VIE_Questions and Answers_Amendment 01.pdf

RFP No. 72044025R00002 Amendment 01

Vietnam Innovation Ecosystem

Attachment 1 - Questions and Answers

VIE

RFP 72044025R00002 Amendment 01

Note: Several identical or nearly identical questions were submitted by different respondents.

To avoid repetition, these questions were consolidated into single entries.

Q1. Cover Letter, Proposal Submission Due Date: Given the year-end holiday season in the

US and Vietnam, would USAID consider extending the proposal submission due date to

February 21, 2025?

A1. The proposal submission due date is now revised to Feb 14, 2025.

Q2. Could USAID confirm that the target budget for this activity is $17-$20M as stated in the

Q1 Business Forecast Q&A?

A2. Confirmed.

Q3. Section B. While the solicitation provides the estimated number of Level of Effort (LOE) days, we respectfully request that USAID provide an estimated ceiling price for the award. An estimated ceiling price will help facilitate consistent cost proposal development across offerors by providing a baseline understanding of USAID’s budget expectations and allow offerors to better align non-labor costs to ensure the proposal is competitive and responsive to USAID’s anticipated funding.

A3. Please see the answer to question Q2.

Q4. Would USAID please confirm the required bid validity period? Field 12 of Standard Form

33 and Section L.7 of the RFP reference 180 days, whereas Section L.8.1 references 240 days.

A4. The validity of the proposals is at least 180 days. Section L.8.1 has been revised accordingly.

Q5. Page 28, Section F.2, Period of Performance: Can USAID please confirm that Offerors should assume, for budgeting purposes, an October 1, 2025, start date?

A5. For budgeting purposes, the estimated start date of the contract is September 1, 2025.

Section F.2 has been revised to clarify the period of performance.

Q6. Section F.2, page 28: For budgeting purposes, please confirm that offerors should assume a 36-month base period and that Option Year 1 will start in month 37 of the period of performance (rather than necessarily an October 1, 2028 start to Option Year 1).

A6. Section F.2 has been revised to clarify the period of performance for the contract.

Q7. Section F.2, page 28: Would USAID please revise this section to reference two one-year option periods, in line with the cover letter of the RFP and Section B.4 Contract Budget?

A7. Section F.2 has been revised to clarify the period of performance for the contract.

Q8. Page 9, Section B.6, Advance Understanding on Ceiling Indirect Cost Rates: Can USAID please confirm that ceiling indirect cost rates are only required if Offerors are proposing lower overhead rates than their established NICRA, as noted on page 113 under 2.10 Indirect Costs?

That is, that there is no requirement to establish ceiling indirect cost rates if Offerors are not seeking to propose lower rates than their established NICRA?

A8. Offerors may propose ceiling rates but are not required to do so.

Q9. B.6 a), p. 9: As a major federal government contractor, from time to time we make changes to our established method of classifying or allocating indirect costs based on discussions with and instructions from our regulator, the Defense Contract Management Agency

(DCMA). We believe it is redundant to require additional approval for such changes at the individual contract level. We therefore ask for this provision to be removed.

A9. The clause remains unchanged.

Q10. B.6 b & c), p.9-10: In the RFP Section B.6 ‘‘Indirect Costs and Advanced Understanding on Ceilings requires offerors to propose Indirect ceiling rates; and states that “The Government will not be obligated to pay any additional amount should the final indirect cost rates exceed the negotiated ceiling rates. If the final indirect cost rates are less than the negotiated ceiling rates, the negotiated rates will be reduced to conform to the lower rates.”

Under FAR 52.216-7(b) and (d) a contractor is to be reimbursed its indirect costs in accordance with the final indirect cost rates approved by the contractor’s cognizant federal agency official.

Requirement for indirect ceiling rates is inconsistent with this approach and would lock Offeror’s into indirect cost rates that do not reflect actual costs. As such, Offerors will either need to propose artificially inflated proposed indirect cost rates or risk utilizing a proposed indirect cost rate that is lower than their actual costs and government approved indirect rates.

Contractors’ indirect rates, as approved by cognizant USG agencies, do change periodically, and indirect ceilings may prohibit companies from recuperating legitimate approved indirect costs.

We respectfully request to remove the requirement for ceiling indirect rates (Section B.6) and allow the successful offeror to utilize indirects rates approved by their cognizant audit agency during implementation.

A10. Under this procurement competition, the request for proposed ceiling indirect cost rates in Section B.6 is considered in the best interest of the government to promote fiscal accountability and efficiency in managing administrative cost.

Q11. Section B.6. We respectively request that parts (b) (c) and (d) under Section B.6

ADVANCE UNDERSTANDING ON CEILING INDIRECT COST RATES AND FINAL REIMBURSEMENT

FOR INDIRECT COSTS are removed to enable the fair and equitable recovery of indirect costs, as determined by offerors’ NICRA. Offerors’ NICRA establishes rates that are reviewed and approved by the U.S. Government to ensure they reflect actual costs. Ceiling rates could result in under-recovery of legitimate costs, impacting offerors’ ability to perform effectively.

Removing the ceiling caps would also maintain consistency with standard practices in other

USAID-funded contracts, where NICRA rates are accepted as the basis for reimbursement.

A11. Offerors may propose ceiling rates but are not required to do so.

Q12. Page 109, Section L.8.2, Proposed Costs/Prices: Can USAID please confirm that Offerors may utilize their own budget templates as long as they align with the cost categories and structure outlined in Attachment J.5?

A12. Yes, Offerors may adjust the budget template in Attachment J.5 but must align with the cost structure outlined in Attachment J.5 and clearly explain their proposed cost items in the budget narrative.

Q13. Pages 110-115, Section L.8.2, Proposed Costs/Prices: The cost categories (e.g., Direct

Labor Salary and Wages, Fringe Benefits, Consultants, etc.) do not align with what’s included for cost categories in Attachment J.5. Can USAID please confirm whether Offerors should mirror the cost categories outlined in Section L.8.2 or in Attachment J.5?

A13. Section L.8.2 is to provide instructions for each cost category which may be proposed under the Offeror’s cost proposal. Attachment J.5 is the structure template for their proposed cost categories. Attachment J.5 has been slightly revised to add “Consultants” in the spreadsheet.

Q14. Can USAID please confirm that the detail budget tabs in Attachment J.5 can be altered to include additional calculations and line items per the Offeror’s budgeting practices, if needed?

A14. Yes, Offerors may adjust the budget template in Attachment J.5 but must align with the cost structure outlined in Attachment J.5 and clearly explain their proposed cost items in the budget narrative.

Q15. Would USAID consider allowing offerors to submit their own budget templates, provided they include all requested cost information as outlined in Section L.8 of the solicitation? This flexibility would enable offerors to ensure consistency with their internal accounting systems while still meeting the solicitation requirements.

A15. Yes, Offerors may adjust the budget template in Attachment J.5 but must align with the cost structure outlined in Attachment J.5 and clearly explain their proposed cost items in the budget narrative.

Q16. Section J. We noticed differences in cost category groupings between Section J and the

Budget Template (e.g., Equipment & Supplies are combined in Section J but separate in the template; Consultants & Trainings are separate in Section J but not reflected as separate cost categories in the template). Can USAID please confirm that we should follow the cost categories outlined in Section J?

A16. We believe the referenced Section in your question is Section L.8 instead of Section J.

Section L.8.2 is to provide instructions for each individual cost category which may be proposed under the Offeror’s cost proposal. Attachment J.5 is the structure template for their proposed cost categories. Attachment J.5 has been slightly revised to add “Consultants” in the spreadsheet.

Q17. Section L.8, page 109: Please confirm that offerors may modify the budget template as needed to present T&M and/or FFP subcontractors.

A17. Yes, Offerors may adjust the budget template in Attachment J.5 but must align with the cost structure outlined in Attachment J.5 and clearly explain their proposed cost items in the budget narrative.

Q18. Page 111, Section L.8.2, Proposed Costs/Prices: Under 2.3 Consultants, USAID notes that, “The blended rate must be proposed for each of the five years of the period of performance”.

Can USAID please confirm that consultant rates can be escalated each year to account for inflation and that rates do not need to be fixed for each of the five years of the period of performance?

A18. It is the Offeror’s choice to propose costs and explain their methodology in the budget narrative.

Q19. Page 112, Section L.8.2, Proposed Costs/Prices: Under 2.9 Other direct costs, USAID includes a subcategory of Value Added Tax (VAT) and notes that VAT should be included in the offeror’s budget for the first year. Can USAID please confirm that this should be included as a line item in the OC cost category and can USAID also please confirm, for consistency across cost proposals, what VAT rate should be utilized for the first year?

A19. VAT can be included under Other Direct Cost. For budgeting purposes, the VAT rate can be used in cost proposals is 10% for eligible goods and services.

Q20. L.8.2, p. 112: Could USAID provide an assumption regarding the ODA approval timeline for VAT budgeting purposes?

A20. ODA project approval timelines can vary significantly across projects, making it difficult to predict. For budgeting purposes, VAT should be included in the offeror’s budget for the first year in anticipation of this and will be included in the Total Estimated Cost. However, USAID expects to have approval by the time this contract is awarded.

Q21. Section L.8.2.2.9, page 112 states that VAT should be included in the offeror’s budget for year one. Can USAID please confirm that Offerors should budget for 10% VAT?

A21. For the budget purposes, the VAT rate that can be used in cost proposals is 10% for eligible goods and services.

Q22. Page 29, Section F.4, Professional Technical Level of Effort: Can USAID please confirm that LOE splits outlined in the table for USN/TCN labor and CCN labor are illustrative and

Offerors can deviate from the figures provided so long as they do not exceed the total LOE of

25,520 days?

A22. Confirmed. Offerors may adjust the figures depending on their technical approach.

Q23. Section F.4, Page 29: As the specified LOE does not include administrative labor (per

F.4.a) or home office management or oversight (per F.4.b) that are billable direct labor in the

LOE table, would USAID please clarify where and how offerors should provide this LOE detail in their cost proposals?

A23. The LOE does include home office management and oversight directly involved in technical implementation. Administrative labor not included in the LOE should be budgeted as

Other Direct Cost. Section F.4 has been revised.

Q24. Section F.7, Item 4 (Monthly LOE report): Would USAID please clarify if this Monthly LOE report is expected to include only professional technical labor as defined in F.4 or if it is also expected to include administrative and home office labor?

A24. Only professional technical labor, including home office and oversight directly involved in technical implementation as defined in F.4. is required in the monthly LOE report.

Q25. F.4. c., p. 29: In Section F.4, could USAID confirm that the number of days of Level of

Effort for professional employees, consultants and subcontractor labor should exclude the administrative positions of subcontractors or should include those days of Level of Effort as they are “subcontractor labor”?

A25. Yes, the LOE for administrative positions should be excluded. This is applicable for both prime and subcontractors.

Q26. F.4. c., p. 29: In Section F.4.c USAID states “Once the total LOE for the life of the contract has been fully expended, this contract is complete.” Could USAID clarify that there is not a ceiling budget, but a technical staff budget LOE and that the technical staff LOE will be tracked as the ceiling? Will non-technical LOE be allowable after the Professional Technical Level of

Effort is complete for the purposes of closing out the contract?

A26. The total LOE in section F.4 is the ceiling under the terms and conditions of the contract.

Costs for non-technical staff may be allowable after the professional/technical LOE has been fully expended provided it is directly associated with the completion of the contract closeout and that it stays within the overall contract budget

Q27. F.4. c., p. 29: Given that the total professional LOE is set, are prime contractors allowed to use Firm Fixed Price Subcontracts? Will the LOE for FFP deliverables be tracked as an estimate against the total LOE or will FFP subcontracts be required to report on LOE?

A27. The prime contractor must ensure that any subcontract arrangement, whether FFP or otherwise, supports the prime contract’s LOE requirements and does not conflict with any mandatory flow-down clauses. The prime must include the subcontracted labor days in the total LOE that is tracked.

Q28. F.4 Professional Technical Level of Effort. Where it is stated “Professional technical personnel must not include administrative positions such as, but not limited to, finance or accounting staff, human resources manager and staff, interpreters and translators, office administrative managers and assistants, secretaries and receptionists, drivers, janitors, guards, or any other similar position that has the primary function of providing administrative support to the contract,” we have the following questions:

a. Could USAID please confirm that such above-described administrative support positions, e.g., direct-charged CCN personnel serving in-country in this capacity, may allowably be direct charged to the contract?

b. In consideration of the F.8(1) description of the Chief of Party role, that such role will be in charge of overall in-country activity management, technical oversight, and ensuring synergies across objectives: does USAID consider this management and oversight role to be administrative support as described at F.4(a) and above, or as U.S. National Technical

Assistance described at F.4(a)’s table thereby requiring the Chief of Party’s time to be included in that table’s 2,790 days of Level of Effort?

A28. a. Yes.

b. The COP should be considered as long-term professional technical assistance LOE personnel. Section F.4 has been revised.

Q29. The LOE noted on page 29, Section F.4: Professional Technical Level of Effort, indicates a total LOE for USNs/TCNs of 2,790 days. By the definition of Technical Assistance provided (which excludes HO LOE), the total LOE of 2,790 days (or ~10.7 years) amounts to one Long-Term

USN/TCN for five years plus ~13.5 months of USN/TCN short-term technical assistance per year for five years. This seems high, considering that the RFP indicates only one Long-Term USN/TCN

(i.e., the chief of party) will be allowed and further notes the chief of party must be replaced by a CCN in Years 4 and 5 (Section L.7, Part 6, page 106). Can USAID please clarify the number of days of LOE for USNs/TCNs?

A29. The suggested LOE ceilings for each labor category have been removed. The overall ceiling of 25,520 total days remains unchanged. The LOE is for both STTA and LTTA and the number of days of LOE for US/TCN technical staff will depend on an Offeror’s technical approach.

Q30. The LOE noted on page 29, Section F.4: Professional Technical Level of Effort, notes 2,790 days of LOE for Professional Technical U.S. Expats/TCNs and 22,730 days of LOE for Professional

Technical CCNs. Can USAID please clarify whether the total noted is a maximum threshold that contractors should not exceed or a cumulative total of LOE that contractors should aim for when developing their proposal?

A30. The RFP was revised. The Offeror may propose LOE figures depending on their technical approach. However, they must not exceed the total LOE threshold of 25,520 days.

Q31. H.18, p. 57: For those contractors who have an approved Procurement System, can the government remove the requirement for Consent to Subcontract?

A31. This is subject to the negotiation with the apparently successful offeror.

Q32. L.8.4, p. 116: Part 4 requests the offerors submit a letter of commitment from the proposed subcontractor. It is unusual for the letters to provide a “discussion and agreement on type(s) of subcontracts to be used and approximate percentage of each type of work to be subcontracted.” Please confirm if inclusion of the subcontract type and anticipated subcontract ceiling would address this request.

A32. The suggestion is acceptable. However, the Letters of Commitment do not constitute

Contracting Officer’s consent of any proposed subcontracts.

Q33. On page 116 of the RFP, L8.4, USAID requires a letter of commitment for major subcontractors. Can USAID please confirm if offerors need to provide LOCs for non-major subcontractors as well?

A33. No. Letters of Commitment are required for major subcontractors only.

Q34. L.8.2 Part 2 – Proposed Costs/Prices. Where it is stated the “Offeror must provide a complete budget in Excel MS format, including budgets for each subcontractor:” could USAID please confirm if such complete budgets are required for all subcontractors or only major subcontractors as defined at L.7(7)?

A34. The complete budgets are required for major subcontractors. It is up to the offeror to determine the need to propose complete budgets for non-major subcontractors, if known, during the solicitation process.

Q35. Section L.8 2.10 'Indirect Costs,' states that "each major subcontractor must include a copy of its most current NICRA or other documentation from its cognizant Government Audit

Agency, if any, stating the most recent provisional indirect cost rates (or audited balance sheets/profit and loss statements in lieu of that)". Can USAID clarify that we are not required to provide this information for major subs that are proposed under firm-fixed price subcontracting arrangements?

A35. Confirmed. A copy of a proposed subcontractor’s indirect cost rates is not required for

Firm Fixed Price subcontract arrangement.

Q36. Section F.4, page 29 states “professional personnel are defined as technical specialists...as well as specialists in monitoring and evaluation, communication, grants, and subcontractors.” Aside from major subcontractor(s), does USAID require all other proposed subcontractors to submit detailed budgets and cost documentation?

A36. The complete budgets are required for major subcontractors. It is up to the offeror to determine the need to propose complete budgets for non-major subcontractors, if known, during the solicitation process.

Q37. Page 107, Section L.7, The Contractor Past Performance Information: USAID requires “a maximum of five (05) references of the most recent and relevant contracts from the last three years for efforts similar to the work required in the solicitation”. Can USAID please confirm whether the 5-reference limit is inclusive of both prime and major subcontractors, or if this limit only pertains to the prime offeror?

A37. The references for past performance information are for both the prime and major subcontractors. Section L.7 Item 7 has been revised.

Q38. Section L.7, Item 7 (Contractor Performance Information): Would USAID consider permitting offerors to use references for relevant contracts from the last 5 years instead of only the past 3 years to enable offerors to draw from a broader set of relevant experiences to demonstrate performance?

A38. Agreed. Section L.7 Item 7 has been revised.

Q39. Section L.7, page 107: Please confirm that proposals should include a maximum of five performance references for the prime offerors, and a maximum of five additional references for each major subcontractor.

A39. Section L.7 Item 7 has been revised.

Q40. Section L.7, page 107: Please confirm that performance descriptions and similar details listed in L.7.7.(a).ii are only required for activities that are not included in CPARS, and that offerors providing contract references that are included in CPARS should provide a list of activity names, dates, and monetary values.

A40. Section L.7 Item 7 has been revised.

Q41. Section L.7, page 107: May offerors present the required past performance information in a format other than the referenced Past Performance Matrix (Attachment J.3) so as to comply with the RFP’s page size, margin, font, and readability requirements?

A41. Yes. Offerors may present the required information in a format other than the referenced Past Performance Matrix spreadsheet provided it includes all the information required in the Past Performance Matrix.

Q42. Section L.7, page 107: USAID’s contractor performance information instructions refer only to recent and relevant contracts. Would USAID consider revising Section L.7 so that offerors may submit both contracts and cooperative agreements as evidence of past performance?

A42. Section L.7 Item 7 has been revised.

Q43. Section L.7 (8. Institutional Experience) pages 108-109, would USAID consider including the past performance and institutional experience information of non-major subcontractors in its evaluation?

A43. No. Past performance and institutional experience under this Section only applies to the prime contractor and its major subcontractors.

Q44. On page 107, Section L7.7, item i. requests that the Offeror provides “a maximum of five of the most recent and relevant contracts from the last three years for efforts similar to the work required in the solicitation.” Then the RFP adds that “The most relevant indicators of performance are activities of similar size, scope, and complexity which are similar to the work described in this solicitation.” As many offerors have recent and relevant past performance implementing cooperative agreements or other types of projects, we kindly request that USAID expand this requirement to state, “…for most recent and relevant contracts, cooperative agreements, or task orders…”

A44. Section 7 Item 7 has been revised.

Q45. On page 107 of the RFP, L7.7, item ii states that the Past Performance Matrix

Spreadsheet (included as Attachment J.3) can be used as a tool to aggregate the necessary performance information. May bidders use a past performance reference sheet in a word format for the collection and submission of this information?

A45. Yes. Offerors may present the required information in a format other than the referenced Past Performance Matrix spreadsheet provided it includes all the information required in the Past Performance Matrix.

Q46. In Section L.7 Page 104, the RFP states that the Technical Proposal must be organized following the order provided. Item 7 in this order is labeled Past Performance. However, item 7 also states that the Past Performance Information should be provided as Annex C. Could USAID confirm that offerors:

a. should not include a Past Performance section in the technical proposal, and

b. instead, Past Performance Information should only be included in Annex C?

A46. Past performance should only be included in Annex C.

Q47. Page 104 & 105, Section L.7: Can USAID please confirm what is meant by “Annexes should not reference the Offeror’s Technical Approach” as it pertains to the Annex B, which will include position descriptions and minimum qualifications for key personnel, and potentially all personnel?

A47. Annexes must only include the information requested as expressed in the RFP. The technical approach should not reference information in the Annexes unless specifically directed in the RFP.

Q48. Page 106, Section L.7, Key Personnel, Management Approach and Staffing: Can USAID please confirm that description of “each proposed team member’s role and technical expertise, including home office functions and technical expertise,” may be included in Annex B?

A48. Confirmed. The page limit for Annex B in the RFP was revised to 5 pages.

Q49. Page 110, Section L.8.2.1: USAID states that “Completed biographical data sheets, Form

AID 1420-17 (Attachment J.6), must be provided for the proposed Key Personnel”. If biographical data sheets are submitted for KP other than the COP, can USAID confirm that they will be approved upon award?

A49. USAID’s approval of Key Personnel other than Chief of Party will be processed after award. Please see also L.7.6.

Q50. Section F.8, pages 39-40: The RFP states that the key personnel must “possess expertise and experience in: (i) innovation ecosystem strengthening (ii) economic competitiveness enhancement (iii) capacity building with public and private organizations, (iv) private sector engagement, (v) planning and monitoring of a results-oriented approach, (vii) USAID procedures and requirements.” Please confirm that, for offerors proposing additional key personnel beyond the Chief of Party, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the key personnel team as a whole possess the required expertise and experience based on a combination of Annex A (CV for the Chief of

Party) and Annex B (position descriptions and minimum qualifications for additional key personnel).

A50. Confirmed.

Q51. Section L.7. page 106, could USAID please confirm that the Chief of Party’s five references should be submitted in Annex A and will not be included in the two-page limit for the

CV?

A51. Annex A has been revised to a limit of four pages.

Q52. - description and minimum qualifications of any additional proposed key personnel. Would

USAID please confirm that this information should be submitted as part of Annex B?

A52. If any additional proposed key personnel, you may include this information as part of

Annex B. Section L.7 Item 6 has been revised.

Q53. On page 106, under the Key Personnel, Management approach and Staffing Plan section, can USAID please confirm that the only expectation is for position descriptions to be included for key personnel?

A53. Position Descriptions for key personnel (except for the COP) can be included in Annex B at the discretion of the offerors. The Position Description for the COP with clear roles and responsibilities must be included in Annex A.

Q54. On page 105 of the RFP Annex B states that offerors should include, “Staffing Pattern/

Organizational Chart, including title, position description and minimum qualifications of proposed key personnel, not to include COP (max 3 pages). Could USAID please confirm whether they want position descriptions for non-key personnel in Annex B or elsewhere?

A54. No. Position descriptions for non-key personnel are not required.

Q55. Section L. Page 105: Given the complexity of VIE’s scope of work, will USAID allow offerors two non-counting pages for the Executive Summary to summarize the critical elements of their approach?

A55. No.

Q56. Section L.7, page 104: Would USAID please clarify the meaning of the following parenthetical “(Annexes should not reference the Offeror’s Technical Approach)”?

A56. The offeror’s Technical Approach should not reference Annexes unless specified in the

RFP. Information included in Annexes not specifically requested in the RFP will not be evaluated.

Q57. Section L.7, page 105: Please confirm that offerors may use up to three pages for Annex

B irrespective of whether they are proposing additional key personnel.

A57. Offerors now have a maximum of 5 pages to use for Annex B.

Q58. Section L.7, page 106: May offerors present the five required references for the Chief of

Party on a page separate from the two-page CV? Annex A would be limited to four pages in total

– two pages for the CV, one page for the references, and one page for the letter of commitment.

A58. Annex A has been revised to a limit of four pages.

Q59. L.7, p. 105 and 107: Will USAID clarify if there is an additional Past Performance section included in the 25-page limit? If yes, can USAID explain what differentiates this section from

Annex C?

A59. Past Performance Information under Section L.7 Item 7 does not count towards the

25-page limit. To clarify the requirement, Section L.7 has been revised.

Q60. L.1, p. 101: Section L.1 includes FAR 52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for

Professional Employees. Please confirm that this requirement will be satisfied by providing the information specified in RFP Section L.8, paragraphs ‘Direct Labor Salary and Wages’ and ‘Fringe

Benefits’.

A60. Section L.1 has been revised to remove the provision FAR 52.222-46.

Q61. Section F.7. Under Section F.7 Reports & Deliverables, Quarterly Financial Report: Can the reference to expenditure tracking against the budget categories provided in the Contractor's

"cost proposal" be changed to "contract"? Since the Contractor is not held to proposal budget line items, this change would align reporting requirements with the contractual structure and improve the accuracy of expenditure tracking. The proposed revision is: "Total funds expended by the Contractor to date, including a breakdown to the budget categories provided in the

Contractor’s cost proposal Contract and between Technical and Administrative services, with additional detail to be provided upon request by the COR.”

A61. No. The language remains unchanged.

Q62. Under Section J.3 Attachments, there was no clear attachment for the past performance information – does USAID have a specific template for PPI that you would like offerors to use?

A62. No. Section J.3 provides a link to Past Performance Matrix for offerors to provide past performance information. Offerors may present the required information in a format other than the referenced Past Performance Matrix spreadsheet, provided it includes all the information required in the Past Performance Matrix. USAID will submit requests for Past Performance

Information for those referenced contracts not found in the CPARs provided full contact information is provided by an Offeror.

Q63. L.7, p. 105: Page 105 outlines information to include in the cover page of the technical proposal. It requests for proposed subcontractors listed separately, with subcontractor UEI and

TIN listed. Could USAID please clarify if the TIN is only applicable to the US based organizations?

A63. Yes, the TIN requirement is only applicable to US based subcontractors.

Q64. Section L.8.2, Part 2.1 (Direct Labor): Given the specialized skills, knowledge, and abilities that may be required to deliver on certain elements of this scope of work, some experts may command labor rates that exceed the LCP maximum as provided in the RFP. Would USAID confirm that offerors may exceed LCP for such specialized CCN and TCN technical assistance?

A64. Labor rates exceeding the maximum LCP will be subject to USAID Mission Director’s approval as per AIDAR 722.170.

Q65. I.1, p. 69: USAID has included both FAR 52.223-18 and 52.226-8 to address policies to ban text messaging while driving. Can USAID confirm that only FAR 52.226-8, as the most recently issued FAR clause on this issue, will be applicable to this contract.

A65. Yes, confirming the clause FAR 52.226-8 is applicable. Section I.1 has been revised.

Q66. I.2, p. 71: AIDAR 752.7018, 752.7019, 752.7023 are listed. Please remove per Federal

Register Vol. 89, No. 15 dated January 23, 2024.

A66. Section I.2 has been revised to remove the referenced clauses in Q66.

Q67. D.3 Branding Implementation and Marking Compliance. It is our understanding that 2

CFR 700 applies to assistance awards such as grants and cooperative agreements, and not to contracts; we respectfully request its removal from the RFP and any resulting contract.

A67. The reference to 2 CFR 700.16 has been removed.

Q68. We note that the FAR Part 31 cost principles are referenced throughout the RFP. We kindly request USAID confirmation that for nonprofit Offerors, the cost principles at 2 CFR 200

Subpart E are equally applicable.

A68. Please review FAR Part 31.108 to determine the applicability of the 2 CFR 200 Cost

Principles.

Q69. Does USAID allow for a mobilization advance to cover initial startup costs, such as office setup, staff hiring, and equipment purchases?

If so, what percentage of the total contract value can be allocated as an advance payment?

A69. No. This solicitation does not plan to provide contract financing or advance payment.

Q70. Are monthly invoices the standard payment schedule, or is there flexibility for alternative schedules based on cash flow needs?

A70. Monthly invoices are the standard payment schedule. Under this solicitation, the payment method is reimbursement and does not include payment schedules based on cash flow needs.

Q71. Are there specific financial documents we should include in our proposal to demonstrate our financial responsibility and ability to manage contract funds effectively?

A71. Please refer to Section L.8.3. It is up to the offeror to present financial related information to demonstrate their financial responsibility and ability to manage contracts.

Q72. Is there property that will be disposed to the VIE project upon award? If so, can USAID provide the list so that Offerors can budget accordingly?

A72. No.

Q73. Given the reported administrative restructuring within the Government of Vietnam, including potential changes to the Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) within which the

National Information Center (NIC) presents sits, how does USAID anticipate these changes might impact the statement of work for the USAID Vietnam Innovation Ecosystem activity (and in particular Component 3)?

A73. USAID envisions no impact to the Statement of Work at this time.

Q74 Can USAID confirm there is Government of Vietnam buy-in for this activity, and that the

Ministry of Planning will serve as Managing Agency (MA) for the Official Development

Assistance (ODA) approval?

A74. Confirmed.

Q75. On page 18, the last bullet point under subcomponent 2.3 which begins “Conduct forums with Investors to raise awareness of equity investor's requirements to investing in

GOBs…” appears to be duplicated from subcomponent 2.1 at the top of page 17. Could USAID please clarify or remove the duplicate statement?

A75. The forums outlined under 2.1 and 2.3 are not duplicative. They serve distinct purposes, as described in their respective bullets and sub-components.

Q76. Under both Sub-component 2.1 on page 17 and Sub-component 2.3 on page 18, USAID states that work should include conducting investor-led forums to raise awareness of equity investors’ requirements for investing in a GOB as well as awareness of lenders’ requirements for lending to a GOB. Could USAID kindly clarify the intended audience for the investor-led forums and whether these forums are part of either Sub-component 2.1 or Sub-component 2.3, or both?

A76. The forums outlined under 2.1 and 2.3 are not duplicative. They serve distinct purposes, as clearly described in their respective titles and the narratives provided under each sub-component

Q77. We note that the purpose of sub-component 2.3 is “to enhance the preparation of, and connect HEI graduates for existing and emerging employment opportunities.” Section C5.4, page 18 lists forums with investors as a potential activity under this sub-component (“Conduct forums with Investors to raise awareness of equity investor's requirements to investing in GOBs and lenders' requirements to lending to GOBs”). The connection between this potential activity and the purpose of this sub-component is unclear. Would USIAD please clarify the connection between this activity and the sub-component’s focus and purpose?

A77. The forums outlined under 2.1 and 2.3 are not duplicative. They serve distinct purposes, as described in their respective titles and the narratives provided under each sub-component.

Q78. Page 31 & 34, Section F.7, Reports and Deliverables: On page 31, USAID lists Deliverable

Number 3 as “Activity Monitoring Evaluation and Learning Plan (AMELP), including the Plan for

Continuous Learning and Adaptation (CLA).” However, on page 34 USAID states that “At a minimum, the AWP will include…Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) approaches” and under the Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning plan (AMELP), mentions that the

“AMELP should flow logically from the CLA approaches identified in the AWP”.

1) Can USAID confirm that the Continuous Learning and Adaptation (CLA) plan from page

31 should be the Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) Plan referenced on page

34?

2) Can USAID confirm whether the CLA plan and approaches should be included in the

AMELP or the AWP?

A78. The CLA plan only needs to be included in the AMELP. The requirement for CLA approaches in the AWP has been removed.

Q79. Page 31 & 33, Section F.7, Reports and Deliverables: The submission dates outlined in the table beginning on page 31 correlate to a certain number of days following “award” or

“effective date of the contract”. However, on page 33 USAID mentions that “No activities can be implemented until project approval is received”. Since no activities can be implemented before this approval, can USAID please amend all Reports and Deliverables submission dates to correspond with project approval?

A79. The deliverable deadlines on page 31 - 33 are correct. Please note that USAID expects to receive project approval by the time this contract is awarded.

Q80. Page 33, Section F.7: USAID states that “No activities can be implemented until project approval is received”. We are aware that some project approvals have a year or more and would want to ensure efficient and effective responsiveness in such a dynamic, fast-changing environment. Therefore, could USAID please clarify the meaning of “no activities” and confirm whether assessments, preparations for activities, and other billable work may be completed during the time between award and project approval?

A80. “No activities” means no direct technical assistance activities can be implemented until project approval is received. Assessments, and preparation for technical assistance activities can be implemented upon COR approval.

Q81. Section F.7.3, page 35: The RFP includes an indicator on “number of internships supported by USG Assistance.” Can USAID confirm that this indicator is related to the USAID

Vietnam Innovation Ecosystem activity’s support to HEIs under Component 2.3, specifically:

“Enhance HEIs' career placement centers to develop and implement formal internship, externship, and apprenticeship opportunities with Key Stakeholder actors, and with regional and international corporate actors”?

A81. Yes, this illustrative indicator is related to component 2.

Q82. F.7, p. 30: In section F.7, Deliverable 4, USAID states that “The Monthly LOE Report is due within ten (10) working days after the end of preceding month” and that it includes subcontractor labor. Would USAID consider revising this deadline to 20 working days to allow for subcontractor reporting and data validation?

A82. We have revised the deadline to 20 working days after the end of the preceding month.

Q83. There is a need for a website to market this VIE. Will the cost of the website be included in proposal pricing? Or will it be funded separately?

A83. USAID does not require the contractor to establish a website for this VIE Activity.

Q84. Section F.4, page 29 states “professional personnel are defined as technical specialists...as well as specialists in monitoring and evaluation, communication, grants, and subcontractors.”

a. Is it within the mandate of this activity to utilize grant mechanisms?

A84. No. There are no planned grants under contract (GUCs) for this Activity. The references to grants in the RFP have been removed.

Q85. Could USAID please share the full version of USAID/Vietnam's Country Development and

Cooperation Strategy for 2020 -2025 which is mentioned in Section C.5.5 page 19 of the RFP?

A85. No. The summary version is available online: https://www.usaid.gov/vietnam/cdcs

Q86. Could USAID please share the full version of the U.S.- Vietnam Comprehensive Strategic

Partnership (CSP) Plan of Actions (POA) which is mentioned in Section C.5.5 page 19 of the RFP?

A86. No. These documents are internal USG documents.

Q87. Could USAID please make available on the DEC any program reports and evaluations for the USAID Workforce for an Innovation and Startup Ecosystem (WISE) Activity?

A87. USAID/Vietnam WISE was a buy-in to a DC based mechanism called United States

Support for Economic Growth in Asia (US-SEGA). Please search DEC for the latter acronym.