Attachment One Q and A BREB RFP Amendment 1.pdf

Attachment No. One (1)

Question & Answers - BREB RFP

1. Section L (page 111) and Section C (pages 14-19) provide different instructions relating to the activities per sub-objective/component:

a. Top paragraph starting “Offerors must…” states “Offerors may include as many technical tasks as desired and as aligned with the various components described in

Section C. Can USAID please clarify how many activities are expected to be included in each sub-objective or whether Offerors may include as many activities as are consistent with their approach?

A. An Offeror’s Technical Approach may include as many technical tasks as desired within the narrative to clearly demonstrate the proposed program and approach.

However, in addition, USAID is requesting that Offerors provide in the Technical

Approach four well defined and appropriate tasks per sub-objective that will be incorporated into the SOW and that Offerors will be held accountable for should a contract be signed. See revised Section L for clarification.

b. Second paragraph, first sentence states, “As part of the Technical Approach, Offerors must propose four (4) additional activities per sub-objective/component in

Section C.” Would USAID consider removing this clause to give Offerors more flexibility in determining the number of activities per sub-objective/component?

A. See above

c. Second paragraph, third sentence states, “For Offeror’s considering, the following are illustrative activities to be considered, among others, when developing the four (4) required activities per sub-objective/component.” Can USAID please clarify whether there are four (4) total required activities per sub-objective or four (4) additional activities in addition to the activities listed in Section C?

A. See above. Offerors are requested to provide four (4) additional activities that supplement the activities listed in Section C and that the eventual Contractor will be held accountable for.

d. Section C, as part of each sub-objective/component, lists a number of activities.

Can USAID please clarify whether these activities are meant to be illustrative or required? Would USAID allow Offerors to adjust some of the listed activities to ensure that they are more consistent with each Offeror’s unique approach?

A. The activities listed in Section C that are not labelled “TBD” are required.

2. Page.23 C.7 Grants Under Contract: Will USAID consider allowing the Offerors to propose a larger grants fund to give Offerors more flexibility and increase the potential for reaching more beneficiaries?

A. The plug figure provided is the amount of GUCs authorized under this potential contract.

3. Page.28 Key Personnel Qualifications, Paragraph 1a: Please confirm that each Key

Personnel must possess strong relevant performance performing in the Middle

East/North Africa.

A. Yes, Key Personnel must have relevant performance in the Middle East/North

Africa.

4. Page. 48 H.2 Authorized Geographic Code: Will USAID please clarify if Israel is included under the cooperating/recipient country designation?

A. The authorized Geographic Code for this award is “937”, defined as the United

States, the Cooperating Country (Israel, West Bank and Gaza), and developing countries other than advanced developing countries, and excluding prohibited sources.

The RFP is revised accordingly.

5. Page. 130 M.3 Technical Evaluation Criteria Iv. Past Performance (L.7): Please confirm there are a total of 3 past performance information reports requested each from the prime and major subcontractor for a total of 6.

A. Confirm. Three past performance information reports are requested from each prime and also from each major subcontractor.

6. Page 126, L.10 Waivers under FAR Part 4.2101 Prohibition On Covered

Telecommunications And Video Surveillance Services and Equipment (December

2021), (4)(i) indicates “No Agency waiver will be authorized to extend beyond August

13, 2022”; however, we understand that as of September 21, 2021, USAID received a

Modified Foreign Assistance (FA) Waiver of the prohibitions under Section 889 of the

John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2019. The

Modified FA Waiver extends waiver authority through September 30, 2028.

a. If USAID decides to initiate the formal Agency waiver process, will the waiver validity be for the duration of the modified FA Waiver (i.e., through

September 30, 2028)?

A. The Modified FA Waiver is applicable from September 21, 2021 through September 30, 2028 and may only be applied when an offeror has represented that they are using covered technology because there is no 889-compliant alternative available in a specific country based on the offeror/contractor’s reasonable inquiry. Please continue to follow the instructions in L.10 which includes the most up to date Special Provision from

M/OAA.

b. Please confirm laydown plans are required to be submitted with the proposal from only the prime contractor.

A. Please follow the instructions in Section L.10

c. Please confirm that laydown plans should be included within Part 3 of the cost proposal.

A. Should a laydown plan be required; it would be included in Part 3.

7. Section L.10 (p. 126-127): Regarding waivers under FAR Part 4.2101 Prohibition on

Covered Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services and Equipment, the

RFP states under Part (b)(4)(i) that no agency waiver will be authorized to extend beyond August 13, 2022; however, it is our understanding that a new Foreign

Assistance waiver was issued that extends waiver authority through September 30, 2028. Could USAID kindly confirm and modify the language in Section L.10 accordingly?

A. Please refer to Question No. 6

8. Section L.7.A (p. 109): As for tables and charts, may offerors use a smaller (but not smaller than 9 pt.) font for textboxes?

A. Yes, please refer to the instructions provided.

9. In Section C, USAID has included expected results under each sub-activity. Many of these results (e.g. Strengthened regional economic relationships through a $350 million increase in exports) will be the result of inputs and outcomes from across the project, and indeed may depend primarily on activities listed under other sub-components. Presenting such results at the sub-component level may create confusion, especially in the development of the logic model for purposes of the AMELP. Can

USAID confirm that the expected results included in Section C may be considered at the project level, as appropriate?

A. Expected results may be considered at the project level and have been pooled together under Section C.4 in the amended RFP.

10. In Section C, Sub-Component 1.1 Support Technology Transfer from Israel and

United States to West Bank and Gaza (p14), USAID has included the following text:

“The Contractor must maximize efforts to facilitate greater private capital investments into the WBG, in addition to DFC and other commercial financing. This will stimulate autonomous and productive growth. Pairing grant funding with private capital inflows can ensure funding from BREB acts as catalytic capital to attract private funding. BREB funding can serve to mitigate the risks associated with private investment opportunities, creating a multiplier effect and increasing overall investments to Palestinian firms.”

This broad requirement that the Contractor facilitate private investment appears to extend well beyond the sub-component scope of supporting technology transfer, and it may be more applicable to sub-component 3.2. Would USAID consider moving this requirement or, alternatively, confirm that investment facilitated under this requirement is not restricted to investment specifically involving technology transfer?

A. The purpose of this is for contractors to utilize private capital investments when supporting technological transfer rather than only utilizing the BREB funding.

11. In Section C, Component 1.2, p15, the RFP includes the Activity: “Establish research partnerships /alliances based on applied research and experimental development...”.

Would USAID conform whether the definition of partnerships/alliances in the context of this Activity may include partnerships that apply findings from existing research to

Palestinian enterprises?

A. No, the purpose of this is not to apply existing research but rather to develop partnerships to invest in new research projects.

12. In section L, p111 the RFP states: “As part of the Technical Approach, Offerors must propose four (4) additional activities per sub-objective/component in Section C.”

Would USAID confirm that offerors are required to include the activities listed in

Section C, plus four additional activities? If so, would USAID consider amending this language to enable more flexibility of presentation and approach? USAID’s instructions as written will result in a minimum of six activities per sub-component, a rigid requirement that would not consider offerors’ approaches or the relative importance of activities/sub-components. Given space limitations, it will also constrain offerors from clearly grouping or linking activities (for example as sub-activities). Please confirm that Section C activities are required while allowing offerors to determine the number of additional activities will communicate USAID’s priorities without depriving offerors of valuable flexibility and creativity in their responses.

A. See answers to Q.1 above

13. In Section L.7 USAID states on p109 that Annex C: Draft Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (AMELP), must include a results framework and indicators as outlined in section F.7. It further indicates on p111 that the draft AMELP must include detailed information about information requirements, MEL roles and responsibilities, management task performance timelines, theory of change, logic model, and indicator and performance data. Especially considering Annex page constraints, these requirements suggest a level of detail beyond what is traditionally requested as an Annex to a technical proposal. Would USAID consider revising the requirement for a Draft AMELP to reflect a Summary AMELP and clarifying the level of detail to be included accordingly?

A. No, please be as concise as possible within the page limitations.

14. In section B.7(b) Payment of Fixed Fee, USAID indicates that “a percentage (60%) of the payment of the fixed fee under this contract is tied to the completion of the deliverables described in Section C and F.8 of this contract.”

a. With few exceptions, Sections C and F.8 describe expected results of the project. Can USAID confirm that the intent is for 60% of fee to be tied to the outcomes and results specifically presented in the tables under F.8?

A. Yes, 60% of the fee will be tied to outcomes and results.

b. Section F.8 includes tables for each of the Objectives, which include an indication of the “% of fee” to be tied to each result. The total of this column for all three tables is 100%. Can USAID confirm that percentages included in the tables are intended to be applied to the 60% portion of fee tied to completion of deliverables, rather than to the total fee?

A. Yes, the 100% refers to 100% of the 60% fee tied to completion of deliverables.

15. The table of reports included in Section F.7 does not include Quarterly, Annual, Financial, or Final Project reports that appear in the subsequent text. Would USAID confirm which reports are require consider amending the table to reflect the complete list of required reports to be completed under the contract?

A. The RFP was amended as necessary.

16. Section F.7 indicates that the implementer of the activity must conduct a Political

Economy Analysis within 30 days of award, and that the analysis must be focused on regional economic cooperation. Given the complexities of the political economy, the international nature of its scope, and the unique challenges implementers will face in standing up a project in the environment, an analysis completed within 30 days will be limited in its depth of stakeholder engagement, analysis, and utility as a tool to guide implementation. Would USAID consider extending the due date for this analysis to at least 90 days after award?

A. Yes, the implementer of the activity must conduct a Political Economy Analysis within 60 days of award.

17. Section F.3 states that the place of performance “must be in the West Bank and

Gaza.” Would USAID clarify whether this is intended to preclude offerors from proposing satellite offices in Israel proper?

A. No, the contractor can propose satellite offices in Israel, if appropriate.

18. For estimating purposes only, would USAID please provide an anticipated start date of the activity?

A. The estimated start date for the activity is September 30, 2022

19. In USAID’s update to ADS 302.3.4.13 on July 22, 2021, the value of a grant to a U.S.

organization was increased to the simplified acquisition threshold. Will USAID modify the language in Section H.6 to incorporate this regulatory update?

A. Yes, Section H has been updated to reflect the threshold of $250,000.

20. Section H.21, USAID/West Bank and Gaza Audit Program, states “By signing this award, the Recipient acknowledges its complete willingness to and affirms it will comply with Mission audit guidelines and requirements and will cooperate fully with the audit firm selected by USAID.” Can USAID please provide the offerors with the most updated guidelines and requirements of this audit program so that they are aware of the implications on subcontractors and subgrantees and can agree to abide by them?

A. Please refer to H.20, USAID/WEST BANK AND GAZA MISSION NOTICES, for further information,

a. More specifically, can USAID please define what “significant” means regarding subcontractors and subgrantees being subject to an audit under the USAID/West

Bank and Gaza Audit Program referenced in Section H.21? Additionally, will

USAID confirm if fixed price subcontracts and fixed amount (grant) awards are also subject to the audit procedures?

A. Significant subawardees are entities who spend $750,000 or more in Federal funds during their fiscal year. Please note that the $750,000 can be the accumulation of subcontracts under one prime or the accumulation of their use under multiple primes. USAID compiles the amounts spent under each prime for a given subcontractor and sends the audit notification letter to the prime with the highest share of the $750,000 threshold.

Fixed price contracts, fixed unit price contracts, fixed amount awards/grants are also subject to audit when these subcontractors implement a certain component of the program under the prime awardee. However, vendors of goods and services are not subject to audit (ex. when the prime awardee purchases furniture, computers, leases vehicles, buys gasoline, insurance, stationary, rents hotels' conference rooms, etc.).

21. Page 109 of the RFP requires that Standard Form 33 (SF 33) be included as part of the technical volume, but page 116 requires the SF 33 to be included in the cost volume.

Could USAID please clarify which volume should include SF 33?

A. RFP updated to remove the requirement from the Technical Proposal

22. Section L.7.B, page 110, states that the cover page must contain “Data Universal

Numbering System (DUNS)” designation. It is our understanding that the federal government has ended using the DUNS number as of April 4, 2022, and instead is using a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI). Can USAID please confirm that the cover page should include UEIs instead of DUNS numbers?

A. The RFP was issued prior to this change. The RFP is updated to reflect the use of

UEIs instead of DUNs numbers.

23. Section L, page 111, states “Offerors may include as many technical tasks as desired” and later notes “As part of the Technical Approach, Offerors must propose four (4) additional activities per sub-objective/component in Section C.” Also on page 111, USAID notes that there are “four required activities per sub-objective/component.”

Additionally, Section C includes activities listed per sub-objective/component, as well as one TBD bullet under each. Please clarify the following elements:

a. How many activities per sub objective/component is USAID seeking from offerors?

A. Please see answers to Q.1 above.

b. Are the activities listed in Section C required? Or does each offeror have the opportunity to propose whichever activities it deems appropriate under each sub objective/component?

A. Please see answers to Q.1 above.

24. Cover Page There seems to be a typo in the NAICS code provided on the cover page of the RFP for Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services. Could

USAID provide the correct NAICS Code for the RFP?

A. The NAICs code is correct

25. Section H.2 Geographic Code Will USAID kindly change the geographic code from

937 to 935 so that offerors can source services in Israel and wealthy regional markets to directly achieve BREB’s objectives?

A. The Geographic Code remains unchanged. Additionally, please refer to the answer to Q.4 above.

26. Section L.8 ( i ), Page 115 The RFP states that “The Offeror must not include burdened rates for itself and for subcontractors, if any. The Offeror must break down all direct and indirect costs to their component parts as further detailed in section (g) of the RFP” - Could USAID please consider eliminating this restriction as it would limit offeror’s ability to work with small businesses who usually work under firm fixed price subcontracts formed using fixed daily rates.

A. The RFP remains unchanged

27. Section C.4 (Footnote 1), Page 17 The RFP at times talks about connections only between Israeli/Palestinian firms, and other times it talks about connections between

Israeli/U.S. and Palestinian firms. Does USAID have a desired balance in mind between proposed Palestinian-Israeli direct connections, Palestinian-Israeli/U.S.

connections, and Palestinian U.S. direct connections? E.g., "For the purpose of this document, the term “businesses” refers to Palestinian firms, or joint Israeli/U.S. and

Palestinian ventures" vs. "Create new market connections between Israeli and

Palestinian companies"

A. It is up to the Offeror to propose the approach that will meet the objectives and results envisioned for this activity.

28. When USAID indicates it expects a minimum of five new markets to be opened to businesses in Objective 2.1, what definition of markets is it using? (e.g. regional, sub-regional, national, industry, etc).

A. Markets for this purpose can be defined at the national level.

29. When USAID references existing export toolkits in Objective 2.2, is it referring to specific export toolkits or the existence of export toolkits in general?

A. USAID is referring to the existence of export toolkits in general.

30. U.S. Department of State website The U.S. Department of State website states that

“The U.S. government is unable to provide emergency services to U.S. citizens in

Gaza as U.S. government employees are prohibited from traveling there and are restricted from traveling close to the Gaza demarcation line.” Can USAID please confirm that the successful Offeror is not expected to provide delivery services within

Gaza at this time?

A. USAID anticipates activities from the resultant contract in the West Bank and

Gaza

31. Cover Page We kindly request USAID to consider extending the proposal submission deadline to May 16th, 2022, given the short turnaround of questions and submission deadline, and the fact that the proposal preparation period overlaps with

Ramadan? This would allow us to prepare a more robust submission.

A. The submission date will remain May 3, 2022

32. Section L.7.B, p. 113 and Attachment J-4 The RFP states that “The Offeror must provide the Past Performance Information in the standardized format provided in

Attachment J-4, Past Performance Report”, and Attachment J-4 contains 5 questions under “PART II: Performance Assessment (to be completed by Agency)”. Does

USAID mean for Part II to be filled out by the client Agency even if a CPARS report is available, or would referencing a CPARS report be sufficient for the Performance

Assessment?

A. Part II shall be left empty if a CPAR is available and duly noted in Part I.

33. Section L.7.B, p. 113 The RFP states that “(a) The Offeror (including all members of a Joint Venture) must provide past performance information for itself, teaming arrangements if any, and each major subcontractor”. Does “teaming arrangements” refer solely to partnerships, subsidiaries or joint ventures formed for the purposes of submitting a proposal under this Solicitation?

A. Yes

34. Section C.4 Objective/Component 3 (pp 18-19) Throughout Section C, USAID indicates specific sub-components where the Contractor either must or could utilize the grants under contract facility. Would USAID consider allowing the Contractor to utilize the grants for additional sub-components, including 1.3, 3.1 and 3.2?

A. The contractor may utilize grants for all sub-components. The RFP was amended accordingly.

35. Section F.7 Reports, Pages 31-32 Will USAID expect a Grants Manual to be submitted for CO approval as part of the deliverables upon award?

A. A Grants Manual will not be required.

36. Section C.7 (p. 23): The RFP states that the GUC component “will not exceed $20M” of the total contract value. The budget template (Attachment J.7), however, provides a plug figure of $20,000,000.00 for GUCs. Should offerors use the plug figure, or should they budget any amount they choose for GUCs so long as the total does not exceed $20M?

A. Section C.7 is revised to reflect the requirement for a $20M GUCs program.

37. Section C.4 Page 23, and Section L.8, Page 119 Please kindly confirm the expected amount of the Grants to be set aside: On page 23, the language states that “The GUC component will not exceed $20M of total contract value,” while on page 119 the language states “The anticipated figure of GUCs, $20M, is already contained in the budget”. Is the offeror able to define the GUCs figure not to exceed $20M.

A. Please refer to the answer to Q.36

38. Section F.5 (Page 29, Key Personnel, COP, Bullet #3). For the minimum qualification of the COP candidate, would USAID consider removing 'economic development activities' from bullet #3, as many candidates who bring this level of management experience have led large complex contracts outside of the purely EG sector?

A. No, the qualifications remain unchanged.

39. Section L.7 (Page 111, Factor 1 Technical Approach). Would USAID please confirm that offers are expected to purpose four (4) additional activities per Objective, for a total of 12 additional activities?

A. Please see the answer to Q.1 above.

40. Section L.8 (Page 128, Consent to Subcontract). Would USAID please confirm that contractors with DCMA approved Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR) are exempt from this consent requirement?

A. USAID will retain the right to consent to subcontract to protect the USG's interest per FAR Part 44.

41. Section L.8 (Page 128, Consent to Subcontract). Would USAID please confirm that offerors are discouraged from signing exclusive agreements with local Palestinian subcontractors to ensure fair opportunity?

A. Offerors are discouraged from signing exclusivity agreements with subcontractors and/or proposed key personnel.

42. Section F.2, Page 27: What is the anticipated start date for this opportunity?

A. The anticipated start date is September 30, 2022.

43. Section L.5, Page 106: Please confirm that major subcontractors are 20% of total cost.

A. Kindly refer to RFP section L.5 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, subsection (b), for the definition of Major Subcontractors.

44. Section L.8, Page 116: Please confirm that subcontractor’s proprietary information can be submitted via sealed package directly to USAID.

A. Yes, the information may be submitted directly by the proposed subcontractor as long as appropriately labelled to identify it as such and part of the prime Offeror’s proposal submission. Offerors shall note that the same requirements of the RFP apply to subcontractor’s submission and the prime offeror must note clearly in their proposal cover letter the names of the subcontractors who intend to submit the information directly. Absent adherence to those conditions may render the prime

Offeror’s proposal non-compliant.

45. Section F.8, p. 41: We welcome USAID’s approach to tie 60% of the fixed fee to the deliverables in order to align USAID’s and the contractor’s incentives for achieving the program goals. We also appreciate USAID’s pragmatic selection of deliverables to tie to fixed fee in Section F.8.

However, we believe that USAID’s allocation of deliverables into large “tranches” does not reflect an equitable allocation of risk under a CPFF contract. In our experience designing and implementing pay-for-performance programs, performance-based payments work well when the contractor is glad to earn, and the client is glad to pay, for the same outcome.

As currently written, F.8. instead creates a mismatch, where the client receives a substantial benefit when deliverables are achieved but do not reach the current definition of a “tranche” for payment. Instead of sharing risk equitably, F.8. as written is designed to create many opportunities for USAID to receive a windfall benefit, to the detriment of the contractor. We therefore request that USAID remove the grouping of deliverables into “tranches” and instead allow the contractor to invoice fee proportionately to the incremental achievement of objectives that both the client and the contractor value in each case – e.g. per alliance/partnership, per internship, per firm, etc.

A. The requirements remain unchanged.

46. Section F.7, p. 32: Would USAID consider moving the due date out for the political economy assessment and the Change Management Plan to 60 days after the effective date of the contract? While doable in 30 days, we believe that providing a small amount of additional time would allow the team to develop better quality, and more impactful reports with additional time in country after mobilization of the team.

A. USAID agrees to move the due dates for the Political Economy Analysis and

Change Management Plan to 60 calendar days.

47. Section F.8 40-Page 40: of the RFP has a requirement that offerors are to increase profitability of Palestinian firms, accounting for roughly 10% of their overall fee, while the rest of the deliverables with a fee contingency seem to be within the offeror’s control. Could USAID clarify whether there is a mechanism in place for measuring the “increased profitability” in the context of the RFP requirement?

A. This will be determined during the implementation stage in discussions with COR.

48. Will USAID allow contractors to use their own budget template?

A. No, offerors shall adhere to the RFP requirements

49. Section L.8 (p. 115): The RFP states that Offerors may make minor adjustments to the budget format in Attachment J-7 to accommodate its cost and pricing of its offer. Can

USAID please confirm whether such adjustments can include moving certain line items to a different cost category to allow offerors to follow their Cost Accounting

Standards, provided offerors maintain the overall structure provided in J-7, and provided offerors indicate any such changes clearly in the narrative? For example, the budget template in J-7 includes Shipment of Household Effects under the Travel cost category, but some offerors may bill this cost under Allowances per their CAS.

A. Yes, movement of line items to adhere to the Offeror’s Cost Accounting Standards is allowed where unavoidable. Such change must be indicated in the narrative clearly.

50. Would USAID consider providing their LCP and relevant local allowances information?

A. The USAID West Bank & Gaza Mission LCP is not available for dissemination. However, the Mission did publish a salary survey as part of its notices, 2011-WBG-10, which Offerors are at liberty to refer to. The notice is at:

https://www.usaid.gov/west-bank-and-gaza/partnership-opportunities https://www.usaid.gov/west-bank-and-gaza/partnership-opportunities

51. Will USAID kindly provide the local compensation plan for West Bank & Gaza?

A. Please refer to the answer to Q.50

52. Page 123, Part 8 - Evidence of Responsibility: Would USAID confirm this requirement applies only to the prime and major subcontractors?

A. Evidence of Responsibility is only required for the prime Offeror. The RFP is amended accordingly

53. Section L.8 (p. 115): The RFP states the offeror must prepare the cost proposal in

Microsoft Excel 2010, compatible with a MS Windows operating environment. The

RFP also states in Section L.6 (p.108-109) that offerors must provide budgets as text accessible, MS Excel spreadsheets. As some offerors may be using a Microsoft Excel version later than the 2010 version, can USAID please confirm offerors may submit their proposal budgets in Microsoft Excel 2010 or higher, provided spreadsheets are compatible with a Microsoft Windows operating environment and are text accessible?

A. As long as the files are compatible with a Microsoft Windows operating environment and are text accessible, this is acceptable. The RFP was amended accordingly.

54. Section B.7 of the RFP indicates that payment of 40% of fixed fee “may be made upon receipt of a proper invoice” and that payment “shall be allocated based upon the proportion of the invoiced amount in the period covered by the invoice to the total estimated cost of the periods of the contract not including fixed fee”. Noting that FAR

16.102(c) prohibits payment of fee as a percentage of cost, please confirm that once the dollar amount of fee is fixed under the contract, 60 % of that fixed fee amount will be allocated to specified deliverable/completion targets in a fee schedule and the remainder of the fixed fee (40%) will be paid in equal fixed increments (not a percentage of costs) for each month of performance, provided that USAID considers performance satisfactory for that month? In other words, 40% of the fixed fee amount will be equally divided by the total number of performance months and paid out for satisfactory monthly performance as a fixed amount.

A. It is correct that once the dollar amount of the total fee is fixed, 60% and 40% will be allocated as indicated in Section B.7. In accordance with FAR 52.216‐8, Fixed Fee, the 40% of the total contract fee shall be allocated based upon the proportion of the invoiced amount in the period covered by the invoice to the total estimated cost of the periods of the contract not including fixed fee.

55. Can USAID please provide the mission local compensation plan to facilitate offerors’ demonstration of the reasonableness for proposed compensation for local staff, per the

Cost Proposal instructions in Section L.8. Standard Cost Elements guidelines?

A. Please refer to the answer to Q.50

56. Section L.8. Standard Cost Elements, Item 1) Personnel includes the instruction that

“Consultants are to be treated as subcontractors.” Please confirm that this instruction is for budget presentation only, and that USAID is not indicating that offerors should deviate from their established cost accounting standards and/or approved NICRAs?

A. Confirmed

57. Section L.8. Standard Cost Elements, Item 1) Personnel indicates that “A plug figure must be included for each proposed consultant”. Can USAID please clarify the level of detail required for consultant costs in the budget spreadsheet and narrative?

Specifically, should budgets include a daily rate and estimated LOE for each consultant, or should offerors include separate "plug figures” or "lump sums" for each, with additional information/justification in the narrative?

A. As noted in the subject section of the RFP: “A plug figure must be included for each proposed consultant. A summary of the services anticipated under each of the plug figures must be discussed in the narrative. “

58. Section L.8(1) Part 2(3) states, “Non-major subcontractors are not required to submit separate detailed budgets and shall be included in the “BUDGET SPREADSHEET:

PRIME COSTS (US$)” sheet as further detailed below”. Can USAID clarify whether offerors may submit separate detailed budgets for non-major subcontractor budgets, particularly if non-major subcontractors have budgeted for long-term project personnel?

A. The requirement remains unchanged. No separate detailed budgets are required. However, long-term project personnel under non-major subcontractors shall be populated under the “Personnel Proposed” spreadsheet within Attachment J-7, Budget Template. The RFP was amended accordingly.

59. Section L.8. Standard Cost Elements, Item Part 4) Policies and Procedures requires offerors to personnel policies and travel regulations. Given the large size of this documentation, would USAID consider streamlining this requirement and limiting it to Applicants who do not have prior USAID contracting experience?

A. The RFP requirement remains unchanged

60. Page 121/122: Part 3– Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of

Offerors, 2) The Offeror and each proposed subcontractor must complete Section K, "Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors. The Offeror must provide a signed and dated Section K. The submission of these items in accordance with these instructions will, if the Government accepts the offer, contractually bind the Government and the successful Offeror to the terms and conditions of the prospective contract (i.e., sections A through K). The Government advises prospective

Offerors to read the terms and conditions of the prospective contract carefully and to refer any questions of interpretation to the Contracting Officer in writing. Would

USAID please confirm this requirement applies only to major subcontractors?

A. The RFP remains unchanged

61. Section L.8, Standard Cost Elements Part 3 Requires Offeror’s to submit

Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors. Part 6 also states

“The Offeror and each proposed subcontractor must complete Section K, "Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors.” Can USAID please clarify under which section offerors should include Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors?

A. The referenced part falls under Section L.8, INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE

PREPARATION OF THE COST PROPOSAL