72049220R00008 (CHANGE) Amendment 1 (Appendix 1).pdf

Appendix 1

APPENDIX 1

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS

Cities for Enhanced Engagement and Governance (CHANGE) Activity 72049220R00008

Question 1: Please provide eligibility criteria for the solicitation.

Response 1: In accordance with the geographic code for the solicitation as 937 or organizations from the United States, the cooperating country/recipient country, and developing countries other than advanced developing countries, and excluding prohibited sources. Please refer to ADS 310.3.1 for the description on the geographic codes and advanced developing countries.

Question 2: Section B.4 states that “Pursuant to FAR 16.306(d)(1), payment of fixed fee shall be based on completion of the deliverables described in Sections C and F of this contract and in accordance with the approved Fee Schedule below.” In Section F, there is no specific reference to the types of deliverables against which fees will be paid. Can USAID provide more details on this and the mechanism by which fixed fee will be paid?

Response 2: Section B.4 information shall be finalized at award. Normally, the fee will be based on the accomplishment of project outcomes, program results, goals/targets.

The Section B.4 table heading is revised to replace “Deliverable/Outputs” with “Program Results/Goals/Targets.” This RFP Amendment 1 clarifies this point.

Question 3: Could USAID please clarify what type of contract it will issue for the CHANGE

Activity? Section B.2 (page 8) states that the contract will be a cost-plus-fixed-fee completion type agreement. However, according to B.4 (page 8), “payment of fixed fee shall be based on completion of the deliverables described in Sections C and F.” Tying the payment of portions of the fee to the completion of each deliverable is inconsistent with the FAR definition of a CPFF completion type agreement. Per FAR 16.306(d)(1), in the case of a CPFF completion type contract, as a condition of payment, the entire fixed fee is paid upon completion of all the deliverables. If all the deliverables are not completed, the contractor is ineligible for the entire fixed fee but may submit monthly invoices for the costs incurred each month to complete each deliverable. Section B.6 (page 9) references FAR 52.216-8. This clause allows the contracting officer to withhold up to “15 percent of the total fixed fee or $100,000, whichever is less, to protect the Government’s interest,” ensuring that the contractor completes the work under the contract. Including a fee schedule in the contract, such as the one in B.4, will mean the contract will not meet the FAR definition of a CPFF completion type contract.

Response 3: See response to Question 2 on the revisions in Section B.4. FAR 16.306(d)(1) and

FAR 52.216-8 are not contradicting provisions, the former provides description about the fixed fee schedule information while the latter provides a retention option only for purposes of indirect cost rates that are not yet final. In the end, the full fixed fee will be provided as soon as conditions of both referenced FAR clauses are met.

Question 4: Section C.4.2, page 16 (and elsewhere): The RFP notes that CHANGE will coordinate with and complement USAID’s SURGE Activity. Will USAID: (a) Confirm the current proposed end date of the SURGE Activity?; (b) Provide the latest SURGE Work Plan?; and (c) Provide any USAID Mid-term evaluation of SURGE (none appears to be uploaded to DEC)?

Response 4: (a) The current end date of SURGE is December 31, 2021; in response to items

(b) and (c), both the Work Plan and Mid-Term evaluation of SURGE are for internal use at the moment. We suggest that you refer to the link provided in footnote 16 under Section C.4b that provides for pertinent information about the SURGE project and the progress.

Question 5: RFP Page 23. We note that CHANGE will expand to at least four more cities after

2022. Are these cities in addition or substitution to the current eight (8)?

Response 5: This is confirmed.

Question 6: RFP Page 23. We note that CHANGE will expand to at least four more cities. For budgeting purposes, can USAID provide an upper limit on the total number of cities that CHANGE should support?

Response 6: For budget purposes, we suggest that offerors plan for no more than 8 additional cities. This information is included in Section C.5 Geographic Coverage in the RFP Amendment 1.

Question 7: RFP page 108. Does USAID plan to amend the Statement of Work (SOW) after

Step 1 proposal submissions or will the SOW remain the same?

Response 7: USAID does not intend to amend the statement of work after Step 1.

Question 8: RFP page 108. For offeror planning purposes, we request USAID to kindly provide its estimate of the expected time-lapse between submission of Step 1 and requests for Step 2 proposals.

Response 8: A minimum of three weeks will transpire between submission of Step 1 proposal and invitation for Step 2 proposal.

Question 9: Section L.4, page 106: Will USAID permit Step 1 and Step 2 submissions to include an Executive Summary and Abbreviations List that will not count against the proposal page limit?

Response 9: Yes. RFP Amendment 1 inserted language on both Executive Summary and List of Abbreviations/Acronyms as “optional” annexes.

Question 10: Sections L.4 and L.5: Can USAID please clarify the page limit for Step 1 technical proposals? The RFP mentions that technical proposals are either 25 pages in length (Section L.4, page 106) or 20 pages in length (Section L.5, page 107).

Response 10: Section L.4 of this RFP Amendment 1 revised the page limit at 20 pages both for

Step 1 and Step 2 technical proposals.

Question 11: Section L.5, pages 108–109: Can USAID please clarify what annexes Offerors are to submit in the Step 1 submission? Page 108 notes that offerors “should present a Results and/or Logical Framework (may be presented as an Annex to the Step 1 proposal)”, but section L.5.3 on page 109 lists the only allowable annex as “an annex on the theory of change.”

Response 11: Section L.5.3 of this RFP Amendment 1 includes Results and/or Logical

Framework in the allowable annexes under Step 1.

Question 12: Please confirm that only the Step 1 Proposal will be submitted on July 20th.

Response 12: This is confirmed.

Question 13: Please confirm that the table of contents will not be included in the page limit.

Response 13: Table of contents are not counted in the page limit in the technical proposals (Step

1 not Step 2). Sections L.5 and L.6 of the RFP Amendment 1 are updated to include this information.

Question 14: Please confirm a Cover Page will not be included in the page limit.

Response 14: This is confirmed. This RFP Amendment 1 further clarifies this under Section L.5 and Section L.6.

Question 15: Section L.5 (page 107) describes the format that the Step 1 technical proposal must follow, and Section L.6 (page 109) describes the format that the Step 2 technical proposal must follow. Neither format includes a table of contents or a list of acronyms. Would USAID allow the offeror to include a table of contents and list of acronyms as front matter in each proposal, excluding this front matter from the proposals’ page limits?

Response 15: See responses to Question 9 (list of acronyms) and Question 13 (table of contents).

Question 16: Section L.5.1 (page 108) describes what information the cover letter for the Step 1 technical proposal must include, noting that the cover letter may be between one and two pages long and does not count toward the page limit. Section L.6.1, (page

109) requires the cover letter for the Step 2 technical proposal to “follow the same information requirement.” Could USAID please confirm that the offeror should submit a one- to two-page cover letter for the Step 1 technical proposal in addition to the Step 1 technical proposal’s cover page as well as that the offeror should do the same for the Step 2 technical proposal?

Response 16: This is confirmed.

Question 17: Section L.6, pages 110–115: Can USAID please clarify what annexes Offerors are to submit in the Step 2 submission? The illustrative First Year Implementation Plan (page 110), an organizational chart (page 111), and key personnel information with position description and references (page 111) are mentioned in Section L.6.2, but are not included in Section L.6.3 with the list of allowable annexes (Rapid Mobilization Plan, Past Performance Information, and Draft Branding and Marking Plan) on page 115.

Response 17: Section L.6.3 of this RFP Amendment 1 included the illustrative First Year

Implementation Plan, organizational chart, and key personnel information with position description and references as allowable annexes for Step 2.

Question 18: Could USAID please clarify whether the listing of Key Personnel is an allowable annex in Step 2? It is not listed as an allowable annex in section L.6.3.

Response 18: This RFP Amendment 1 updates Section L.6.3 to include all allowable annexes to include the Key Personnel information.

Question 19: Section L.6.2.b describes an annex where additional information about key personnel can be provided. The content described for this annex seems to focus on position descriptions (including required qualifications), which has a one-page limit. It doesn’t seem to envision including proposed staff CVs or LOCs. Should this annex be uses for the inclusion of these or is there another annex envisioned?

If so, is there a page limit for these?

Response 19: The requirement for curriculum vitae for each key personnel candidate as an annex is added into Sections L.6.2(b) and L.6.3 in this RFP Amendment 1.

Question 20: Section L.6.2.b.1 (p. 112) includes a Master’s degree as a requirement for Chief of Party. Would USAID consider an exception in the case of a candidate with substantive relevant managerial and technical experience?

Response 20: USAID retains the requirement as stipulated in the RFP for the Chief of Party position.

Question 21: RFP Page 112. The requirements of the Deputy Chief of Party (DCOP) includes

“at least a master’s degree”. Given the number of well qualified and USAID-experienced operational managers in the Philippines, would USAID accept a DCOP candidate with a Bachelor’s degree and post-graduate course certificates?

Response 21: USAID is amenable to this request, RFP Amendment 1 reflects a “bachelor’s degree” minimum requirement for the position including a statement on “post-graduate course certificates and/or master’s degree preferred.”

Question 22: Section L.6.2.b.1 (p. 112) provides the required qualifications for the DCOP, who is described as being “responsible for the overall administrative and operational aspects of the project.” Despite this being an operations-focused position, other than “financial management,” the required work experience seems to largely focus on technical areas related to local governance (public administration, governance reform, civic engagement, etc.). In our experience, for this type of operations position, we think a candidate’s qualifications should focus more on experience with financial management; HR; contracts and grants management;

procurement; and facilities and logistical support. Would USAID consider revising these qualifications?

Response 22: Please see response to Question 21 on revised qualification for the DCOP

Question 23: Section L.6.2(b) (page 112) requires the chief of party to have at least 15 years of relevant technical experience and expertise as well as experience managing international development assistance projects. To best facilitate local leadership of the CHANGE Activity and support greater access to leadership opportunities for Filipino candidates, we respectfully request that USAID consider amending the position requirements for the chief of party. Would USAID please remove the required qualification of experience managing international development assistance projects, or would USAID reclassify this qualification as preferred rather than as required?

Response 23: Experience managing international development assistance projects does not mean that only candidates who have worked outside the Philippines are qualified.

A Filipino COP candidate who has managed development assistance projects in the Philippines funded by an international donor qualifies. See also response to Question 20.

Question 24: Section L.6.2(b) (page 112) notes that the deputy chief of party will “be responsible for the overall administrative and operational aspects of the project.”

In addition, the position description requires the deputy chief of party to have “10 years of progressively responsible professional development, public administration, financial management, local government support, governance reforms, or civic engagement experience and expertise.” The position description suggests that the deputy chief of party will primarily support activity administration and operations. The requirement of 10 years of technical experience, however, indicates that the deputy chief of party may primarily play a technical role in the activity.

To optimize the overall strength of our proposed team and complementarity of its members, we respectfully ask USAID to consider revising the position description and requirements accordingly: If USAID envisions the deputy chief of party’s most critical contribution to the activity as providing operational support, would USAID consider removing or reducing the requirement for 10 years of technical experience? Alternatively, if USAID envisions the deputy chief of party’s most critical contribution as providing technical oversight and expertise, would USAID consider decreasing the position description’s emphasis on administration and operations and removing the requirement for “substantial experience … managing international development assistance projects”?

Response 24: Please see response to Question 21 on revised qualification for the DCOP

Question 25: Section L.7(C)1, page 116: The RFP states that the completed Standard Form 33 must include an original signature. Since proposals will be submitted electronically, could USAID please confirm that a scanned or electronic signature would be sufficient?

Response 25: Scanned signature or digital signature are sufficient.

Question 26: Considering the volatility in today’s global markets, would USAID please provide an exchange rate to use in the cost proposal?

Response 26: Please use an exchange rate of PhP48 per US Dollar. This RFP Amendment 1 added this information in Section L.7(C)3.

Question 27: Attachments J.4 and J.2: Will USAID please clarify in what section(s) of the cost proposal Offerors should include their Certification Regarding TIP Compliance Plan and SF LLL?

Response 27: Accomplished Attachments J.4 and J.2 are submitted as an attachment to the Cost

Proposal. Section L.7(C)8 was added in this RFP Amendment 1 for this inclusion.

Question 28: Sections H.8 and L.7: In Section H.8(b)(1), page 52, the RFP states, “Upon establishment of the salary ranges for professional positions, an appropriate candidate must be selected based on the qualifications sought for that position and the Contractor’s personnel practices. That individual’s salary must be negotiated within the established range, based on his or her certified salary history [emphasis added] and the conditions stated further in this paragraph.” In addition, Section H.8(f) on page 54 states, “…compensation shall not exceed: 1) the highest rate of annual compensation received by the consultant during any full year of the immediately preceding three years or …” The latest version of the Contractor Biographical Data Sheet – USAID Form 1420-17, as required in Section L.7(C)3a on page 119, does not require potential employees or consultants to disclose their salary or consultant rate history. Could USAID please confirm that Offerors should use market data rather than salary or rate history in determining proposed salaries for this activity, including consultant rates, and remove all language related to using salary or rate history to establish proposed salaries and rates?

Response 28: USAID Philippines confirms that salary rates should be determined by market rate information. Reference to the historical rate in Section H.8(f) was also removed from this RFP Amendment 1.

Question 29: Section H.8(b)(1) (page 52) states that the salary of a qualified individual selected for a professional position “must be negotiated within the established range [for that position] based on [the individual’s] certified salary history and the conditions stated further in this paragraph.” We respectfully request that USAID remove this sentence from the RFP, as the new biographical data form does not collect certified salary history.

Response 29: This RFP Amendment 1 deleted the subject statement in Section H.8(b)(1).

Question 30: Section H.8(f) (page 54) states: "compensation shall not exceed: 1) the highest rate of annual compensation received by the consultant during any full year of the immediately preceding three years or 2) the maximum daily salary rate as described in AAPD 06-03, whichever is less." We respectfully request that USAID remove this clause from the RFP, as the new biographical data form does not collect certified salary history.

Response 30: This RFP Amendment 1 deleted the subject statement in Section H.8(f). See response to Question 28.

Question 31: Per Section H.8(b)(1)(ii) (page 52) of the RFP, “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).” Additionally, per Section H.8(e) (page 53) of the RFP, “Annual salary increases of any kind exceeding this limitation or exceeding the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold (CST) for U.S. Direct hires and/or Mission Local Compensation Plan (LCP) for TCN/CCNs may be granted only with the advance written approval of the Contracting Officer.” These salary restrictions in the RFP appear inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007, Personnel Compensation, which Section H.7(a) of the RFP incorporates into the CHANGE Activity contract.

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 salary restrictions in the RFP may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices, as AIDAR 752.7007 requires. We respectfully request, therefore, that USAID remove the said salary restrictions from the RFP.

Response 31: USAID retains this salary restriction language as the contractor is still accorded with prior approval processes if the proposed rate for individuals breaches the established thresholds.

Question 32: On page 53, it states that TCN pay and benefits are supposed to align with CCN pay and benefits. Will USAID allow the contractor to provide waiver requests for any proposed CCN salaries that will be above the USAID Local Compensation plan? This request would be in line with USAID’s recent directive for contractors to justify proposed compensation based on market conditions.

Response 32: Salary payments over the Local Compensation Plan are governed by waiver considerations in accordance with AIDAR 722.170. Waivers are provided on a case to case, by candidate, basis and not on the position. While the Offeror’s proposed salary matrix may include positions with salary ranges that breaches the Mission LCP, individual waiver approvals will be considered at time of award.

Question 33: Sections C.4 and L.7: In Section C.4.4, page 25, the states, “The CHANGE contractor is expected to administer and execute multiple grants with a combined value not lower than $1,400,00 over the life of the project.” Section L.7(C)3 on page 121 states that Grants Under Contract are not to exceed $3 million. Would USAID please confirm that Offerors may propose GUCs within the range of $1.4–3 million?

Response 33: The grants under contract for CHANGE must be within the range of $1.5 million to $2 million. Sections C.5, L.6.2(a) and L.7(C)3 are revised in this RFP Amendment 1.

Question 34: Section L.7(C)3, page 121: The RFP states the following in regard to Grants

Under Contract: “Providing large lump sum amounts under this cost item will not be accepted.” Would USAID please provide further guidance on the level of detail and cost information for GUCs?

Response 34: This RFP Amendment 1 updates Section L.7(C)3 includes guidance “Offeror must provide illustrative programs areas/activities that will warrant grant funding and the range of individual grant amounts. This description can be provided in the budget narrative.”

Question 35: Sections L.6 and L.7: Section L.7(A) on page 116 states, “…‘Major

Subcontractor(s)’ are those subcontractors whose costs exceed 20 percent of the Offeror’s total proposed cost or who are otherwise defined by the prime to be essential to successful project implementation.” Section L.6.2(d)1) on page 114 and Section L.7(C)4 on page 122 state that major subcontractor(s) are those whose proposed cost exceeds 25% of the offeror’s total proposed contract cost.

Would USAID please clarify the definition of major subcontractor?

Response 35: The discrepancy is harmonized in this RFP Amendment 1 by revising Section

L.7(A) to indicate major subcontractor to be 25 percent of the Offeror’s total proposed cost.

Question 36: Section L.6.2.d (p. 114) defines a major subcontractor as a contractor “whose proposed cost exceeds 25% of the offeror’s total proposed cost.” However, Section L.7.A defines major subcontractor as “those subcontractors whose costs exceed 20 percent of the Offeror’s total proposed cost or who are otherwise defined by the prime to be essential to successful project implementation.” The second definition is to be strongly preferred since there are significant costs involved in supporting the operations of the project (e.g., facilities, vehicles, operations staffing) that are usually entirely assumed by the prime contractor. Can USAID confirm that the second definition is the operative one?

Response 36: See response to Question 35.

Question 37: USAID has not included “Information to Support Consent to Subcontract” as part of the requirements for the cost proposal. Could USAID please confirm that Offerors may submit Information to Support Consent to Subcontract as an Annex to the Cost Proposal to ensure timely engagement of subcontractors?

Response 37: This RFP Amendment 1 added the information under Section L.7(C)3

Subcontracts with “Offerors may submit Information to Support Consent to Subcontract as an Annex to the Cost Proposal.”

Question 38: Attachment J.6.: Can USAID please confirm that the use of Attachment J.6. to present the information specified in Section L 2 d) Factor 4: Past Performance 1) is only necessary for projects not in CPARS?

Response 38: Because of the limited number of projects to refer, the form was intended to provide information for projects that are not in CPARS. However, if the referenced relevant project is already in CPARS then the CPARS information will suffice.

Question 39: Will USAID provide additional instructions for Step 2- Cost proposals?

Response 39: Section L.7 provides an extensive instructions for cost proposal preparation.

Question 40: Page 57, H.16: Please confirm the consent is only required for the Major Subcontractors.

Response 40: Yes.

Question 41: Page 54 (f) Consultant salaries: Please clarify if this section is applicable to both

TCN, CCN and US consultants.

Response 41: This is applicable to all types of consultants.

Question 42: Page 118: Please confirm detailed DFB budgets are not required, just the summary Table as provided on page 118 of RFP.

Response 42: Yes. Only the summary of the DFB budget is required. However, language in

Section L.7(C)3 under the standard cost elements also mentions “It is preferred that the cost elements provide segregation of costs by activity to aid in the computation for the development focused budget summary.”

Question 43: Could USAID please clarify the correct email for submission of proposals? The email manila-roaa-rfp@usaid.gov is listed as the primary point of contact on SAM.gov, but manila-rfp-roaa@usaid.gov is listed within submission instructions on page 106 of the RFP.

Response 43: This RFP Amendment 1 corrects the email address in Section L.4 to manila-roaa-rfp@usaid.gov.

Question 44: Could USAID please clarify whether letters of support are required, and if exclusivity is discouraged for personnel in Step 2 of the CHANGE RFP?

Response 44: Letters of support and statements of exclusivity are not required.

Question 46: Could USAID please clarify the maximum file size for proposal submission?

mailto:manila-roaa-rfp@usaid.gov mailto:manila-rfp-roaa@usaid.gov mailto:manila-roaa-rfp@usaid.gov

Response 46: Individual files must not exceed 5MB in size. This RFP Amendment 1 updates Section L.4 includes the language “No email transmission shall have attachment files that exceed 5MB.”

Question 47: Could USAID please provide guidance on the recruitment of personnel from other active USAID programs, in order to avoid disruption of existing programs?

Response 47: USAID discourages recruitment of personnel from other active USAID programs.

Question 48: Could USAID please clarify whether a small business subcontracting plan is required for submission with the Step 1 or Step 2 proposals? Under Factor 4, on page 115 of the RFP, a clause for describing small business subcontracting plans is present, however it is not mentioned in the instructions to submit the plan during the proposal.

Response 48: The small business subcontracting plan is not required at the proposal stage. The reference for subcontracting plan is only for past performance information regarding small business subcontracting in other projects/contracts.

Question 49: Could USAID please clarify whether all of the items listed in L.7 are required within the submitted cost proposal for Step 2, or if some of the items listed must be submitted within the proposal for Step 1?

Response 49: Section L.7 are instructions in the preparation of cost proposals. The first sentence mentions that “Cost proposals are only required during Step 2 of the selection process.”

Question 50: Could USAID please clarify whether the submission of the SF-LL and

Certification Regarding Trafficking in Persons Compliance Plan must be submitted with the rest of the items in L.7 as part of the Cost Proposal to be submitted during Step 2, or whether these items must be submitted with the proposal for Step 1?

Response 50: Section L.7(C)8 in this RFP Amendment 1 clarifies this submission together with the cost proposal.

Question 51: Could USAID please clarify the definition of the “third-party” oversight and evaluations, stated on pages 19 and 40 of the RFP? Does the definition of “third party” consist of private sector organizations and CSOs?

Response 51: Third party oversight in the context of strengthening local government transparency and accountability refers to the participation of private sector organizations and CSOs. Third party evaluations refer to evaluations contracted by USAID and performed by organizations not connected with the implementation of CHANGE.

Question 52: Could USAID please clarify whether the bidder should accommodate for continuing COVID-19 circumstances for Phase 1 of implementation?

Response 52: It is difficult to predict what the “new normal” will look like during Phase 1.

USAID leaves it to the discretion of the offerors whether or not to accommodate for continuing COVID-19 circumstances for Phase 1. Ideally the technical approach should retain the ability to adapt to a variety of circumstances.

Question 53: Could USAID please identify the anticipated start date for the CHANGE project for budgeting purposes?

Response 53: 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 54: There are numerous mentions of USAID’s desire for innovation and creative ideas, with experimentation specifically addressed on page 24 with the statement “programmatic risks are acceptable as long as they are data driven and adaptive”.

These programmatic risk factors are not included in the definitions in Section M.

Could USAID kindly elaborate on these risk factors?

Response 54: Here is a link that describes risk management in the context of USAID’s

Collaborating, Learning and Adapting (CLA) Framework:

https://usaidlearninglab.org/lab-notes/cla-and-enterprise-risk-management-how-us aid-takes-risks-uncertain-world https://usaidlearninglab.org/lab-notes/cla-and-enterprise-risk-management-how-usaid-takes-risks-uncertain-world https://usaidlearninglab.org/lab-notes/cla-and-enterprise-risk-management-how-usaid-takes-risks-uncertain-world

Question 55: Could USAID please clarify how it is using the term “binding constraints” in the

RFP?

Response 55: Binding constraints in this context are the most important factors inhibiting development. Sometimes referred to as root causes, the analysis of binding constraints, among others, serve to provide a framework that will help prioritize development interventions and focus on appropriate programs. For example, a constraints analysis conducted in 2011 by a joint USAID and Philippine Government research team identified governance (regulatory quality, control of corruption, rule of law, and political stability and the absence of violence) and fiscal space as the binding constraints to broad-based and inclusive economic growth in the Philippines.

Question 56: Section F.4.a (p. 32) states “The key personnel that the Contractor must furnish for the performance of this contract are as follows,” but does not list anyone.

Section L.6.b.2 (pp. 111-12) speaks of 5 required key personnel (COP, DCOP, technical leads for components). Is this list here what should be in Section F.4.a?

Response 56: The list in Section F.4 shall be the final key personnel list at time of award. It is left blank because of the potential for alternative key personnel composition that an offeror may propose.

Question 57: Section L.6.2a also requests that the Offeror clearly specify annual and end of program results. Given the importance of co-design with beneficiary cities to ensure ownership and sustainability, can Offerors have flexibility to define some results after such co-design processes are implemented?

Response 57: For purposes of proposal evaluation, the annual and end of program results are requested based on the offeror’s understanding of the objectives of the activity and the SOW. This will be the basis for which the fixed fee schedule will be negotiated later on. At the implementation stage, the contractor will be given the flexibility to define some results or make adjustments after a co-design process with partner cities, subject to USAID approval.

Question 58: Are in-kind grants to beneficiary cities allowed for the purposes of strengthening governance and improving service delivery?

Response 58: The primary intent of the grants under contract provision of this solicitation is “to extend resources to non-government organizations and entities, including academic institutions, private sector organizations, civil society organizations, and other private enterprises whose participation is deemed crucial in achieving project goal and objectives.” This includes research and analytical services, capacity building, coalition building, policy advocacy, public outreach, and policy development to support the activity objectives. Outside of technical assistance and capacity development interventions for partner cities, USAID is willing to consider in-kind grants to cities on a limited basis but this needs to be strongly justified. Note also that other USAID activities that are co-located in the target cities (health, education, environment, etc.) will be working to improve service delivery. As stated in the SOW, the key is to identify DRG approaches that complement or support the work of other USAID interventions. There will likely be no need to provide in-kind grants to improve service delivery.

Question 59: Can USAID clarify what the envisioned timeline is between the Step 1 and Step 2 submissions – namely, the projected time it will take for Offerors to be notified that they should proceed to Step 2 and the projected amount of time that Offerors will have once they receive this notification to prepare their Step 2 submission?

Response 59: The timeline from submission of Step 1 proposal to notification for Step 2 is at least 3 weeks. Offerors will be given 2 weeks to prepare for the Step 2 proposal.

The actual dates of Step 2 proposal submission will be provided in the notification letters.

Question 60: Can USAID please clarify whether the Contractor, in performing this activity (and other activities pursuant to Objective 1), should concentrate on interventions to strengthen the enabling framework for “democratic governance” (e.g.

participation, transparency, responsiveness) or should address the topics deemed of highest priority for strengthening decentralization more broadly defined (e.g.

focus on fiscal decentralization, functional assignments)?

Response 60: Objective 1 (Strengthened enabling environment for decentralization) includes the need for analysis, policy advice, and evidence-based advocacy. Offerors will need to present their case as to which area to prioritize based on need, analytical gaps, and relevance to both the proposed technical approach and, equally important, the objectives of CHANGE.

Question 61: Can USAID provide clarification on the extent to which it wants the Contractor to propose additional activities (in the plural) to those activities already cited under each Objective? Following this directive could risk spreading the project’s relatively limited resources too thinly over five years (i.e. having to work at various levels of government, up to 16 LGUs) and on a number of complex service areas (e.g. education, health, water, economic development.)?

Response 61: The CHANGE contractor will primarily work to provide technical assistance and capacity development to both the supply and demand sides of good local governance (Objectives 2 and 3). The contractor will not be responsible for the delivery of basic services thus mitigating the risk of spreading resources too thinly. What the solicitation asks is for offerors to identify practical and relevant areas of complementarity with other USAID projects that are working with cities to improve service delivery. To illustrate the point, CHANGE’s work to ensure citizen oversight of local government procurement of health supplies, for example, could help ensure cost-effective and responsive health services. USAID encourages offerors to come up with other ideas for activities critical to achieving the CHANGE objectives.

Question 62: Section L.6.2.(b) (page 111) states: “If alternative key personnel positions are proposed, justification should be provided on the deviation from the minimum position requirements, and each alternative position must be supplemented with the respective position description, responsibilities, and minimum qualification requirements.” Could USAID please confirm that the offeror may propose alternative or additional key personnel positions and alternative minimum position requirements for the key personnel positions already listed in the RFP?”

Response 62: Yes, that is the intent of this option, however, the total number of key personnel positions should not exceed 5.

Question 63: Section L.7(C)(3)(b) (page 121) states that “Time and Material subcontracts will not be allowed.” We respectfully request that USAID provide offerors with the flexibility of entering into Time and Materials (T&M) type 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 type subcontract

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

● The prime contractor has the appropriate subcontract management systems in place to ensure that 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.

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 63: USAID retains the language. The reason for discouraging Time and Materials subcontracts is that such mechanism cannot ensure the maximum incentive for control of costs and performance based on deliverables.

Question 64: Section L.7(C)(3)(b) (page 121) requires major subcontractors without a NICRA to provide audited financials. Would USAID consider revising this requirement to allow major subcontractors to provide reviewed financial statements if they do not have available audited financial statements?

Response 64: USAID allows this for as long as the information in the financial statements provides ample support for the basis of the indirect cost rate(s) proposed.

Question 65: Section M.2.1(b) (page 126) lists three evaluation factors for the Step 1 technical proposal. Could USAID please clarify whether it will weight Evaluation Factors 1 to 3 for the Step 1 technical proposal equally?

Response 65: All factors are of equal importance. The RFP Amendment 1 articulates this weight description in Section M.2.1(b).

Question 66: Section M.2.2(b) (pages 130 to 133) lists four evaluation factors. Could USAID please clarify whether it will weight Evaluation Factors 1 to 4 for the Step 2 technical proposal equally?

Response 66: All factors are of equal importance. The RFP Amendment 1 articulates this weight description in Section M.2.2(b).

[nothing follows]