RFP Amendment 1_ Appendix 1 _ Response to Questions.pdf

Appendix 1

Appendix 1: Response to Questions

Better Access and Connectivity (BEACON) Activity 72049220R00005

Question 1: Given the travel restrictions related to COVID-19, and the impact it has on

Bidders' ability to conduct research, would USAID consider an extension of the closing date?

Response 1: The Mission believes that the time allotted for the preparation of proposals are sufficient and that the Mission retains the due date and time for the proposals.

Question 2: Would USAID kindly provide the intended start date for the BEACON activity for budgeting purposes and for determining the months within the Contract’s Year 1 work plan that specific, required deliverables are due?

Response 2: Anticipated start date is dependent on the progress of the selection process. This may change from time to time, however USAID provides update on this information for this procurement and other opportunities in the Business Forecast page of USAID Philippines.

Question 3: The COR and Contractor are to meet within 30 calendar days of the contract’s effective date to review requirements and develop a start-up plan for the first 3 months of implementation. Within 60 days of the effective date of award (i.e., 30 days later) the Y1 work plan, including a 3-month rapid mobilization plan, is to be submitted to the COR. May we assume that implementation of the 90 day rapid mobilization begins from week 1 regardless of the formal submission and approval of the plan?

Response 3: Approval is required for both the Y1 annual work plan and the rapid mobilization plan before the contractor shall implement any of these plans. Section L.5(A) of this RFP Amendment 1 is revised to clarify the inclusion of the rapid mobilization plan with the first year implementation plan.

Question 4: In order to align with standard data rights principles and to allow the Contractor to utilize pre-existing information and data in performance of the BEACON activity, would the Government consider revising this clause to read “data first collected during this project”?

Response 4: USAID retains the language.

Question 5: In Section H.16 Consent to Subcontract, would USAID consider removing the column “Total Cost” for approved subcontractors. We believe it would make contract administration easier and provide USAID and the Contractor greater flexible to adjust subcontract ceiling values if a contract modification isn’t necessary.

Response 5: USAID retains the total cost information in approved subcontracts.

Question 6: In Section L.5 (A), the instructions indicate that the Monitoring, Evaluation and

Learning Plan (MELP), which includes sustainability, environmental, gender and social inclusion plans, is part of the 25-page limit. Given that it is a draft MELP, would USAID consider making it an Annex (not counted against the page limit)?

Response 6: Sustainability, environmental, gender and social inclusion plans together with the draft MELP are included in the list of Annexes. Section L.5(A) of this RFP Amendment 1 reflects this change.

Question 7: BEACON seeks to measure several indicators, and to add greater substance to the

MEL plan, would USAID consider allowing an indicators table as a separate annex?

Response 7: See response to Question 6 above.

Question 8: Section L.5.A requires an Annex on “CV/Resumes of Key Personnel with three references (full contact information to be provided: name, position, relationship, e-mail address, telephone number) and resumes of proposed long and short-term personnel”:

● Is there a page limit for the length of each CV?

● Would USAID consider limiting CVs/resumes to key personnel only?

(Providing CVs/resumes for all personnel may result in an extraordinarily lengthy annex.)

Response 8: This RFP Amendment 1 revises Section L.5(A) to provide page limitation for the

CVs (maximum of 3 pages), and CVs are only required for proposed Key Personnel.

Question 9: Section L.5.C.4 states that “the estimated level of effort that will be provided by the prime Offeror and the proposed subawards/and or partners must be provided.”

However, the list of annexes on p. 92 does not include a required LOE chart.

Should this be a separate annex?

Response 9: This RFP Amendment 1 revised Section L.5(A) to add the LOE chart as an

Annex.

Question 10: Section L.5(C)4 (page 96) states, “The estimated level of effort that will be provided by the prime Offeror and the proposed subawards/and or partners must be provided.” Could USAID please clarify where the proposal should present this information? Should the information appear in the cost proposal or in an annex to the technical proposal? If the information should be in an annex to the technical proposal, could USAID please specify which annex?

Response 10: See response to Question 9 above. The LOE chart is also retained as a submission requirement under the Cost Proposal.

Question 11: Section L.5.C.4 says “In the Annex, the Offeror should provide information for each key personnel proposed, the position description must not exceed one page.

Each position description shall include, at a minimum, the proposed position title, relationship to other key personnel, education and years of experience required and their relationship with the Offeror’s headquarters. The Offeror’s proposed position descriptions shall reflect a clear understanding of technical and management skills necessary to achieve the results.” However, the list of annexes on p. 92 does not include a required list of position descriptions. Should this be a separate annex? Or should it be included with CVs?

Response 11: This shall be a separate annex. The RFP specifically mentions the position descriptions only for key personnel. The RFP Amendment 1 adds this to Section L.5(A).

Question 12: Section L.5(C)4 (page 97) states, “In an Annex, the Offeror should provide information for each key personnel proposed, the position description must not exceed one page.” The list of annexes in Section L.5(A) (page 92) does not explicitly refer to an annex containing position descriptions of key personnel.

Could USAID please clarify whether offerors should include these descriptions in the annex with CVs of key personnel and other long- and short-term personnel or whether offerors should dedicate a separate annex to these descriptions?

Response 12: See response to Question 11 above.

Question 13: Section L.5 (C) 4 – Factor 2: Please clarify that Offerors shall only submit position descriptions for key personnel.

Response 13: See response to Question 11 above.

Question 14: Section L.5(C)4, p. 97. Factor 2: Management and Staffing Plan notes that “In the

Annex, the Offeror should provide information for each key personnel proposed, the position description must not exceed one page. Each position description shall include, at a minimum, the proposed position title, relationship to other key personnel, education and years of experience required and their relationship with the Offeror’s headquarters.”

● Key personnel position descriptions are not included on the list of a non-page counting annexes to the technical proposal presented on page 92 of the RFP (Section L.5 (A)). Please confirm position descriptions for key personnel are a required annex to the technical proposal.

● Could USAID please confirm that position descriptions are only required for key personnel.

Response 14: Please see response to Question 11 above.

Question 15: With regard to proposed key personnel can the Government confirm that the

RFP’s statement that offerors “may propose alternative composition of key personnel positions” means that none of the potential key personnel in this section (i.e. Chief of Party, Deputy Chief of Party, or Component Leads) must be included in an offeror’s proposal and identified as key personnel, provided that the offeror provides justification for alternative proposed personnel? If that was not the Government’s intent, can the Government identify those key personnel that must be included in an offeror’s proposal?

Response 15: This is confirmed.

Question 16: Section L.5(C)6, p. 99. Factor 4: Relevant Experience and Past Performance - can

USAID please clarify that the capabilities and relevant experience (i.e.

“information about the Offeror such as its organizational structure, skills, and capabilities, resources, and services…”) may be included in the annex along with the past performance requirements?

Response 16: Offerors are given the option of providing the relevant experience information as an Annex. This RFP Amendment 1 revises Section L.5(A) adds the relevant experience information in the Annex.

Question 17: Section L.5 (A) states that Offerors shall submit past performance information in an annex, which is not counted against the page limit. Section L.5 (C) 6 – Factor 4: Relevant Experience and Past Performance states, under “Relevant Experience” that “the Offeror must describe its capabilities and relevant experience in implementing an activity similar in scope and scale to the BEACON activity. This will include information about the Offeror such as its organizational structure, skills and capabilities, resources and services that are relevant to the SOO in the Philippines or in similar settings in the region.” Please confirm that the Offeror shall include both Relevant Experience and Past Performance in the Past Performance Annex.

Response 17: See response to Question 16 above. Past performance information is already listed as an Annex.

Question 18: The RFP both states that offerors are “expected to administer and execute multiple grants with a combined value of $3,000,000” (Attachment J.1, p. 15) and that grants under contract “may be proposed not to exceed $3,000,000” (p. 106).

Given that the first statement indicates that $3,000,000 is a fixed amount and the second statement indicates that an offeror could propose less than $3,000,000, can the Government clarify whether offerors are to use $3,000,000 as a plug amount for grants under contract in their cost proposal or whether they are free to determine the value of the GUC fund in line with their approach and proposed performance work statement (PWS)?

Response 18: The $3,000,000 value is not necessarily a fixed plug amount because offerors are expected to distribute this amount to the different years depending on the schedule and strategy in implementing the grants. This total/combined value is intended as a ceiling and that the mention of “not to exceed” simply means that offerors must not exceed this ceiling. It does not say either that the combined grants amount can be less than this value because, as USAID discourages this portion of the cost be reallocated to non-grant activities.

Question 19: In Attachment J.1, Sections I and III (Objective 1) refer to “logistics infrastructure” and/or “trade and transport infrastructure” numerous times.

Section IV (Strategic Considerations) further indicates that the “activity supports the Build, Build, Build program” and is aligned with the Philippine Development Plan. However, neither the indicative results nor outputs under Objective 1 include references to logistics or transport infrastructure, only “logistics services”.

Objective 2 outputs refer to “inter-modal, cost-effective and affordable logistics infrastructure”. Can USAID please clarify whether BEACON will support the development of “hard” logistics and transport infrastructure development (such as public-private partnerships for port or inter-modal infrastructure) under Objectives 1 and 2?

Response 19: Logistics infrastructure refers to all transport and trade related infrastructure included in the logistics supply chain, including port services, shipping, air and land transport, warehousing, cold storage, etc.

Question 20: Regarding the indicative results and/or measurable performance targets that offerors are to propose that are listed with each of the Objectives in Attachment J.1, Statement of Objective (SOO): are the values to be life-of-project totals or are they also to include annual targets?

Response 20: They are life-of-project (LOP) targets. Annual targets should incrementally lead up to LOP targets.

Question 21: Section I. Introduction of the SOO states “This activity will engage a contractor that can effectively and efficiently provide technical advisory services and commodities that will improve access and connectivity by lowering logistics and communications costs in the Philippines.” Can USAID please indicate the type of commodities the Contractor is expected to procure and provide a plug figure that should be budgeted.

Response 21: Commodities can include IT software and hardware, training and conference materials, etc.

Question 22: Section IV. Additional Consideration, Sub-Part 3 on Sustainability in the SOO states “Sustainability and scalability are central to the objectives and design of the activity and is reflected in the considerations for city selection.” Can USAID please confirm that the Offeror is expected to select cities for relevant BEACON interventions. If so, can USAID provide guidance on the expected number of cities that Offerors should target?

Response 22: The statement “and is reflected in the considerations for city selection” was removed from Section IV of the SOO. RFP Amendment 1 reflects this deletion.

Question 23: Could USAID please clarify if Attachment J.5, Certification Regarding

Trafficking in Persons Compliance Plan, is required to be included for the prime offeror as part of the Cost Volume?

Response 23: It is to be accomplished by both prime offeror and major subcontractors. The RFP

Amendment 1 revises Section L.6(C) to include both accomplished Attachment J.3 and J.5 submission requirements under the cost proposal volume.

Question 24: Could USAID please to confirm if ATTACHMENT J.3 SF LLL: Disclosure of

Lobbying Activities should be submitted with the cost proposal or if it will be collected prior to award?

Response 24: See response to Question 23 above.

Question 25: As per Section F.8 (page 21) of the RFP, the draft and final financial reports are due 30 days and 90 days after contract completion, respectively. Finalizing a financial report will require activity resources, so we respectfully request that USAID revise the draft and final financial reports’ due dates to precede the contract’s completion.

Response 25: The aforementioned dates are the extent to which contractors may submit the financial reports but does not preclude them to submit much earlier. As there may be costs that may be expended until the end of the period of performance, financial report submission beyond the end date allows for reimbursement of costs expended up to the last day of the period of performance.

Question 26: Section H.31 (page 51) on managing information technology states that “The

Contractor must comply with the requirements contained in ADS 548.” We respectfully request that USAID remove this requirement from the RFP, as USAID has archived ADS 548.

Response 26: Item E of Section H.31 is removed in RFP Amendment 1.

Question 27: Section H.36(14) (page 55) notes that “Copies of all reports received from grantees must be promptly forwarded to the COR.” Given that ADS 302 does not require the contracting officer’s representative (COR) to receive grantee reports for grants under contract, we respectfully request that USAID remove this sentence from the RFP.

Response 27: USAID retains the requirement for grantee reports to be furnished to the COR.

Question 28: Section H.36(14) (page 55) states: “At the conclusion of the Contract, the

Contractor must consult with the Contracting Officer for direction as to which records must be transferred to USAID.” Although USAID retains the visitation and inspection rights to records related to a grant for three years after the grant’s completion date, all records related to grants under this contract will be considered the property of the contractor. The contractor must, therefore, retain these records in accordance with the contractor’s record retention policies originating from audit requirements. We respectfully request that USAID remove the sentence quoted above from the RFP.

Response 28: Because USAID has authorized the prime contractor to administer grants under contract for the prime reason that it is administratively difficult for USAID to directly administer these on its own. As this is the service that USAID purchased, USAID retains rights to all records under the contract. Furthermore, while the grantee has rights, title and interest to Data that is first acquired or produced under each grant. USAID reserves a royalty-free, worldwide, nonexclusive, and irrevocable right to use, disclose, reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies to the public, and perform publicly and display publicly, in any manner and for any purpose, and to have or permit others to do so.

Question 29: Section H.36(15) (page 55) refers to an “Applicable Standard Provision.” We believe this provision is called “Submission to the Development Experience Clearinghouse and Data Rights (June 2012).” This provision does not require the contractor to obtain a written clearance from the COR before submitting to the Development Experience Clearinghouse. We respectfully request, therefore, that USAID update this reference in the RFP and remove the requirement for the contractor to obtain a written clearance from the COR before submitting to the Development Experience Clearinghouse.

Response 29: USAID retains the requirement for COR clearance.

Question 30: Section H.8 (page 37) requires the contractor to create a compensation plan within the ranges of the Mission Local Compensation Plan. This restriction appears inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007, Personnel Compensation, and the RFP incorporates AIDAR 752.7007 into the contract under Section H.3 (page 51).

AIDAR 752.7007 stipulates that “direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices,” with reimbursement subject only to the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold. The said salary restriction may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices, as required by AIDAR 752.700, so we respectfully request that USAID remove the salary restriction from the RFP.

Response 30: Section H.8 does not restrict salary ranges exclusively to the Mission Local

Compensation Plan. The mention of both the Contractor Salary Threshold (CST) and the Mission LCP are included as reference to the applicable type of personnel from which the associated approval requirements apply should the rate go beyond the applicable threshold. As such, USAID retains the language in Section H.8.

Question 31: Section L.6 (page 105) states that “Time and Materials subcontracts will not be allowed.” We respectfully request that USAID provide offerors with the flexibility to enter into Time and Materials (T&M) subcontracts with organizations when the following conditions are met:

● An organization can provide evidence that it has an accounting system capable of administering a T&M subcontract

● An organization is committed to undergoing annual audits of its indirect cost rates as per the cost principles of FAR Part 31

● The prime contractor has the appropriate subcontract management systems in place to ensure a T&M subcontract with an organization is administered properly

● An organization has established indirect cost rates and made the use of them integral to upholding its cost accounting standards.

With strong prime contractor oversight and the requirement that subcontractors undergo annual audits as per the cost principles of FAR Part 31, the T&M contracting mechanism can significantly build the financial and administrative capacity of our partners to receive direct funding from USAID. The prime contractor’s flexibility to use T&M subcontracts may also facilitate partnering arrangements with organizations that are new to working with USAID (that is, organizations that have not even received indirect funding from USAID), thereby contributing to USAID’s New Partnerships Initiative.

Furthermore, when T&M subcontracts are prohibited and fixed-price mechanisms are inappropriate for the scope of work, prime contractors most commonly engage organizations using cost-reimbursement subcontracts, with indirect costs billed as direct costs typically. Managing this type of subcontract increases the financial and administrative burden on the prime contractor by requiring the prime contractor to review the subcontractor’s indirect costs every month. Managing this type of subcontract also reduces overall cost control because monthly costs will vary significantly based on how the indirect costs that the subcontractor incurs fluctuate each month. Fixed multipliers under T&M subcontracts reduce the government’s risk of potential increases in indirect costs and allow for greater cost control and financial and administrative oversight by the prime contractor.

Response 31: Section L.6 of this RFP Amendment 1 is revised to add qualifier on allowability of Time and Materials subcontracts.

Question 32: Section L.6 (page 106) defines a major subcontractor as one whose proposed cost exceeds 20 percent of the offeror’s total proposed contract cost. Could USAID please clarify whether the 20 percent excludes the $3 million for grants under contract?

Response 32: The RFP references the “offeror’s total proposed contract cost” and thus this should include the GUC value.

Question 33: Section F.8, p. 24. Please confirm that offerors should not budget for a midterm evaluation.

Response 33: At a minimum, the offeror must budget for the prescribed pause-and-reflect workshops.

Question 34: Attachment J.1, p. 3. Can USAID please share USAID’s 2017 Job diagnostic referenced here?

Response 34: Appendix 2 provides the copy of the Job Diagnostic reference.

Question 35: Attachment J.1, p. 6 describes this Activity as contributing to the quality of trade and transport infrastructure from the World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index:

“This activity also seeks improvements in the quality of trade and transport infrastructure measures of the World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index.

Indicative results would be:

○ Internet access among Filipinos increased by 20 percent;

○ Broadband penetration and use among Filipinos increased by 20 percent;

○ 30 percent improvement from baseline of government transactions or public services delivered through digital platforms;

Can USAID please confirm that the progress and sub-indicators are focused on digital/ broadband/ ICT support and solutions, or provide more guidance to the broader World Bank metric?

Response 35: For indicators where USAID has not proposed targets, Offeror is expected to propose targets consistent with the indices mentioned above.

Question 36: Attachment J.1, p. 8. Please confirm that the baseline PMR score for the

Philippines referenced on p. 8 of Attachment J.1 refers to the OECD/World Bank’s 2018 calculation of the Philippines’ PMR score found here:

https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/markets-and-competition-oecd-wbg-pm r-indicators-selected-non-oecd-countries-2013-2018.

Response 36: This is confirmed.

Question 37: Attachment J.1, p. 6, 8, and 9. Please confirm that the offerors can propose their own indicative results and are not bound to the indicative results on pages 6, 8, and 9.

Response 37: As results are indicative, Offeror may propose their own indicative results.

https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/markets-and-competition-oecd-wbg-pmr-indicators-selected-non-oecd-countries-2013-2018 https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/markets-and-competition-oecd-wbg-pmr-indicators-selected-non-oecd-countries-2013-2018 https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/markets-and-competition-oecd-wbg-pmr-indicators-selected-non-oecd-countries-2013-2018

Question 38: Attachment J.1, p. 9. Given that India has a population of 1.35 billion, but only

2534 CISSPs according to (ISC)²’s July 2020 CISSP member counts, can USAID please share the rationale and supporting documentation for the target of 3000 new CISSPs trained and certified on pg. 9 of Attachment J.1?

Response 38: These are indicative or illustrative results. The Offeror may propose its own LOP targets as part of its overall proposal.

Note: According to a 2018 ISC survey, the Philippines has around 118 CISSPs -more than 44 of which are reported to be working overseas. The ISC 2019 Cybersecurity Workforce Study stated that the global cybersecurity workforce needs to grow by 145% to meet the demand for skilled cybersecurity talent. The target, which reflects just about 18 percent of the estimated need, is based on consultations with DICT and the Philippine Institute of Cyber Security Professionals.

Question 39: Attachment J.1, p. 9. Can USAID please clarify how offerors should calculate the baseline for the following indicative result – “20 percent of businesses registered adopting NIST standards,” found on page 9 of Attachment J.1? Specifically, what does USAID mean by “businesses registered”?

Response 39: 1. Calculate how many SEC registered firms have adopted NIST standards and the target will be a 20% improvement from that baseline. 2. Business registered means they are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Question 40: Section M.2.1, p. 112. Please clarify the second bullet point on p. 112: “how realistic is the estimation of required resources needed to provide sustain a value-added solution with identified key performance indicators (KPIs) and meaningful milestones.”

● Please confirm that “required resources” refers to the LOE of key and non-key personnel. If not, please provide further clarification.

● Please confirm that KPIs in the above sentence refer to indicators. If not, please provide further clarification.

● Please confirm that milestones in the above sentence refer to performance milestones that offerors are required to propose as steps toward achieving BEACON’s proposed results (as noted in Section L.5.C. on p. 95). If not, please provide further clarification.

● Please clarify the meaning of “value-added solution” in the above sentence.

Response 40: 1. "required resources" refer to LOE and other resources needed to carry out proposed activities; 2. KPIs refer to indicators; 3. Yes; 4. "value-added solution" means any intervention that builds on current government, private sector and other donor initiatives.

Question 41: In light of USAID’s new directive as a result of Section 899 of the National

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the significant Chinese investment received by the new Filipino telco market entrant, and the Philippine government’s and/or telcos’ potential or actual purchase and use of “Covered telecommunications equipment or services” defined by NDAA 899 alongside BEACON’s investment, could USAID please provide detailed guidance on the implications of this new directive vis-à-vis BEACON’s objectives to ensure Offerors’ proposed activities effectively navigate the logistics of this new requirement?

Response 41: Please refer to Digital Connectivity and Cybersecurity Partnership (DCCP) initiative and USAID Digital Strategy for guidance.

Question 42: In section L.4 Proposal Submission, USAID instructs that “Offerors may also send an Adobe Acrobat portable document format (.pdf) for electronic submission”. Could USAID please clarify that submission of a PDF document (for example, the Technical Proposal) must accompany the submission of the version in Microsoft Office 2010 (Excel, Word)? Would USAID instead accept a PDF submission of the Technical and Cost Volumes, as long as an Excel version of the budget spreadsheet is included?

Response 42: This is confirmed and this clarification is also reflected in Section L.4 of the RFP

Amendment 1.

Question 43: In Attachment J.1, USAID notes that several outcome indicators will be based on the WEF’s Network Readiness Index. As of 2019, the NRI has moved from WEF to the Portulans Institute and several sub-indices, including those cited by USAID (infrastructure, affordability etc.) have been adjusted. Please clarify whether implementers should develop target indicators based on the new NRI criteria and, if so, which of the sub-indices these indicators should be based on.

Response 43: Refer to the NRI.

Question 44: Attachment J.1 of the RFP, page 11, states that BEACON will work closely with the Regulatory Reform Support for National Development (RESPOND) and the Delivering Effective Government for Competitiveness and Inclusive Growth (DELIVER) activity. Would USAID please annex RESPOND and DELIVER quarterly and annual reports to the Q&A, since no contractual deliverables are uploaded to the Development Experience Clearinghouse?

Response 44: USAID provides the most recent quarterly progress reports. Appendix 3 is for

RESPOND and Appendix 4 is for DELIVER.

Question 45: Attachment J.1, Section III – Background and Context (pp. 2-3) discusses the quality of transport/trade logistics infrastructure and the Philippines’ ranking in the World Bank’s 2018 Logistics Performance Index. The Theory of Change also mentions strengthening logistics infrastructure. However, the discussion of Component 1 focuses on ICT infrastructure. The Component 1 Results and Indicators also all focus on ICT improvements, and although the text on page 6 says “This activity also seeks improvements in the quality of trade and transport infrastructure measures of the World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index,” this is not included as an indicator. Can you please clarify whether improved trade/transport logistics performance is still a mandate of BEACON?

Response 45: Improving logistics infrastructure is a mandate of BEACON. Offeror should use the Logistics Performance Index (LPI) to propose indicators.

Question 46: Attachment J.1 Section III, Objective 3, Results and indicators (p. 9) states that the objective’s indicative results would be “3000 new CISSPs trained and certified.” Given that the number of trained CISSPs in the Philippines’ regional competitors are much lower than the result proposed for BEACON (in the 200-400 range), would USAID please confirm its target number?

Response 46: These are indicative or illustrative results. The Offeror may propose its own LOP targets as part of its overall proposal.

Note: According to a 2018 ISC survey, the Philippines has around 118 CISSPs -more than 44 of which are reported to be working overseas. The ISC 2019 Cybersecurity Workforce Study stated that the global cybersecurity workforce needs to grow by 145% to meet the demand for skilled cybersecurity talent. The target, which reflects just about 18 percent of the estimated need, is based on consultations with DICT and the Philippine Institute of Cyber Security Professionals.

Question 47: Attachment J.1 Section III, pp. 6 and 8, USAID lists at the output level, Offerors should propose measurable performance targets in “EG 8.1 Expanded Access to Information and Telecommunications Services” under Objective 1 and “8.2 Improved ICT Policy and Institutions” under Objective 2. We understand these to be categories of indicators in Standard Foreign Assistance Master Indicator List, though there are no active indicators under these two categories.

Would USAID please confirm the indicators under each category for which Offerors should propose measurable performance targets, or provide a list of all indicators under these categories?

Response 47: Offerors may propose custom indicators and targets under each category.

Question 48: The Indicator Reference Sheets (IRS) for F indicators under EG.8.1 and EG.8.2 appear to be missing. Can USAID clarify whether these should be replaced with F indicators from another section or with custom indicators?

Response 48: See response to Question 47 above.

Question 49: Section L.5 (C) 3 – Factor 1: Performance Work Statement (paragraph 2) begins by instructing Offerors that the “PWS must include an overall implementation plan over the life of the activity including main activities of the program, an illustrative First Year Implementation Plan (in an Annex), and indicators or measures to achieve expected program results.” Later in the paragraph, USAID states that the section should “also outline a plan to develop value-added collaboration and identify potential partnerships with nongovernmental partners and/or private sector counterparts. This section should address how the Activity’s investments will be consistent with the available public sector resources to sustain them after the project.”

Would USAID please confirm that of all the requirements in the subject paragraph, Offerors are instructed to include only the illustrative First Year Implementation Plan in the Annex?

Response 49: This is confirmed.

Question 50: Is the first year illustrative work plan inclusive of co-design process following the execution of the contract award?

Response 50: The intent of the illustrative Y1 work plan for proposal submission is for purposes of evaluation of the PWS (Factor 1). Post-award, this illustrative work plan will be further revisited/validated via the co-design process.

Question 51: Can USAID please confirm if they would like the offeror to host the co-design process from effective date of award within the first 60 days?

Response 51: Yes, with the intent of producing a work plan/implementation plan within 60 days from the effective date of the award.

Question 52: Do recent developments related to connectivity (undersea cables, UNDP Pipol

Konek Project) impact programming as it relates to the geographic focus of the activity?

Response 52: Offeror should consider all recent developments, including programs supported by other donors or development partners, in this sector when proposing interventions.

Question 53: Under the SOO, the final Objective 2 indicator "Proportion of females who report increased self-efficacy at the conclusion of USG supported training/programming" doesn't seem to align with the objective. Would USAID consider an alternative indicator to measure effectiveness of gender programming within this objective?

Response 53: Yes, indicators are illustrative.

Question 54: The Results and Indicators in the SOO mention increasing internet access and broadband penetration in the country. For these goals, does USAID have a preference or priority for rural vs. urban locations?

Response 54: No preference, but last-mile connectivity and inclusiveness will be considerations.

Question 55: In line with ADS 302mbn, will USAID please clarify the line item structure that will result from this award. If different from the DFB or detailed budget, will USAID clarify the potentially different reporting level for CLINs contractually and for financial reporting?

Response 55: USAID intends to reflect in the resulting award detailed budget while the fixed-fee portion is broken down by Objective.

Question 56: On page 105, USAID notes that “subcontractor budgets must be provided in the same level of detail as the prime offeror.” Given the preference for fixed price subcontracts, can USAID confirm that Prime offerors should instead receive sufficiently detailed cost information from subcontractors as appropriate for the type of contract (FFP, CPF) to be awarded and the solicitation procedures (part 13, 15, etc.) used in order to demonstrate price reasonableness?

Response 56: The reason for requiring the same level of information as with the prime offeror, regardless of type of contract, to provide detailed information to assist in the determination of price reasonableness.

Question 57: Section B.5. Indirect Costs, does not include any space to insert the proposed indirect rates. Would USAID kindly include this in its subsequent amendment?

Response 57: Section L.6(C)3 requires detailed cost breakdown for which the indirect cost breakdown can be presented/expanded based on the offerors respective indirect cost structures.

Question 58: As per RFP Section L.6 3. Proposed Costs/Prices: “Individual subcontractors must include the same cost element breakdowns in their budgets as applicable.”

Does this statement refer to all subcontractors, major subcontractors or subcontractors for which consent is being requested at award?

Response 58: This is required for all subcontractors.

Question 59: L.6. Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost Proposal, (C) Contents, 3.

Proposed Costs/Prices (Page 102 & 105). The RFP states on page 102 that

“Individual subcontractors must include the same cost element breakdowns in their budgets as applicable (emphasis added),” however, on Page 105, USAID broadens the application of this requirement by stating “Subcontract budgets must be provided in the same level of detail as the prime offeror.” Can USAID confirm that subcontractors are required to provide a detailed price breakdown only as applicable?

Response 59: The intent is for all subcontractors to provide detailed budget breakdown in the same level and detail as the prime offeror. The word as applicable in page 102 is removed in this RFP Amendment 1.

Question 60: On page 105, USAID notes visas should be included under "Travel and

Transportation"; however, on page 106, USAID notes visa fees should be included under “Other Direct Costs”. Can USAID please clarify which line item visa costs should be presented under?

Response 60: All travel expenses (including visa fees) should be under the Travel and

Transportation costs. This RFP Amendment 1 clarifies this in Section L.6(C)3.

Question 61: L.6. Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost Proposal, (C)Contents, 3.

Proposed Costs/Prices, Indirect Costs (Page 106): The RFP requires that each major subcontractor provide “a complete copy of its most current Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) or other documentation from its cognizant Government Audit Agency, if any, stating the most recent final indirect cost rates….[or] audited balance sheets and profit and loss statements for the last two complete years, and the current year to- date statement.” Since USAID highly encourages firm-fixed price subcontractors for this engagement, offerors may propose specialized commercial major subcontractors, many of whom perform solely on a firm-fixed-price deliverable basis utilizing pricing methodologies not based on cost element data, including indirect rates; therefore, can USAID confirm the requirement to provide NICRA, alternative indirect cost rate documentation or audited balance sheets and profit loss statements is not applicable to major subcontractors who exclusively perform on a firm fixed price basis?

Response 61: If it is determined at the proposal stage that certain subcontractors are to be engaged under a firm fixed-priced basis, and that the budget breakdown does not reflect any indirect cost element, then the NICRA information (or alternative indirect rate documentation) is not applicable.

Question 62: Section L.5 (C) 5 Factor 3: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan states that the “Offeror must also propose a plan to achieve sustainability and scalability of proposed interventions…” and “…should also present how it intends to ensure that its activities are conducted in an environmentally responsible manner, complying with all applicable environmental laws and regulations.”

However, M.2.1 Factor 1 – Performance Work Statement (p. 112) states that the Offeror’s PWS will be evaluated in part based on “How the Offeror plans to achieve sustainability, scalability and environmental considerations in the plan implementation” and “how the Offeror proposes to comply with USAID’s environmental regulations”, stating that the Offeror should include its plan to ensure sustainability, scalability, and compliance with environmental regulations in the PWS, not the MELP as instructed by section L.5 (C) 5.

Would USAID please confirm that Offerors should address its plan to ensure sustainability, scalability, and compliance with environmental regulations in the MELP, where such a plan will be evaluated per section M?

Response 62: The third paragraph in Section L.5(C)5 is moved to Section L.5(C)3 in this RFP

Amendment 1. The intent of sustainability, scalability, and compliance with environmental regulations should be covered under the PWS, and this will be consistent with the evaluation factors in Section M.2.1..

Question 63: Section M2.2 Factor 2 – Management and Staffing Plan (p. 112) speaks to an overall staffing plan inclusive of "Senior Technical Experts and other staff positions", however section L is not specific in terms of how personnel should be addressed beyond Key Personnel. Could USAID clarify why type of information is required in the Management and Staffing Plan for non-key personnel?

Response 63: This RFP Amendment 1 revised Section L.5(C)4 to add language on required information for Staffing Plan (including an optional summary personnel matrix).

Question 64: Section L.5 (A), under Annexes (p. 92) states that Offerors must include resumes of proposed long and short-term personnel in an annex. In lieu of presenting full resumes for non-key personnel, we respectfully request that USAID instead allow Offerors to present non-key staff in a personnel matrix.

Response 64: See response to Question 63 above.

Question 65: Section L.8 includes the option of engaging in oral presentations. Could USAID provide an indication of a timeline by when which a decision on oral presentations might be determined? Could USAID be more specific on what advance notice (per section L.8) will be provided? We would request the mission consider a period of at least 3 weeks for those eligible for oral presentations.

Response 65: The advance notice will basically be the invitation for oral presentation should the

CO determine the need for such. Timeline for advance notification will be the reasonable amount of time the offeror can prepare for an oral presentation. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Mission may opt to conduct virtual oral presentations that would not necessarily require 3 weeks preparation because there are no international travel requirements to compensate for.

Question 66: Section L.5 (C) 5 – Factor 3: Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (p. 98) states that “the plan should identify data requirements and illustrative data templates that will be used in the activity.” Would USAID please confirm that they do not expect Offerors to submit data templates with the MELP, but rather describe the templates to be used in the activity in the MELP?

Response 66: Yes. the templates will form part of the MELP that will be finalized after award of the contract.

Question 67: Section H.8.b.1.i (pp 36 – 37) states “Initial salaries of non-key personnel must be within the salary range (based on market value determination) for each position and must be within the following thresholds (whichever is applicable): Mission Local Compensation Plan (LCP) of the U.S. Embassy Manila, for third country nationals (TCNs) and cooperating country nationals (CCNs).”

Section L.6 (C) 3.b (p. 104) requires Offerors to submit a Compensation Plan, supported by market/industry research for salaries. Would USAID please clarify if rates should be based on market value determinations and industry research, or if rates should be aligned with the LCP and FSN scale provided as Attachment J.6?

Response 67: Attachment J.6 is only provided as reference for threshold considerations in accordance with AIDAR 722.170. It was not intended to be the basis for the offeror’s compensation plan.

Question 68: Section L.5. (C) 4 – Factor 2: Management and Staffing Plan (p. 97) states that the COP must have “at least a Master’s or equivalent professional experience.”

Please clarify what USAID considers to be equivalent professional experience?

Response 68: This RFP Amendment 1 revised Section L.5(C)4 that clarifies the COP qualification requirement to reflect “professional working experience in …”

Question 69: L.6(C)(2) requires contractors to fill out portions of Section B, including

B.3(b)-(c). However, information to be filled in for paragraphs b and c of B.3 concerns the obligated amount and period of time the obligated amount is anticipated to be sufficient until. Since these are typically determined by USAID, could you please revise this instruction to eliminate these paragraphs?

Response 69: Section L.6(C)2 in the RFP Amendment 1 removes B.3 and B.5. Information required from the offeror are those for B.4 and B.7.

Question 70: L.6(C)(2) requires that offerors fill out paragraph B.5. However, it is not clear what information offerors should incorporate into B.5. Could you please clarify?

Response 70: See response to Question 69 above.

Question 71: L.6(C)(3), Fixed Fee on page 104 of the RFP requires offerors to propose a fixed fee schedule as detailed under Section B.5. Can you USAID confirm this reference should be to B.4? Further, is inclusion of the fixed fee schedule in the completed Section B sufficient to meet this requirement or does USAID require this fixed payment schedule be submitted in another section of the cost volume, as well?

Response 71: This RFP Amendment 1 corrects the reference under Section L.6(C)3 to be

Section B.4 instead of B.5. This information is required under Section L.6(C)2 and not required anywhere else in the instructions for cost proposal preparation.

Question 72: Could USAID please clarify what the “cumulative CPFF” column under B.7 is? Is this the running cancellation totals for all prior years?

Response 72: This is the running total of CPFF as it progresses into the years (or going down the column) by adding the cumulative CPFF total in the previous row with the CPFF total of the subject row.

Question 73: The standard cost elements included under L.6(C)(3) do not contain a major line item for training. Should offerors assume training is included within “seminars and conferences”, as defined under the Other Direct Costs instructions on page 106 of the RFP?

Response 73: Yes.

Question 74: L.6(C)(3), Travel, Transportation and Per diem on page 105 of the RFP requires that offerors provide the “name/position of personnel” for each proposed trip. As many trips budgeted will be for consultant pools that lack specific names and titles at this phase, would USAID please consider removing this requirement?

Response 74: Please use “consultant” as the “position” for trip allocation.

Question 75: L.6(C)(3), Equipment and Supplies on page 105 of the RFP requests details about equipment including manufacturer and source. Would USAID please consider removing this level of detail since the budget is illustrative and a formal procurement competition during implementation may result in different manufacturer names or sources?

Response 75: This RFP Amendment 1 removes the requirement for “manufacturer” and

“source” from Section L.6(C)3.

Question 76: L.6(C)(3), Grants Under Contract (p. 106) states that “providing large lump sum amounts under this cost item will not be accepted?” As actual recipients will not be identified until implementation, what level of detail does USAID request offerors to present in this line item if not an annual lump sum each year which, when totaled over LOP, does not exceed $3M?

Response 76: Because Section L.5(C)3 under the PWS requires offerors to provide illustrative grant activities, the appropriate level of cost breakdown of grant amounts across years should be reflected in the cost proposal.

Question 77: L.6(C)(3), ODCs on page 106 of the RFP – USAID requests that venue locations be identified in the cost volume for all conferences and seminars. Please consider removing this level of detail since the budget is illustrative and formal RFQs during implementation may result in different venue locations?

Response 77: RFP Amendment 1 replaces “venue” with “geographical region (i.e., main island groups)” to reflect a semblance of distribution within the country.

Nothing Follows