Response: All costs indicated must be denominated in US dollars.

7. Can USAID confirm the anticipated award date/contract start date?

USAID Response: As there are several factors to consider, an anticipated award date cannot be determined at this time.

8. Should offerors submit a subcontracting plan at the proposal stage? If so, please confirm it should be attached as an annex to the cost proposal.

USAID Response: Please see - L.7 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE

COST/BUSINESS PROPOSAL

9. Attachment J.2 Budget Template – Please confirm offerors may use their own budget templates provided that the cost category generally matches those given in Attachment J.2? If not, then:

USAID Response: Confirmed. You can use your own budget template as long as it is an unlocked Excel sheet with all budget categories as in USAID’s template.

a. As “Construction” is not an objective or activity under this contract, please confirm that offerors may delete any references from the budget template.

USAID Response: Correct. See Amendment for revision.

b. Summary budgets do not typically include “Unit Costs” and “Number of Units”; please confirm those columns included in the template under the Summary Worksheet should in fact only be provided under the detailed budget worksheets. Please also confirm that offerors may add a column for years 2 to 5 “number of Units”.

USAID Response: Revised. Correct. See Amendment for revision.

10. Section L technical proposal outline does not provide for a cover letter. Could USAID please allow the inclusion of a 1-page cover letter following the cover page?

USAID Response: No

11. Section L references Factor 2 as both “Organizational Capacity and Proposed Staff Experience” and “Management Approach.” Reading the description thereunder, USAID requests information on organizational capacity and proposed staff experience. Can USAID please consider renaming the Factor 2 evaluation criteria to “Management Approach, Organizational Capacity, and Proposed Staff Experience?” throughout and provide further guidance on the evaluation of the proposed management approach?

USAID Response: Revised. Renamed to “Management Approach”. Please see Sections L and M for evaluation criteria.

12. USAID references Annex 1-6 and 8 for the Technical Proposal but does not include an Annex 7. Can USAID please confirm that there is no Annex, and that Annex 8 Past Performance Information should be Annex 7?

USAID Response: Revised.

13. Section L.6.1(b), USAID references “capacity of its sub-implementing partners, if any, or proposed consortia if applicable”. Can USAID please confirm that reference to “sub-implementing partners” is referring to proposed subcontractors within the consortia? Given USAID’s focus on market-oriented implementation, it would seem too early/premature to select grantees.

USAID Response: Sub-implementing partners for USAID refers to either subcontractors or sub awardees. This is not referring to potential grantees under the GUC.

14. Per RFP page 111, can USAID please confirm that offerors should submit both Microsoft Word and PDF copies of the technical and cost proposal narratives, and a Microsoft Excel budget spreadsheet?

USAID Response: We confirm that the offerors should submit Microsoft Word OR PDF copies of the technical and cost proposal narratives, and a Microsoft Excel budget spreadsheet.

15. RFP page 111 states that “Each e-mail must be 4MB or less in size.” Would USAID please consider revising this maximum to at least 10MB given the size of the proposal volumes?

Doing so would allow offerors to submit fewer separate emails and attachments and relieve burden on USAID to recompile proposal components. If not, can USAID please confirm that offerors can submit their proposals in pieces across multiple emails to stay under the 4MB email limit?

USAID Response: Revised to 10MB

16. RFP pages 110-111 state under subsection c) Questions : “...Only 11-point Times New Roman font may be used, with each page numbered consecutively at the bottom of the page.

Page margins must be a minimum of one inch at the top, bottom and each side. The font used in tables and charts may be adjusted as appropriate but must be no smaller than 9 point.” Can USAID please confirm that these text requirements apply to the Technical and Cost Proposals?

USAID Response: Confirmed

17. Can USAID please confirm that graphics, text boxes, and tables can use font as small as 9 point? Additionally, would USAID allow offerors to use a different font type (such as Arial) for the proposal cover page, and/or for graphics, text boxes, and tables? It is our experience that using a different font from the narrative font for these allows for improved ease of reading.

USAID Response: Offerors may use fonts as small as 9-point and other font types for graphics, text boxes and tables only.

18. RFP page 112 lists “6) Content: Factor 1 - Technical Approach, Factor 2 - Organizational capacity and proposed staff experience 3 – Proposed incentives program.” However, on pages 115, 126, and 127, Factor 3 is listed as “Past Performance.” Can USAID please confirm that Factor 3 is Past Performance?

USAID Response: Revised. Factor 1 is Performance Work Statement; Factor 2 is Management Approach; Factor 3 is Past Performance

19. RFP pages 112 and 125 headers list Factor 1 as “Performance Work Statement”.

However, page 112 subsequently states “6) Content: Factor 1 - Technical Approach, Factor 2 … " and RFP page 113 states “The following Annexes must be submitted in the order noted below as part of Factor 1: Technical Approach.” Can USAID please confirm that Factor 1 is

“Performance Work Statement”? Can USAID provide further guidance on the desired structure to develop the requested performance work statement?

USAID Response: Revised. Factor 1 is Performance Work Statement

20. RFP page 114, Annex 4 states that resumes shall include three key personnel references. Can USAID please allow the references to be listed outside of the 3-page limit for the resumes?

USAID Response: No

21. RFP page 115 states “(ii) For all contracts that are not in CPARS and relevant assistance awards listed above, the Contractor Performance Information [Attachment J-6] must be utilized in collecting the performance information. (iii) For all contracts where the offeror is unable to obtain a reference utilizing Attachment J-6, please ensure the Past Performance Matrix, Column “N” is fully completed.” Attachment J-6 states “To be completed by offeror”. Can USAID please confirm that if a contract is not in CPARs or is an assistant award, the offeror must complete Attachment J-6?

USAID Response: Confirmed

22. RFP page 115 states “For all contracts listed above that are in CPARS, the offeror will attach the official CPARS report(s).” Can USAID please clarify whether offerors shall provide the most recent CPAR for each contract, or all CPARs for each contract?

USAID Response: CPARS reports are applicable to the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts which are similar to the work envisioned in SOO.

23. Can USAID please confirm that offerors can address Technical Proposal Factor 3 – Past Performance within the 35-page proposal narrative?

USAID Response: Confirmed

24. In the SOO, USAID references supporting access to finance among MIA beneficiaries in objectives 1, 2, and 3. Can USAID please provide clearer delineation as to desired access to finance achievements under each objective?

USAID Response: It is up to Offerors to propose their approach under the PWS, including how they plan to address the four SOO Objectives, achieve Results and address Indicators.

25. In the SOO, Objective 2, USAID states, “Using up to 20% of total estimated cost in USAID grant funding as seed and catalytic capital, identify and deploy tools...”. Can USAID please clarify whether the intended USAID funding is to come from the proposed standalone fund (Objective 4) or under the MIA project? If under the MIA project, can USAID please clarify if this is an intended temporary measure until the standalone investment fund is established and fully operational? If under MIA for the life of the project, can USAID please clarify how this differs from intended activities under the standalone investment fund? Can USAID please clarify if the intended amount is referencing 20% of the specified 2.3M in grants?

USAID Response: As stated in the SOO: USAID does not intend to use this Activity to establish or manage the Fund, hence the contractor's role will be limited to providing limited technical advisory services that may lead towards future Fund support. The offeror should include in its proposal Grants Under Contract in total value of up to 20% of proposed total estimated contract cost.

26. In the SOO, Objective 4, USAID states intent to establish a standalone investment fund.

Can USAID please provide a preliminary timeline for award of MIA and the intended investment fund?

USAID Response: Updated informations on USAID future activities can be found at:

https://www.usaid.gov/business-forecast/search

27. Considering that there are no locally available alternative telecommunications and data providers in Serbia that are section 889 compliant and considering the uncertainty regarding the current waiver in place until September 2022 and any possible extension, may USAID provide a plug figure for communication costs for the duration of the award?

USAID Response: Waiver for Foreign Assistance of the Provisions of Section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 is valid under this effort through September 30, 2022. Please propose your costs accordingly. Please check the USAID.gov website for the most recent guidance on Section 889.

28. Can USAID confirm that the Section 889 Foreign Assistance Waiver USAID received from the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) for internet and phone services will apply to this award through September 2022? If USAID’s waiver applies to this award and USAID does not provide a plug figure for communications costs, can USAID confirm that offerors are required to budget for VSAT technology and Satellite phones, among other alternatives to prohibited technologies, beyond September 2022?

USAID Response: Waiver for Foreign Assistance of the Provisions of Section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 is valid under this effort through September 30, 2022. It applies to internet and phone services in the Republic of Serbia.Please propose your costs accordingly. Please check the USAID.gov website for the most recent guidance on Section 889.

29. In Attachment J-10 CURRENT SERBIA LCP SALARY TABLE, USAID states, “The table below represents gross monthly salary range for each grade denominated in EUR, with 29.9% of tax and benefits of the employee share included, but exclusive to 16.65% of tax and benefits of the employer share.” Can USAID please clarify if the Serbia LCP Salary Table provided represents gross monthly salary range in EUR, or if it represents the gross annual salary range in EUR?

USAID Response: Revised. It is an annual, not monthly salary. It is in EUR.

30. In Sections L.6.1 (a) and M.3.1 (a) USAID states, “Implementing partners are expected to plan under proposed budget an incentive fee pool for its transaction advisors and/or other staff that will be directly responsible for actively seeking and deploying third-party funds, technology or equity investments to complement USAID support.” Could USAID clarify whether transaction advisors are envisaged as STTA or LTTA under this activity and whether they will foment only business and investment incentives or business, investment and technology incentives?

USAID Response: It is up to the Offeror to propose its approach to incentives. Hence this should be a part of and explained in the offeror's PWS and supporting documents.

31. Regarding Attachment J-10, can USAID please provide rationale for why the LCP is in euros and not Serbian Dinars, given the Section H.18 (e) requirement for employment agreements with CCNs in local currency?

USAID Response: US Embassy, Belgrade LCP payment section is denominated in EUR.

32. In section L.6.1(a), USAID requests offerors to present an incentive program, including “third party firm-level investment incentives.” Can USAID please confirm that the mentioned third party investment firm is referring to the selected implementer of the follow-on opportunity focused on the establishment and management of the investment fund?

USAID Response: The SOO states “third party firm-level investment incentives”. Please refer to the SOO and Attachments.

33. Will the successful offerors’ support to designing the stand-alone fund for Media, Information, and Digital Environment Innovation preclude that offer from participating in USAID’s subsequent tender to operate the fund?

USAID Response: The MIA contractor will provide advice on how best to proceed, rather than to design, establish or decide on the fund structure, IP etc. It is not anticipated that the MIA contractor will be precluded from applying to the subsequent investment fund activity.

34. On page 126, USAID asks offerors to describe their “organizational capacity (including capacity of its sub-implementing partners, if any, or proposed consortia if applicable).” Can USAID confirm that by “sub-implementing partners,” it means subcontractors on an offeror’s consortium?

USAID Response: Confirmed. This is applicable to subcontractors and sub awardees working directly with prime on the implementation. It is not applicable to grantees under GUC.

35. On page 4 of Attachment J1, USAID states: “Using up to 20% of total estimated cost in USAID grant funding as seed and catalytic capital, identify and deploy tools and resources (e.g.

transaction advisory services, blended capital, pay-for-results models such as performance-based contracts/grants) to incentivize and attract firm-level third-party financial or high-tech investment support for Beneficiaries or mitigate investment and financial risks related to Beneficiaries' business.” The wording is unclear. Can USAID confirm that it means that up to 20 percent of the $2.3 million earmarked for grants under contract should be used for this purpose?

USAID Response: Revised. Using up to 20% of total estimated cost for grants, and using grants as seed and catalytic capital, identify and deploy tools and resources (e.g. transaction advisory services, blended capital, pay-for-results models such as performance-based contracts/grants) to incentivize and attract firm-level third-party financial or high-tech investment support for Beneficiaries or mitigate investment and financial risks related to Beneficiaries' business.

36. As USAID intends to launch an Investment Fund for beneficiaries of this project, are activities under Objective 2 (Leverage USAID funds with third-party funds to incentivize firm-level investments or secure better access to loans for Beneficiaries) intended only as a stop gap until the Fund comes online? Does USAID foresee that activities under Objective 2 will be assumed by the implementer of the Investment Fund activity once it comes online?

USAID Response: MIA is a stand-alone Activity. Offerors’ are expected to propose the PWS that addresses the MIA SOO.

37. Under Objective 3 (Improve Beneficiary access to finance and investment readiness), Offerors are instructed that “the amount of finance to be mobilized will be specified in the Award Fee Plan.” Generally, “finance mobilization” indicates the amount of funds banks or non-bank financial institutions make available for lending programs due to project support, not the amount of loans a project’s beneficiaries receive. This indicator appears to be more appropriate for Objective 2 than Objective 3. Will USAID change the indicator to “Amount of bank or non-bank financing received by program beneficiaries” or something similar?

USAID Response: Please refer to full SOO and the Award Fee Evaluation Plan for Award Fee evaluation factors. For clarity, we are deleting “The amount of finance to be mobilized will be specified in the Award Fee Plan” from the Objective 3 in SOO”.

38. Under L.6.1(a), USAID includes an incentive structure that reflects / includes “transaction advisory services”. Can USAID please clarify how they are defining a transaction and associated “transaction advisors’ success fee”?

USAID Response: Please refer to the full SOO package including published Attachments, and the USAID Private Sector Engagement pages for clarification. It is up to the offeror to propose the best way to incentivize its staff.

39. Section M.3.1(a), USAID states the desire to incentivize implementing partner(s) and its staff in “adding value to USAID interventions.” Can USAID please provide more clarity on what is meant by “adding value” in this context?

USAID Response: Please refer to the full SOO package including Attachments, and the USAID Private Sector Engagement pages.

40. Can USAID please confirm that offerors may adjust the formatting of Attachment J.8.

Past Performance Matrix, provided as an Excel worksheet, to fit into a Word document with the required formatting designated by the RFP, so long as all of the information requested in J.8. is provided?

USAID Response: Yes

41. Section F.4.9, Close-Out and Disposition Plan, states that the Disposition Plan “will include, at a minimum, an illustrative Property Disposition Plan for … grantees” (page 17). Per the Mandatory Standard Provisions, disposition for grants under contract (GUC) occurs at the time of acquisition; approval for dispositions is not required. Would USAID, therefore, please remove this requirement from the RFP?

USAID Response: Reference to grantees removed from Section F.4.9, Close-Out and Disposition Plan

42. Section F.5 requires the contractor to submit both the annual work plan and grants manual 60 days after award (page 19). Given that the activities the work plan identifies will feed into the development of the grants manual, would USAID please consider changing the due date for the grants manual to 90 days after award?

USAID Response: No

43. Section H.6 states that the contractor will provide local capacity development to the government and that “no in-kind grants will be made” to the government (page 37). Given the GUC authorizing language of ADS 302.3.4.13, which allows for solely in-kind grants to government entities and the capacity building efforts required of this program, we respectfully request that USAID modify the RFP’s language to allow the contractor to award solely in-kind grants to government entities.

USAID Response: Revised Section H.6. No local capacity development of the government is envisioned, therefore no cash or in-kind grants will be made to the Government of Serbia, including regional and district level authorities. Additionally, the Contractor is not authorized to provide funds to the Serbian Government.

44. Section H.6 requires “all grants to be completed six months prior to the end of the contract” (page 37). Would USAID consider changing “six months” to “two months” to allow for more implementation time in the last year of programming while providing suitable time to close out the last grants?

USAID Response: Revised to three months. See Ammendment for details.

45. Section H.11 states that the contractor may grant a long-term project employee one annual salary “of not more than five (5) percent according to the Contractor’s established policy and practice” (page 40). Section H.18 states that “Unless otherwise approved by the Contracting Officer, the maximum prevailing compensation shall be the same as the maximum salary under the Serbia Mission Local Compensation Plan” (page 49). These salary restrictions appear inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007, Personnel Compensation, which Section H.10 (page

39) incorporates into the contract. AIDAR 752.7007 stipulates that personnel compensation “be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices,” with reimbursement subject only to the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold. We respectfully request that USAID remove these salary restrictions because they may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices.

USAID Response: AIDAR 752.7007 as stipulated in H.10 refers to US employees serving in the cooperation country. USAID Contractor Salary Threshold is applicable for this category of employees. However, H.18 EMPLOYMENT COSTS OF THIRD COUNTRY NATIONALS AND COOPERATING COUNTRY NATIONALS describes CCN/TCN’s as well as the Serbia Mission Local Compensation Plan as a referential salary scale for these categories. Therefore, the request to remove salary restrictions is denied.

46. Could USAID please confirm that the contractor may use GUC to support Objectives 1, 3, and 4 in addition to Objective 2 and for more than seed and catalytic capital? Could USAID also confirm that the contractor may use mechanisms other than GUC in support of Objective 2?

USAID Response: It is up to the Offeror to propose the best way to use GUC (if any) to support any or all of the SOO Objectives.

47. The RFP indicates that part of the award fee will be based on leveraged third-party capital/investments. Attachment J.4 states, “This indicator must be verifiable through documented transactions, guarantees, or committed funds (for example total committed investment capital) as well as market value of the technological investments (e.g. market value of licenses, or market value of high-tech know-how transfers through training and similar means)” (Subsection III.2). We respectfully request that USAID remove this language, which contradicts ADS 303.3.27. Per ADS 303.3.27, “the recipient is not responsible for meeting the leveraging amounts/resources and leveraging is not subject to audit.” Removing the quoted passage from Attachment J.4 would also allow the contractor to encourage grantees to bring funds to the partnership without undergoing the administrative burden of submitting receipts and backup documentation, a burden that would discourage some organizations from applying. The contractor would still require the grantee to report on the funds brought to the partnership, demonstrating effective utilization of USAID GUC to mobilize third-party financing, capital, or technological investments for beneficiaries.

USAID Response: As this will result in an award fee contract, the language will remain as stated in the RFP.

48. The USAID Business Forecast currently lists an anticipated cooperative agreement from USAID Serbia for the Media Fund Activity, which has an expected solicitation release date of September 30, 2021. Could USAID please clarify whether the contractor is expected to engage and coordinate with this planned activity, as the contractor is expected to with the USAID bilateral and regional activities listed in Attachment J-1, Statement of Objectives? If so, could USAID please consider providing more information about this planned activity?

USAID Response: 1. Yes, the MIA contractor is expected to cooperate with all relevant bilateral, regional and global USAID activities. The Contractor is also expected to cooperate with all relevant donors, private sector or public counterparts. 2. Subject to USAID decision to proceed with the Media Fund Activity, more information on the Fund will be published at a later date.

49. Section L.6.1(a) requests that the Award Fee Evaluation Plan be included as Annex 2 of Factor 1: Technical Approach (page 113). The plan will include information relevant to the offeror’s cost. Could USAID please confirm, therefore, that the Award Fee Evaluation Plan should instead be included as an annex to the cost/business proposal?

USAID Response: No

50. Section L.6.1 states, “The Technical Proposal must include the following information: … Factor 1 - Technical Approach, Factor 2 - Organizational Capacity and proposed staff experience 3 - Proposed incentives program” (page 112). The technical proposal instructions in Section L.6.1(c), however, state that Factor 3 concerns past performance (page 115). Section M.3.1 lists “FACTOR 1: Performance Work Statement (PWS) … FACTOR 2: Management Approach … [and] FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE” as the evaluation factors (pages 125-26). Could USAID please confirm that FACTOR 3 concerns past performance?

USAID Response: Revised. FACTOR 1: Performance Work Statement (PWS); FACTOR 2:

Management Approach; FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE.

51. Section L.6.1.a states the “PWS must include the extent to which the Offeror incorporates the Implementation Principles described in Section C, ATTACHMENT J-1-STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES (SOO), throughout the technical approach - including adaptive learning, risk management, the ability to identify opportunities and adapt to changes in the operating environment; and the extent to which the Performance Work Statement includes and presents a realistic and feasible plan to launch Activity operations in a timely manner and leave a sustainable impact, while meeting the SOO requirements” (page 112). Attachment J-1, however, does not explicitly identify “Implementation Principles,” although it includes a subsection titled “Other Information.” Could USAID please confirm that this subsection presents the implementation principles that offerors should incorporate into the technical approach?

USAID Response: Confirmed.

52. In Sections L.6.1(a)and M.3.1(a), USAID states: “Implementing partners are expected to plan under proposed budget an incentive fee pool for its transaction advisers and/or other staff that will be directly responsible for actively seeking and deploying third-party funds, technology or equity investments to complement USAID support” (pages 113 and 126). Could USAID please confirm that the incentive fee pool (and any associated payments) is meant to include partnership arrangements such as grants and subcontracts and should exclude payments to individual employees and consultants of the contractor to reward success in seeking and deploying third-party funds, technology, or equity investments to complement USAID support?

USAID Response: The offeror may propose, under the PWS, the best approach to incentivize its staff, sub-awardees, or consultants. Offerors should use the Award Fee Pool for incentives.

53. Section L.6.1.c directs offerors to include past performance information in Annex 8 (page 115). The RFP does not mention Annex 7. Could USAID please confirm that the past performance information should be in Annex 7 and that there is not an eighth annex?

USAID Response: Revised. The past performance information is Annex 7

54. Could USAID please confirm that the reference to a “Fee Schedule” in Section L.7 (page

120) refers to the award fee table in Section B.8 (page 8)?

USAID Response: Revised. This reference is deleted from the solicitation document.

55. Section L.7 states, “The Government’s purpose in granting an award fee is to encourage and reward superior contract performance therefore the base fee is $0” (page 116). The use of a cost-plus-award-fee contract encourages increased effort to exceed required results. Not allowing offerors to propose a base fee, however, may discourage the contractor from taking risks with the potential to yield even better results because taking those risks could jeopardize the contractor’s entire profit. We respectfully request, therefore, that USAID consider allowing offerors to propose their own base fee to cover financing and other unallowable costs incurred in the ordinary course of business. Allowing offerors to propose both a reasonable base fee and competitive award fee will encourage the contractor to take important risks that will even better equip the contractor to exceed expectations.

USAID Response: No

56. Section L.8 notes that offerors “must submit and negotiate a Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) and Marking Plan (MP) if selected for competitive range” and that “failure to submit and negotiate a BIP must make the offeror ineligible for award of contract” (page 123). The RFP’s cover page, however, states that “the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors.” Could USAID please confirm that not including the BIP in the initial proposal will not make offerors ineligible for the award?

USAID Response: Confirmed

57. Given the observation of Orthodox Easter in Serbia during the week of May 3, 2021, would USAID please consider extending the due date for proposals by one week?

USAID Response: Yes, the due date for proposals has been extended.

58. Section B.4 of the RFP (page 6) states that “The amount of up to $2,300,000 is exclusively reserved for GUC”, exclusive of management and administrative fees. However, the SOO mentions a GUC figure of up to 20% of the total estimated cost, which, assuming the stated total estimated cost for this Activity of $14 million, would be $2.8 million for GUC. Could USAID please confirm that Offerors may propose up to $2.8 million for GUC, exclusive of management and administrative fees?

USAID Response: Revised. The GUC amount shall not exceed 20% of the proposed total estimated costs exclusive of management and administrative fees.

59. Regarding the GUC, could USAID please confirm that, in addition to transaction advisory services to access financing, grants may be awarded for activities that support the overall project objectives, including, for example, operational support and technical upgrades, advisory services for market development and / or organizational development, match-making activities, participation in events, etc.?

USAID Response: It is up to the offeror to propose best utilization of the GUC under proposed

PSW.

60. Section L.6.1(a) (page 113) states that Offerors must propose an “… efficient incentive program…” and that Implementing Partners are expected to plan under the proposed budget and incentive fee pool for its transaction advisors … to compliment USAID support.” Could USAID please confirm if GUC can be used to incentivize external parties, such as external transaction advisors?

USAID Response: It will be up to the offeror to propose, under the PWS, the best approach to incentivize its staff, sub-awardees, consultants. Offerors should use the Award Fee Pool for incentives.

61. Section L.6.1(b) (page 114), under Annex 3, the RFP states that Offerors must propose a Staffing Plan showing titles, names and proposed LOE for personnel that will form part of this activity team. However, under Annex 4, the RFP states that Offerors shall include resumes of all key personnel and that Offerors must not propose more than two key personnel.

a. Could USAID please confirm that Offerors shall submit CVs only for the two key personnel?

USAID Response: The Offerors shall submit full CVs for the two key personnel, and provide sufficient information for the USAID to evaluate the full proposed staffing plan.

62. Concerning Objective 4:

a. Does USAID envision that the selected Implementing Partner would provide advisory services only until such time as the Fund is established, or would advisory services potentially continue after the Fund is established?

USAID Response: MIA is stand-alone Activity. Offerors’ are expected to propose the PWS that addresses the published MIA SOO. USAID has envisioned that the selected Implementing Partner would provide limited advisory services only until such time as the Fund is established, or USAID decides not to proceed with the Fund support.

b. When does USAID expect that the Fund will be established?

USAID Response: Date of the fund establishment has not yet been determined.

63. Concerning Annex 6: Draft AMELP including Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (pages 11-12, 15-16, and 114 of the RFP):

a. Will the applicant (Contractor) be primarily responsible for monitoring progress against the AMELP/QASP, or will the primary responsibility be held by the COR/another external evaluator selected by USAID?

USAID Response: The Contractor will be responsible to report progress made towards the AMELP/QASP to the COR/CO (as specified).

b. If the former, should the applicant (offeror actually) include a dedicated staff member for this role in their proposed management plan?

USAID Response: The Offeror may propose a staffing plan that is sufficient to comply with all requirements of the PWS and contract.

64. Could USAID please confirm the following is the desired structure of the Technical Proposal (per pages 112-115 of the RFP):

a. Cover Page

b. Table of Contents

c. Executive Summary

d. Dividers (if applicable)

e. Acronym List

f. Performance Work Statement (PWS)

g. Annex 1. Draft First Year Annual Work Plan

h. Annex 2. Award Fee Evaluation Plan

i. Management Approach

j. Annex 3: Organizational Structure and Staffing Plan

k. Annex 4: Qualifications and Résumés of Proposed Key Personnel

l. Annex 5: Key Personnel Letters of Commitment

m. Annex 6: Draft AMELP including Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

n. Organizational Capacity

o. Annex 7? (see question 9 below)

p. Annex 8: Past Performance Matrix

q. Proposed Incentives Program

USAID Response: Confirmed. Please include Management Approach, Organizational Capacity and Proposed Incentives Program narrative in the PWS.

65. Could USAID please confirm if items f-q from the list above are all included in the 35-page limit, or does the limit only comprise items f (PWS), i (management approach), n (organizational capacity), and q (proposed incentives program).

USAID Response: 35 page limit includes PWS items - Management Approach, Organizational Capacity, and Proposed Incentives Program. All annexes are exclusive of the 35-page limit. No additional annexes or attachments will be accepted.

66. Page 115 of the RFP lists an Annex 8, but no Annex 7 is mentioned. Is there an additional annex USAID would like submitted, or should the Past Performance Matrix be Annex 7?

USAID Response: Revised. Past Performance Matrix is the Annex 7