AURA RFP Questions and Answers FINAL.pdf

Request for Proposal (RFP) Number 72027824R00002, Amendment No. 01

Attachment I – Questions and Answers

* Note that where an amendment to the RFP is being made, the relevant portion of USAID’s response is highlighted in yellow, both in the answer below and in the amended RFP attached to Amendment No. 01.

**Further note that page numbers included at the beginning of questions below refer to the page numbers in the original RFP; however, where USAID has amended the RFP in response to questions received, the page numbers cited in USAID’s answer refer to the page numbers in the amended RFP.

General Questions

1. Considering the complexity of the AURA SOW, U.S Thanksgiving Holiday, and the considerable effort required and limited time to adequately respond to USAID's requirements overall, would USAID consider extending the proposal deadline by two weeks, to Saturday, December 21, 2024?

USAID Response: USAID took into account the requirements in the AURA RFP and the intervening Thanksgiving holiday in establishing the Saturday, December 07, 2024, deadline for proposals. Accordingly, the proposal deadline remains unchanged.

2. Considering the upcoming Thanksgiving Day holidays in the United States, we kindly request that USAID/Jordan consider a 1-week extension of the proposal submission deadline if

USAID does not publish an amendment with answers to clarification questions prior to

Monday 18 November. If USAID publishes answers to clarification questions after 18

November without changing the submission deadline, offerors would need to make proposal revisions in response to USAID’s amendment over the Thanksgiving Day holiday.

USAID Response: See response to Question No. 1.

3. Would USAID please consider issuing a one-week extension to proposal deadline, given the intersection with national holidays such as Thanksgiving?

USAID Response: See response to Question No. 1.

4. Could USAID please provide an estimated budget range or budget ceiling for AURA?

USAID Response: Per USAID policy, USAID cannot include an estimated budget or cost range in a solicitation for a cost-reimbursement term (LOE) contract. See ADS 302.3.5.7.

5. Would USAID please provide supplementary guidance on a budget range for the Activity? As the estimate range provided in the USAID Forecast several months ago was quite wide ($25-

45M), different offerors may find it difficult to consistently interpret the scale of the RFP’s

LOE and activity-related guidance, thereby making it difficult for USAID to effectively compare the various staffing and resourcing proposals received.

USAID Response: See response to Question No. 4.

6. Is the 16,000 person/days level of effort an estimate, and can the contractor propose a level of effort that is in line with their technical approach, or is the 16,000 FTE person-days level of effort a cap amount that should not be exceeded?

USAID Response: USAID’s 16,000 person-day estimate includes all LOE of technical and professional prime employees under the AURA activity, including any of the prime contractor’s employees who would manage GUCs, Construction, or the ISF. In its estimate for “technical and professional personnel” LOE, USAID included what it estimated for the prime’s direct employees as well as STTA consultants, whose primary work (1) fits the definition of “professional employee” in FAR 22.1102, or (2) directly relates to implementation of the technical requirements set forth in RFP Section C, specifically including technical assistance.

USAID’s estimate did not include employees or consultants whose job responsibilities are primarily operational in nature, or the LOE of subcontractor staff. USAID also did not include the LOE related to construction subcontracts in its 16,000 person-day LOE estimate. USAID envisioned costs related to construction subcontracts within the $2.5M plug figure for line item 0001f. Offerors are reminded that, pursuant to the RFP, the GUC, Construction, and ISF budget lines must not include the prime’s related operational costs, indirect costs, or fee. Therefore, these budget lines must exclude the prime’s LOE related to the management of these tools.

Each Offeror should take USAID’s estimate into account as a reference in developing its technical approach and associated budget, but should not treat that estimate as a required LOE. Offerors must note that RFP Section L.9 states: “USAID has estimated a total LOE of sixteen thousand (16,000) Full-Time-Equivalent (FTE) person-days level of effort of technical and professional personnel. USAID recognizes that the LOE required to perform the contract may vary depending upon the proposed approach. As a result, the

Offeror must submit as Annex 6 to the Technical Proposal an LOE Table, not to exceed two (2) pages, that reflects the positions and/or labor categories pursuant to the specific technical approach being proposed, and the corresponding number of days proposed for each position and/or labor category. The Offeror must clearly provide a rationale for the proposed LOE, which must be realistic and appropriate for the work to be accomplished.

If categories are proposed, the Offeror must clearly describe what each category consists

of. The Offeror must also describe how it defines a workday and how it will track the LOE expended under the contract. The technical and professional positions/labor categories in the successful Offeror’s LOE Table will be incorporated into the contract in Section B.5.”

7. In the RFP’s cover letter from C.O. Camille Garcia, she notes that USAID “estimates” up to

16,000 Full-Time-Equivalent person days LOE will be required for the implementation of this contract. Given days of effort required to prepare and monitor construction as it relates to

AURA, does construction LOE effect that 16,000 cap or is that LOE considered excess and

(not a recurring cost) included in the $2.5 construction budget?

USAID Response: See response to Question No. 6.

8. Does the 16,000 LOE estimate include Short Term Technical Assistance as well – or is that focused on Full time and effort on the ground?

4USAID Response: See response to Question No. 6.

9. We have a keen interest in notice ID 72027824R00002, with the RFP deadline set for

December 7, 2024, and also noticed the same notice ID 72027824R00002 with an RFI deadline of December 4, 2024. Could you clarify if these are separate requirements or combined requirement?

USAID Response: Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 72027824R00002 is the active opportunity and has a deadline for submission of proposals on Saturday, December 07, 2024. To avoid any potential confusion, USAID has updated the earlier related entry it posted for under the same identification number on SAM.gov to reflect that the related

Request for Information USAID posted on April 01, 2024, and the synopsis USAID posted on October 03, 2024, are now inactive.

10. Furthermore, would it be possible to conduct site visits before submitting a proposal?

USAID Response: USAID encourages potential Offerors to conduct appropriate market research prior to submitting a proposal in response to the RFP.

11. Is there a requirement for US government clearance for any part of the contract?

USAID Response: USAID does not anticipate any need for an Offeror, any subcontractors, or their personnel to possess or obtain a US government security clearance in order to implement the proposed AURA award.

12. More information about the eligibility criteria?

USAID Response: Per the RFP cover letter, “USAID invites all eligible and responsible organizations to submit offers in accordance with the requirements of this solicitation.

USAID is conducting this procurement as a full and open competition under which any type of eligible organization may submit a proposal.”

13. Is consortium eligible or only subcontracting?

USAID Response: USAID construes the term “consortium” in this question to refer to

“contractor team arrangements”, as defined in FAR 9.601. Pursuant to FAR Subpart 9.603, USAID “recognize[s] the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements; provided, the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in an offer or, for arrangements entered into after submission of an offer, before the arrangement becomes effective.” USAID refers potential Offerors to FAR Subpart 9.6 and to RFP Section

L.10 Part 4 - Joint Venture Information for further guidance on the potential submission of offers by contractor team arrangements. Proposals must clearly indicate whether a proposed arrangement involves a joint venture as a prime, and also whether any subcontractors are proposed. Please note that any Offeror, including any contractor team arrangement, must ensure that its proposal adequately describes its technical approach and management approach and staffing pursuant to the instructions in RFP Section L.9 to allow USAID to evaluate that proposal using the evaluation criteria set forth in RFP

Section M.2.

14. What is the maximum number of organizations allowed to join a consortium?

USAID Response: Please see the response to Question No. 13. Further, nothing in the RFP imposes a limit on the maximum number of organizations in a contractor team arrangement.

15. Can organizations participate in multiple consortiums as co-applicants?

USAID Response: Please see the response to question 13.

16. Are UN agencies eligible to join, and is there a limit to the number of agencies permitted in the consortium?

USAID Response: See the responses to Questions No. 12 and 13.

17. Should we apply as private company or non-profit organization?

USAID Response: See response to Question No. 12.

18. Is the grant going to be awarded to one winner or will the 3 outcomes will be distributed to several winners?

USAID Response: Per RFP Section L.7, USAID “anticipates awarding one contract as a result of this solicitation. The Agency reserves the right to award multiple, one, or no awards under this solicitation.” Further, issuance of this RFP does not in any way obligate

USAID to award a contract, nor does it commit USAID to pay any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of an offer. Furthermore, USAID reserves the right to reject any and all offers, if such action is considered to be in the best interest of the

Government. Award of a contract under this RFP is subject to availability of funds and other internal USAID approvals.”

19. Should the applicant provide in-kind or monetary contribution?

USAID Response: As noted in the RFP Cover Letter and in Sections B.2 and L.4, USAID envisions a cost-plus-fixed-fee term type contract as a result of this solicitation, not a cost-sharing contract.

20. Can the GUC support local startups with or without MVPs?

USAID Response: Offerors should review the RFP, particularly Section C.3.5 and the other sections referenced therein, for guidance on GUCs.

21. Can USAID share the intended earmarked funding sources and percentages (e.g., will the funding for AURA come from earmarked Climate Adaptation, Clean Energy or other earmarked appropriations)?

USAID Response: USAID cannot share any information on funding sources for this award.

Please note that the award of a contract under this RFP is subject to availability of funds and other internal USAID approvals.

RFP Section A

22. Section A, page 7: Would USAID please provide an editable version of the SF-33 solicitation/contract form provided in the RFP?

USAID Response: Offerors should use the fillable SF-33 available at the following link

(https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/SF33-22.pdf) to complete the SF-33 for submission with their proposals.

RFP Section B

23. What does it mean “5 years cost plus fixed fee contract”?

USAID Response: The term “5 years” reflects the statement in RFA Section F.2 that “[t]he period of performance for this contract is five (5) years from the effective date of the award, subject to the conditions set forth in Section H.17.” The term “cost plus fixed fee contract” is defined in FAR 16.306(a).

24. The “TBD” mentioned in the financial lines is it part of the total grant, please explain?

USAID Response: USAID understands this question to focus on the “[TBD]” entries in

Sections B.3 and B.4 of RFP No. 72027824R00002. Those “[TBD]” entries reflect placeholders for specific portions of the Total Estimated Cost, Fixed Fee, Total Estimated

Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee, Obligated Amount, and Contract Line Items, which will be replaced https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/SF33-22.pdf with specific dollar amounts in the contract that USAID anticipates entering into to implement the AURA activity. However, issuance of this RFP does not in any way obligate

USAID to award a contract, nor does it commit USAID to pay any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of an offer. Furthermore, USAID reserves the right to reject any and all offers, if such action is considered to be in the best interest of the

Government. Award of a contract under this RFP is subject to availability of funds and other internal USAID approvals.

25. Section B.3. Can USAID provide an expected dollar value range for the total estimated cost

(TEC) of the AURA contract award?

26. Section B. Would USAID please provide an overall budget ceiling or estimated total cost range to both aid offerors in budgeting for non-labor costs and help ensure offerors provide proposals that are fair and reasonable considering available financial resources?

27. Section B.3, page 8. To provide additional flexibility to USAID on implementation to meet technical outcomes, involve additional local SME and CSO actors in delivery of resilience activities, and to build local capability to deliver on USAID programs, would USAID consider adding additional flexibility to the $6M grants plug, to enable its use (subject to USAID approval) for both Grants and local Sub-Contracts?

USAID Response: No, Grants Under Contract (GUCs) are a separate portion of the AURA activity with a separate Sub-CLIN from subcontracts. GUCs are not envisioned as subcontracts, and subcontracts are not envisioned as GUCs.

28. Section B.4, page 9. Can USAID confirm that proposed subcontractors with professional labor and costs included in the 0001c Subcontracts line item are not eligible to also receive awards included in the 0001d Institutional Support Fund, 0001e Grants Under Contract, and/or 0001f Construction plug figures?

USAID Response: There is no express prohibition on a subcontractor under AURA whose professional labor and costs are included in Sub-CLIN 0001c from having costs reflected in another AURA Sub-CLIN. However, the ISF, GUCs, and Construction components are distinct mechanisms that have specific requirements and restrictions set forth in the RFP that the Contractor must follow.

29. Section B.4, page 9. As AURA is a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) term contract, it is our understanding that contractors are held to the total contract ceiling, and that contractors must also stay within the Life of Project LOE total. It is also our understanding that the individual budget line items and annual CLIN totals serve as guidelines. Would USAID consider removing the language in B.4, page 9, stating, “Contractor must not exceed any contract cost item nor is authorized to shift funding between items without prior written approval of the CO,” in line with FAR 16.306?

USAID Response: No, the text of RFP Section B.4 remains unchanged.

30. Sections B.4 and B.5, page 9. Can USAID confirm that the estimated 16,000 professional technical LOE days are to be allocated to the prime contractor only as the professional labor presented in the 0001a Personnel contract line item, so that additional LOE can be allocated to subcontractors as the professional subcontractor labor presented in the 0001c

Subcontracts line item?

31. Section B.5(a), page 10. This section states “TBD” LOE days and details that “the contractor must provide a total of [TBD – to be filled in at the time of award] days of Level of Effort

(LOE) to implement the Statement of Work,” should offerors propose LOE or use USAID’s estimated total of 16,000 full-time equivalent person-days established on the cover page and in Section L.9 for Annex 6, page 145?

32. Section B.5, page 10. Please confirm that USAID will accept a simple labor category breakdown [for] this award (for example, LTTA expatriate, LTTA CCN, STTA expatriate, and

STTA CCN) to maintain management and operational flexibility throughout implementation.

USAID Response: Each Offeror must determine the appropriate technical and professional positions/labor categories it will use to implement its proposed technical approach.

33. Section B.5.b, page 10. Can USAID please confirm that offerors can only include LOE used to manage the ISF, grants and/or construction in the plugs for these items, and that any LOE incurred by the recipients of the funding should not be included?

USAID Response: See response to Question No. 6. GUC recipients’ labor will not be considered as LOE.

34. Section B.7, page 10. To allow contractors to automate the invoicing process as much as possible, we request that USAID allow contractors to calculate fixed fee invoiced as a percentage of total cost, with the percentage adjusted to a level that best approximates the expenditure of LOE in a given year. Contractors can then periodically true-up invoicing of fee against actual LOE expended, not less than annually. We believe this approach reduces the potential of errors or delays caused by manual calculations, while also providing USAID with accurate monthly bills.

USAID Response: USAID has considered this request and the text of RFP Section B.7 remains unchanged.

RFP Section C

35. In Section C, the hyperlinks on pages 14, 17, 25, 27, 30, and 37 do not function. Would

USAID please issue a revised PDF of the Request for Proposal (RFP) with functional hyperlinks or provide the direct links as an annex?

USAID Response: Thank you for pointing out this oversight. Here are the referenced links:

● Amman’s Green City Action Plan:

https://www.amman.jo/site_doc/AmmanGreen2021.pdf

● Amman Climate Plan - A vision for 2050 Amman:

https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/816961617187012025/pdf/The-

Amman-Climate-Plan-A-Vision-for-2050-Amman.pdf

● Resilience Strategy:

https://resilientcitiesnetwork.org/downloadable_resources/Network/Amman-

Resilience-Strategy-English.pdf https://www.amman.jo/site_doc/AmmanGreen2021.pdf https://www.amman.jo/site_doc/AmmanGreen2021.pdf https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/816961617187012025/pdf/The-Amman-Climate-Plan-A-Vision-for-2050-Amman.pdf https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/816961617187012025/pdf/The-Amman-Climate-Plan-A-Vision-for-2050-Amman.pdf https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/816961617187012025/pdf/The-Amman-Climate-Plan-A-Vision-for-2050-Amman.pdf https://resilientcitiesnetwork.org/downloadable_resources/Network/Amman-Resilience-Strategy-English.pdf https://resilientcitiesnetwork.org/downloadable_resources/Network/Amman-Resilience-Strategy-English.pdf https://resilientcitiesnetwork.org/downloadable_resources/Network/Amman-Resilience-Strategy-English.pdf

● National Adaptation Plan:

https://moenv.gov.jo/ebv4.0/root_storage/ar/eb_list_page/final_draft_nap-2021.pdf

● GAM’s Urban Observatory:

https://media.ammancity.gov.jo/EN/List/Amman_Urban_Observatory

● C40 Cities Climate Facility: https://c40cff.org/

● World Bank and European Investment Bank’s City Climate Finance Gap Fund:

https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/gap-fund

● Global Climate Fund’s Subnational Climate Fund:

https://www.greenclimate.fund/project/fp152

● MUFG’s GAIA Climate and Blended finance platform:

https://www.mufgemea.com/media/gaia-receives-us-150-million-approval-from-the-green-climate-fund/

● Green Guarantee Company: https://www.greenclimate.fund/project/fp197#overview

● the International Municipal Investment Fund – Technical Assistance Facility:

https://www.uncdf.org/mif/imiftaf

● the Transformative Actions Program, developed by ICLEI – Local Governments for

Sustainability: https://iclei.org/tap/

● Amman Vision Investment & Development: https://ammanvision.jo/

● USAID Private Sector Engagement Policy:

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/usaid_psepolicy_final.pdf

● Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Policy: https://www.usaid.gov/gender-policy

● 2020 Gender Analysis and Assessment:

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00WDSP.pdf

36. Section C.2, page 15. Could USAID please provide Offerors with a brief overview of the envisioned role each of these stakeholders (GAM, MoEnv, Ministry of Public Works and

Housing (MPWH), Central Bank of Jordan (CBJ), Ministry of Finance (MOF), Ministry of

Education (MOE), Ministry of Health (MOH), the private sector, civil society organizations

(CSOs), and other donors) play regarding AURA’s work with GAM?

https://moenv.gov.jo/ebv4.0/root_storage/ar/eb_list_page/final_draft_nap-2021.pdf https://moenv.gov.jo/ebv4.0/root_storage/ar/eb_list_page/final_draft_nap-2021.pdf https://media.ammancity.gov.jo/EN/List/Amman_Urban_Observatory https://media.ammancity.gov.jo/EN/List/Amman_Urban_Observatory https://c40cff.org/ https://c40cff.org/ https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/gap-fund https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/gap-fund https://www.greenclimate.fund/project/fp152 https://www.greenclimate.fund/project/fp152 https://www.mufgemea.com/media/gaia-receives-us-150-million-approval-from-the-green-climate-fund/ https://www.mufgemea.com/media/gaia-receives-us-150-million-approval-from-the-green-climate-fund/ https://www.mufgemea.com/media/gaia-receives-us-150-million-approval-from-the-green-climate-fund/ https://www.greenclimate.fund/project/fp197#overview https://www.uncdf.org/mif/imiftaf https://www.uncdf.org/mif/imiftaf https://iclei.org/tap/ https://iclei.org/tap/ https://ammanvision.jo/ https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/usaid_psepolicy_final.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/usaid_psepolicy_final.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/gender-policy https://www.usaid.gov/gender-policy https://www.usaid.gov/gender-policy https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00WDSP.pdf

USAID Response: USAID does not have any further information to share on this topic beyond the information in the RFP.

37. Section C.3. Please confirm that technical proposals must address each of the ‘key areas of focus’ bullet points identified under IRs in Section C, and that proposals may address any, all, or none of the ‘additional illustrative interventions’.

USAID Response: Offerors must carefully read RFP Sections L.9 and M.2 and conform to technical proposal instructions. USAID confirms that the “key areas of focus” are contract requirements and “illustrative interventions” are illustrative and not required.

38. Section C.3.1, page 17. Can USAID clarify that Section C.3.1, page 17, which specifies interventions under each IR through the annual work planning process, will require USAID’s prior written approval. Will USAID’s written approval of the annual workplan constitute prior written approval of each specific intervention?

USAID Response: The COR’s written approval of the Annual Work Plan will constitute written approval of each specific intervention mentioned in the workplan, except when additional approvals are required per law or contract, when additional documents are specifically required prior to approval, or when the COR indicates that approval of the annual work plan does not constitute approval of one or more specific interventions. In particular, as the RFP reflects, the AURA contract will impose specific additional approvals for GUCs, Construction, and ISF interventions.

39. Section C.3.1, page 18. States that an assessment to identify the Implementation Focus

Areas will occur in the first 150 days of implementation. Do USAID and GAM have an idea of those Focus Areas at this time?

40. Section C.3.2, page 22. Could USAID please provide more information on the Mission’ support to date to the “new city” project located roughly between the capital Amman and

Zarqa, announced by the GOJ in 2023?

41. Section C.3.3, page 25. Mentions “with the aim of the increasing financing for urban resilience and climate-responsive projects in Amman.” Based on past urban infrastructure projects of GAM and its project pipelines, could you please provide us some characteristics about the projects to be financed in terms of average size (USD), main sectors allocations, financial instruments used, main sources of finance?

42. Section C.3.3, page 25. Mentions “… private sector investments may bias selection” Are there limitations to the ways that USAID defines private sector investors, and ought the project control for that bias?

43. Section C.3.2, page 27. Would USAID please elaborate on its efforts to date supporting

GAM’s transition to accrual accounting?

44. Section C.3.3, page 27. Could USAID please provide the Key Focus Areas for IR 2.2, similar to the Key Focus areas that are provided for all other IRs in the RFP?

USAID Response: Please see response to Question No. 46.

45. Section C.3.3, pp. 27-28. Please confirm that USAID does not have a “key focus area(s)” for

IR 2.2 at this time.

USAID Response: Please see responses to Question Nos. 44 and 46.

46. Section C.3.4, page 31. IR 3.1 requires support for project owners to implement the pipeline of “bankable” projects, however some of these projects might not be within the

Implementation Focus Areas. Could USAID please confirm that the Contractor may support implementation of pipeline projects that may fall outside of the Implementation Focus

Areas?

USAID Response: USAID would like to draw the attention of potential Offerors to page 13 of the RFP “Geographic focus: While AURA will focus on urban resilience and decarbonization in Amman, IR 3.1 will be geographically focused on certain districts/areas

(Implementation Focus Areas) in Amman, which will be selected during activity implementation based on comprehensive selection criteria”. Thus, the Contractor can support the development of “bankable” projects (IR 2.2 and IR 2.3) in any area of Amman, but can only develop IR 3.1 interventions - building additional infrastructure or retrofitting existing urban infrastructure - in the Implementation Focus Areas. Please also note the additional flexibility on this matter mentioned on page 19 of the RFP, which states “To maintain flexibility during implementation, the Contractor should consistently assess and could re-prioritize the Implementation Focus Areas throughout the project with the COR’s prior written approval”.

To ensure clarity, USAID is revising the RFP to move the first key intervention under IR 3.1 to IR 2.2 and slightly revise it as follows: “The Contractor must support the development of the pipeline of “bankable” urban resilience and decarbonization projects, directly or through the use of transaction advisory services, by helping the project owners explore different design, management options, marketing, financing options, and procurement plans, and identify sources of technical assistance”. USAID is also deleting the second key focus area under IR 3.1 and is only including illustrative interventions for this IR, as the needs of the specific Implementation Focus Areas selected will affect the appropriate interventions under IR 3.1. Please see the revised language on pages 27 and 31 of the amended RFP attached to RFP Amendment No. 01.

47. Section C.3.5, page 33. Please clarify the permitted uses of GUCs, particularly with respect to the creation of innovative financing instruments. Can the GUCs be used as catalytic funding in blended finance structures (e.g., first loss capital, guarantees, etc.)?

USAID Response: GUCs may be used to create innovative financial instruments, as described in RFP Section C.3.5. It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure that GUCs that it issues under the AURA contract are in accordance with USAID’s policies and regulations.

48. Section C.3.5, page 33. Section H.4 (5) on page 78 states “GUCs [grants under contract] that the Contractor makes under this contract may be cost-reimbursement or fixed amount grants.” Given that Section C.3.5 on page 33 states, “the Contractor must provide technical assistance and material support to selected local [small and medium enterprises] and [civil society organizations] through the use of GUCs,” can USAID please confirm that offerors may use in-kind grants to provide technical assistance and material support?

USAID Response: The use of in-kind GUCs that are consistent with USAID’s policies and regulations is not precluded under this contract.

49. Section C.3.5, page 33. Who will be responsible for paying the GUCs: USAID to the awarded companies, or the Contractor? How will the payment management for the grants be organized between the awarded companies and the Contractor?

USAID Response: Grants under Contracts (GUCs) are a USAID-specific mechanism that authorizes contractors to provide assistance to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on behalf of the Agency. The AURA contractor will be responsible for implementing

GUCs, subject to the terms of the AURA contract. USAID will obligate funds to the contract for this purpose, subject to their availability. The contractor will be responsible for managing payments to GUC recipients, which will depend on the nature and specific provisions of the grant. See ADS 302.3.4.13.

50. Section C.3.5, page 33. Are there any specific limitations on the procurement process for the sub-granting component of the proposal?

USAID Response: Please see RFP Sections C.3.5, F.6.2 Sub-Section 10, and H.4, as well as the authorities referenced therein.

51. Section C.3.5, page 33. This section states, “GUCs must be awarded to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (non-profits or for-profits) as described in Section H.4, and at the required level specified in Section B.4.” The RFP indicates that all grants issued under the contract must be to local NGOs; however, ADS 302 allows contractors to execute solely in-kind grants to government entities. Would USAID confirm that solely in-kind grants to government entities will be allowed under this contract, pursuant to ADS 302.3.4.13?

USAID Response: As described in RFP Section C.3.6, the GUCs tool is designed to support non-governmental organizations, including small and medium enterprises (SMEs) as critical actors in the urban resilience and decarbonization framework. Accordingly, the

RFP does not envision that the Contractor would award GUCs to partner government entities.

52. Section C.3.5, page 33. Could USAID please confirm that GUCs can be used for activities under any IR, and not just those specified in the RFP (specifically in IR 3.2 and potentially under IRs 2.2 and 2.3)?

USAID Response: GUCs under AURA must be used for activities under IRs 2.2, 2.3, and 3.2.

However, such GUCs may also indirectly further the results under other IRs in RFP Section

C.

53. Section C.3.6, pages 34-35. Will be the actual construction of the selected projects fall under the Contractor/ subcontractor scope of work, or will this activity be subject to be under a formal bidding process?

USAID Response: As set forth in Section C.3.6 and other sections of the RFP, the AURA

Contractor will be responsible for implementing Construction. Please review RFP Section

H.12 carefully.

54. Section C.3.6, pages 34-35. How will the payment for the payment of the Construction activities be managed? Will USAID be responsible for paying the construction company directly, or will the Contractor/subcontractor handle this payment as part of their proposal?

USAID Response: Please see the response to Question 53.

55. Section C.3.6, page 34. This section of the RFP discusses any construction related interventions, from receiving approvals to the development of a plan to construction oversight and engineering consultation to simple rehabilitation. Is the construction budget of $2.5 intended to cover the LOE for those efforts, or must the LOE for any construction efforts be included in the 16,000 LOE cap?

56. Section C.3.6, pages 34-35. Please confirm that LOE required for design, construction, and site supervision firms contracted under CLIN 0001f is separate from the overall 16,000 FTE person-days level of effort estimate.

57. Section C.3.6. Which entity will be responsible to authorize construction? This will make a difference regarding use of LOE.

USAID Response: See RFP Sections C.3.6 and H.12.

58. Section C.3.7, page 35. Can the institutional Support Fund also contribute to consultant costs related to institutional support? This would not be a recurring cost and the extent of that engagement would be dictated by assessments, or must that effort be included under the 16,000 day estimated LOE?

USAID Response: USAID has considered this question and will not change the limitations on the use of the ISF set forth in RFP Section C.3.7, which do not permit use of ISF funds for consultant costs related to institutional support beyond the limited ancillary services set forth in Section C.3.7. Regarding the treatment of LOE, please see the response to

Question 6.

59. Section C.3.7, pages 35-36. Who will be responsible for payments related to the equipment, tools, and other materials under the ISF concept: USAID to the institutions or the

Contractor? How will the procurement and management of these payments (to Contractor if it is the responsible) be handled?

USAID Response: As set forth in the RFP, the AURA Contractor will be responsible for implementing the ISF under AURA, which would include procurement of equipment, tools, and other materials under the ISF.

RFP Section F

60. Section F.5(c)(1), page 44. USAID has required that the proposed Chief of Party (COP) has at least four (4) years of experience as a “COP/DCOP”. Could USAID please confirm that equivalent program management experience of complex donor-funded programs is sufficient to meet this requirement?

USAID Response: The reference to COP/DCOP required experience for the proposed COP key personnel position reflects experience in senior management roles and does not require that the candidate have served as part of a USAID project. Accordingly, equivalent senior management experience of complex donor-funded programs is sufficient to satisfy this requirement. USAID has revised this Section of the RFP accordingly. Please see the revised language on page 44 of the amended RFP attached to RFP Amendment No. 01.

61. Section F.5, page 45. This section describes and requires a Local Governance Expert as a Key

Personnel position. It also requires a DCOP position. Would USAID allow 2 DCOP positions, one that is technical and one that is oriented towards operational oversight – as long as the positions meet the requirements of the KPs?

USAID Response: It is the Offeror’s responsibility to propose its Management Approach and Staffing in accordance with the RFP requirements. Please review RFP Section L.9 carefully, noting that “The proposed Management Approach and Staffing must be appropriate and effective in maximizing resources and achieving all the technical components and results including the guiding principles outlined in Section C.3 of the RFP while effectively managing the tools described in Sections C.3.5, C.3.6, and C.3.7, and the

LOE under this contract.”

62. Section F.6.1, page 47. Does GAM and USAID have expectations regarding construction and rehabilitation under AURA, or will the contractor assess and submit a plan along with the other assessments and reports noted on p.47 of the RFP?

USAID Response: Per RFP Sections 3.6 and F.6.2 Sub-section 12, the Contractor will need to prepare and submit Construction Implementation Plans for review and approval by the

USAID Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) prior to the design of construction interventions under the AURA contract.

63. Regarding third-party monitoring and assessments of the reports, will USAID be bringing on external parties to conduct those efforts and therefore not cost the program LOE?

USAID Response: It is not clear from this question what is meant by “third-party monitoring and assessment of the reports”. The Contractor will be responsible for developing and implementing an Activity MEL Plan pursuant to the requirements of RFP

Section F.6.2 Subsection 1. With respect to LOE, Offerors should review USAID’s response to Question 6. To the extent the question relates to any third-party assessments or evaluations of AURA that USAID elects to conduct, such assessments would be procured by USAID or conducted by its MEL contractor, and would not affect the funding or LOE under the AURA contract.

64. Section F.6.2, page 56. This section states that the first year's AWP must also include a gender analysis. Page 50 states that the draft AWP is due 45 days after award and the final is due 95 days after award. Does USAID intend to receive the gender analysis with the draft

AWP or the final AWP, which will allow ample time for a thorough analysis?

USAID Response: USAID has considered this question and is revising the language of

Section F.6.2 Subsection 2 to provide for the Contractor to conduct a preliminary gender analysis as part of the first year’s AWP, and to then conduct a more thorough gender analysis that would be reflected in the second year’s AWP. Please see the revised language on page 56 of the amended RFP attached to Amendment No. 01.

65. Section F.6.2, page 63. As noted in the RFP instructions on preparation of Construction

Implementation Plans, can USAID confirm that it expects, or would otherwise allow, the

AURA contractor to subcontract all construction-related design, construction, and site supervision tasks?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that the AURA contractor may contemplate subcontracts for construction-related design, construction, and site supervision tasks. The contractor will be responsible for complying with all relevant requirements for construction set forth in Sections C.3.6, H.12, and I of the RFP (which will be incorporated into any contract resulting from the solicitation), including the Contractor’s responsibility for all work performed under the contract by its subcontractors pursuant to Section

H.12.6. Subcontracts for Construction must be reflected under budget line 0001f (rather than 0001c).

66. Section F.6.2, Subsection 17, pages 65-66. Do the procedures for reporting and addressing security threats that Contractor must include in its security plan include cybersecurity and/or data security measures?

USAID Response: USAID does not prescribe specific categories of security threats that must be included in a contractor’s security plan. Per Section F.6.2 Subsection 17, the

AURA contractor must identify the specific security threats to its project operations and develop procedures for reporting and addressing those threats in its security plan.

67. Section F.6.2 Subsection 18, page 66. In explaining the environmental mitigation and monitoring plan, states, “refer to IEE ME 24-61 for more details.” This file was not accessible via ecd.gov or sam.gov for contractor reference; would USAID kindly provide the form?

USAID Response: USAID is amending the RFP to attach a redacted version of IEE ME 24-61 as new Attachment J-6. Please see the revised language on pages 111 and 180, and new

Attachment J-6 of the amended RFP attached to Amendment No. 01.

RFP Section H

68. Per Section H.2 of the RFP, page 76, “Unless otherwise approved by the Contracting Officer, the maximum prevailing compensation shall be the same as the maximum salary under the

Jordan Mission Local Compensation Plan.” We respectfully request that the above-mentioned salary restriction be removed from the RFP as it appears to be inconsistent with

AIDAR 752.7007, Personnel Compensation, incorporated in the contract under Section

H.2(b), page 76, which 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. The salary restriction above may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices, as required by AIDAR 752.7007. In addition, could USAID provide a copy of the mission’s current local compensation plan?

USAID Response: The limitations related to salaries for CCN and TCN employees are a matter of USAID policy as set forth in the AIDAR 722.170 and the required approvals cannot be waived. With regard to the request for a copy of USAID/Jordan’s current local compensation plan, please see the response to Question No. 118.

69. Section H.12.5. Will the Offeror be required to be the exporter and/or importer of record for any equipment or supplies pursuant to the contract such as software, laptops, or routers?

USAID Response: Yes, if items deemed necessary for procurement are not available locally.

70. Section H.12.8. Can USAID confirm that the cost of appropriate liability insurance for construction services can be included in the construction plug of $2.5M?

USAID Response: The cost of such insurance must be included in the Construction budget line item in Sub-CLIN 0001f.

RFP Section L

71. Section L.9, page 140. In Section L.9, the first row of the table on page 140 states, “The proposal must be accompanied by a cover page typed on official organizational letterhead.

The cover letter will be in Adobe PDF format and is limited to one page.” Would USAID please confirm whether the Technical Proposal should include a cover page, a cover letter, or both? If both, could USAID clarify the requirements for each?

USAID Response: USAID clarifies that the various references to a “cover page”, “cover letter”, “cover sheet”, “first page”, and “title page” of the RFP in Section L.6, L.8, and L.9 of the RFP all refer to the same required cover page of the RFP, which must include the information required in FAR 52.215-1, as set forth in RFP Section L.6, and in accordance with the required format set forth in the first row of the table on pages 140-141 of RFP

Section L.9.

72. Section L.9, page 140. USAID refers to both a cover page and a cover letter in its instructions for the required format of the technical proposal, and an additional reference to a title page is made on page 135 of the RFP. Would USAID please clarify the instructions for the cover page/letter?

USAID Response: Please see the response to Question No. 71.

73. Section L.9, page 140. Can USAID kindly clarify whether Section L.9. is requiring a “cover letter” or a “cover page” or both?

USAID Response: Please see the response to Question No. 71.

74. Section L.9, page 140. This section states, “Proposals, including text boxes, must be written in font style Calibri, font size 12.” Would USAID please allow 10-point font in text boxes for this proposal?

USAID Response: As the RFP provides, text boxes “must be written in font style Calibri, font size 12.”

75. Section L.9, page 140. USAID has indicated that text boxes must be written in font size 12.

Could USAID please allow textboxes to be treated similar to tables, graphs, and graphics and be in font size 10?

USAID Response: Please see the response to Question No. 74.

76. Section L.9, page 140. As text boxes are a graphic element, will USAID allow offerors to use a "Smaller font size, but not smaller than font size 10" in text boxes as with tables, graphics and graphs?

USAID Response: Please see the response to Question No. 74.

77. Section L.9, page 140. The same page and section states, “Smaller font size, but not smaller than font size 10, can be used in tables, graphics, and graphs.” Could USAID please confirm the size 10 font also applies to charts, and specifically organizational charts?

USAID Response: USAID has considered the suggestion and is revising this instruction to permit Offerors to utilize a font size, not smaller than font size 10, in charts, including organizational charts. Please see the revised language on page 140 of the amended RFP attached to RFP Amendment No. 01.

78. Section L.9, page 141. Given the number of requirements listed in Section L for the technical

& management approach, would USAID kindly consider increasing the overall page count for the current technical & management approach from 18 to 20 pages?

USAID Response: USAID will not increase the page limitation for the Technical Proposal

Body.

79. Section L.9, page 141. Would USAID please consider changing the page limit for the

Technical Proposal Body from 18 pages to 25 pages?

USAID Response: See response to Question No. 78.

80. Section L.9, page 141. May the 1-page limitation for Attachment 3 - Draft Year 1 Work Plan be increased to 2-3 pages? It is our experience that it is challenging to format this type of excel to one page in word/PDF and have it be legible. Alternatively, may the work plan be submitted as a separate excel?

USAID Response: No, the page limitation for Annex 3 remains unchanged.

81. Section L.9.1, page 143. USAID provides a template for Annex 1 that covers the three

Outcomes of the project. Could USAID please confirm that Offerors may include additional indicators for the Activity goal level and cross-cutting?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that Offerors must include relevant indicators under the three Outcomes as listed in the sample chart, and may include additional indicators that would meaningfully assess progress on the AURA Activity.

82. L.9.1, page 144, refers to Annex 3 to the Technical Proposal as the draft first year work plan.

Would USAID consider extending the page limit for the Gantt chart to allow for a detailed outline of proposed activities, timing, and sequence in Year 1, as requested in the RFP?

USAID Response: See response to Question No. 80.

83. Section L.9.1, page 144. Since Annex 3 falls under the Technical Approach portion of the instructions and evaluation criteria, please confirm that USAID expects offerors to focus the

GANTT chart on technical/programmatic Year 1 activities rather than more operational start-up/mobilization activities.

USAID Response: USAID confirms that Annex 3 should focus on technical/programmatic

Year 1 activities, rather than operational start-up/mobilization activities.

84. Section L.9, page 144. Can USAID provide more guidance on what to include under Annex 4

- Lessons Learned Narrative and how it will be evaluated?

85. The RFP indicates that “up to sixteen thousand (16,000) Full-Time-Equivalent (FTE) person-days level of effort of technical and professional personnel will be required for the implementation of this contract.” (cover letter) and on page 145: “USAID has estimated a total LOE of sixteen thousand (16,000) Full-Time-Equivalent (FTE) person days level of effort of technical and professional personnel.” (…) the Offeror must submit as Annex 6 to the

Technical Proposal an LOE Table (…) that reflects the positions and/or labor categories pursuant to the specific technical approach being proposed, and the corresponding number of days proposed for each position and/or labor category. Can you please clarify if this LOE calculation of 16,000 FTEs includes long term experts (LTTEs) and well as short term experts

STTAs?

86. Can you also please clarify if this LOE calculation of 16,000 FTEs includes all technical and all other personnel without exception, including operations, backup from HQ office and any support staff such as drivers etc.? If not, can you please explain what you would understand by “professional personnel”?

87. L.9, page 145. Would USAID please further clarify what types of labor are considered

“professional positions/labor categories” and what types of labor anticipated under this RFP are considered non-professional and to be excluded from the LOE calculation? This would help to minimize the potential for significantly divergent bidder assumptions regarding the classification of staff as "technical and professional", and thereby streamline the comparability of FTE estimates across bids.

88. Section L.9.2, page 145. The RFP cover page on page 1 states that USAID estimates up to

16,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) person-days level of effort (LOE) for professional/technical staff. Section L.9.2 on page 145 states that “USAID recognizes that the LOE required to perform the contract may vary depending upon the proposed approach.” Would USAID please confirm that 16,000 labor days is an estimate and offerors may exceed this estimate?

89. Section L.9.2, page 145. Can USAID kindly provide additional clarification regarding what will and will not count towards the Technical and Professional LOE? Can USAID please provide clarification regarding the distinction between Technical and Professional personnel? Are these considered to be one category, or two categories? If it is the latter, are these the only two categories of labor associated to the overall LOE limit of 16,000 person-days, or is the

Offeror able to propose additional categories?

90. Section L.9.2, page 145. USAID notes an estimated total LOE of sixteen thousand (16,000)

Full-Time-Equivalent (FTE) person-days level of effort of technical and professional personnel. Did USAID arrive at this estimate assuming a 260-day work year or a 240-day productive working days year?

USAID Response: See response to Question No. 6. USAID’s estimate focused on the overall

LOE necessary to implement the requirements in RFP Section C, rather than the number of working days in a year.

91. Section L.9.2. Per the Cover Letter (pg. 1) and Section L.9.2 Management and Staffing

Approach (pg. 145), “USAID has estimated 16,000 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) person-days level of effort (LOE) days of technical and professional personnel” for the completion of this contract.

a. As some offerors direct bill home office support, while others have it included in their indirect rate structure, can USAID confirm that the 16,000 person-day estimate is only intended for locally based staff to ensure an even playing field in the cost evaluation?

b. Can USAID please confirm that mid-level admin and lower as well as financial staff would not count towards the 16,000 FTE requirement?

c. Can USAID confirm that “FTE” means that only Full-time staff LOE are counted in this, or if not, confirm that any technical or professional…