72049221R00001 (SPEED) - Amendment 1 (Appendix 1 - Response to Questions).pdf

72049221R00001 (SPEED) Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Response to Questions

The following are responses to questions received for the SPEED solicitation:

Question 1: Is there an incumbent contractor currently performing these services, if similar services have been performed in the past, or if this is a new requirement? If this is a follow-on requirement, could you please provide the previous contract or task order number?

Response 1: This is a new requirement. However, USAID’s E-PESO project worked on e-payments systems, contract number AID-492-C-15-00001

Question 2: Does USAID allow Fintech firms to be part of the collaborations who would be responding to this RFP? Or should they be engaged later on in the process, after contract award, as part of either (a) subcontractor discussions or (b) grant applications?

Response 2: This RFP does not specify nor mandate any collaboration requirements. It depends entirely on whether such firms would want to participate by submitting a proposal for this solicitation or reach out to other organizations for teaming arrangements for their respective offers. USAID is not privy to such arrangements prior to receipt of proposals.

Question 3: For the purposes of the draft Gender, Social Inclusion, Environmental and

Sustainability Plan, would USAID kindly provide the programmatic or the PAD-level Initial Environmental Examination (IEE), Request for Categorical Exclusion (RCE), and/or other environmental documentation that can support preparation of the relevant proposal elements?

Response 3: The RFP (under the discussions on “Gender, Social Inclusion, Environmental and Sustainability” in Section F.8) clarifies that “SPEED interventions will not directly affect the environment and is recommended for Categorical Exclusion, pursuant to 22 CFR 2013.2 (c)(1) and (2).” In the case of SPEED the IEE is part of a global document (PAD-level) which includes information for other activities.

To provide further information specific to SPEED, an Initial Environmental Examination or an Environmental Assessment is not required because the actions do not have an effect on the natural or physical environment. Specifically, as currently planned, activities fall into the following classes of action:

(a) Education, technical assistance, and training (216.2(c)(2)(i));

(b) Analyses, studies, and workshops (216.2(c)(2)(iii));

(c) Document and information transfer (216.2(c)(2)(v)); and

(d) Activities that will develop the capacity of recipient countries to engage in development planning (216.2(c)(2)(v)).

Question 4: Can USAID kindly share the Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) for SPEED and/or the EGDGE Program?

Response 4: Please see Response 3 above.

Question 5: On page 19, Section F.4.B, it states “The key personnel identified above are considered essential to the work being performed under this contract. The Contractor must remain responsible for providing such key personnel for full-time performance for the term of this contract unless otherwise agreed to by the Contracting Officer.” Is USAID amenable to the prime contractor exercising this responsibility through a subcontractor? In other words, would USAID be open to seeing a key personnel position filled by a subcontractor, so long as the prime contractor remained ultimately responsible for the filling of the position?

Response 5: Only the Chief of Party position was mandated to be an employee of the prime contractor [see Section L.5(C)4(a)] and USAID retains that restriction.

Question 6: Section F.4.a page 19 references the key personnel that contractor must furnish.

However, no positions were listed. Would USAID please clarify?

Response 6: The Key Personnel under Section F.4 will only be determined based on the final Key Personnel structure proposed by offerors.

Question 7: Section H.8(b)(1) (page 40) 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 his or her 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 7: This RFP Amendment 1 revised Section H.8(b)(1) to delete the salary history language.

Question 8: Section H.8(b)(1)(ii) (page 40) 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.7 (page 39).

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 8: Section H.8 does not restrict salary ranges exclusively to the Mission Local Compensation Plan (LCP). 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. This RFP Amendment 1 has revised the language in Section H.8(b)(1)(ii) to clarify.

Question 9: Section H.8(f) (page 42) states that consultants’ 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 9: This RFP Amendment 1 revises the language in Section H.8(f).

Question 10: We respectfully request that USAID remove the following sentence from section

H.36(n) “Copies of all reports received from grantees must be promptly forwarded to the COR,” given that there is no requirement for the COR to receive grantee reports in the grants under contract (GUC) authorizing language of ADS 302, nor in ADS 303. We also respectfully request that USAID remove the following sentence from the same section: “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.” While USAID retains the rights to visitation and inspection for three years after the grant completion date, all records under this contract are considered property of the contractor and must be retained in accordance with the contractor’s records retention policies that originate from audit requirements.

Response 10: USAID retains the requirement for grantee reports to be furnished to the COR.

Question 11: H.36(o) (page 59): Please note that the Standard Provision entitled “Publications and Media Releases'' referenced in section H.36(o) was replaced by the Standard Provision entitled, “Submission to the Development Experience Clearinghouse and Data Rights (June 2012).” Since the provision does not contain a requirement to seek COR approval before USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) submission, we respectfully request that the requirement to obtain written clearance from the COR before submission to DEC be removed.

Response 11: USAID retains this requirement for COR approval. This RFP Amendment 1 revises Section H.26(o) to reflect the updated Standard Provision description.

Question 12: On page 67, we notice that FAR 52.242-2 “Production Progress Reports” is included in Section I of the RFP. Do “production progress reports” refer to the reports listed at F.6 Performance Standards? If not, could you please provide additional information about what production progress reports will be required?

Response 12: Production Progress Reports refers to the Reports and Deliverables or Outputs in Section F.8.

Question 13: On page 2, the RFP states that “Offerors must comply with FAR 52.204-7, the

System for Award Management (SAM) website, and complete the annual representations and certifications electronically at https://sam.gov/SAM/.” Then on page 105, the RFP states that the offeror must submit a completed section K with submission. Can USAID please confirm that USAID only requires an online submission for Section K through sam.gov?

Response 13: If offerors has an updated annual representation and certifications under its SAM registration, then offerors may furnish a copy of this record from SAM in lieu of the accomplished Section K of the solicitation.

Question 14: Section L.5(A) (page 94): Could USAID kindly clarify the difference between the

“Position Descriptions for Key Personnel” and “Personnel Matrix”? Should the Personnel Matrix include key personnel, non-key personnel, and consultants offering short-term technical assistance?

Response 14: Position Descriptions for Key Personnel are intended to outline the specific responsibilities and qualification requirements of such personnel. If the Offeror proposes alternative Key Personnel positions/structure and/or position requirements must also provide the position title and position responsibility and qualification requirements.

The Personnel Matrix must provide information about the non-Key positions in response to the evaluation under Factor 2, specifically subfactor M.2.2.2. This RFP Amendment 1 removes the “optional” nature of the Personnel Matrix and adds clarification for this mandatory annex.

Question 15: Section L.5(A) (page 94): Can USAID elaborate on the requirements of the Level of Effort (LOE) Chart annex? Would USAID allow Offerors to combine the level of effort annex with the position descriptions annex?

Response 15: The LOE chart must provide information on the level of effort for all personnel positions (both Key Personnel and non-Key) as mapped across years of implementation. With respect to the technical proposal, the LOE chart cannot be combined with the position description annex because the position description information is only required for proposed Key Personnel positions.

Question 16: Please specify page limit for the Draft Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan;

the Collaboration, Learning and Adapting Plan; and the Gender, Social Inclusion, Environmental, and Sustainability Plan.

Response 16: These documents are to be provided as Annex to the proposal. There are no prescribed page limits to these.

Question 17: On page 94, the RFP lists “Draft Sustainability, environmental, gender and social inclusion plans” as an annex. Can USAID confirm whether the RFP requires one plan or three separate plans?

Response 17: Offerors are given the option to present these plans as one integrated document or as separate documents for as long as they are properly identified/labelled.

Question 18: Section F.8 (page 22) indicates one of the required Reports/Deliverables to be the

“Gender, Social Inclusion, Environmental, and Sustainability Plans”. Later in Section L.5 (A) (page 94) lists out the second Annex to be the “Draft Sustainability, environmental, gender and social inclusion plans”. Can USAID clarify the correct title of this report/deliverable? Does USAID expect offerors to submit one draft plan that covers the four areas listed in the title or four separate draft plans in the second Annex?

Response 18: Section F.8 of the RFP indicates that the Gender, Social Inclusion, Environmental, and Sustainability Plans are to be submitted as the final version.

In Section L.5(A), these reports are indicted as “drafts”.

For draft plans, please see Response 17 above.

Question 19: Section L.5(a): The list of required proposal annexes includes both a Draft

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (MELP) and a Collaboration, Learning, and Adapting Plan (CLA Plan). In Section F.8, the CLA Plan is presented as a part the MELP. Can offerors include the CLA Plan as a part of the MELP or does USAID want these to be kept separate?

Response 19: CLA Plan must be integrated under the MEL Plan. This RFP Amendment 1 updates Section L.5(A) to merge these Plans into one document.

Question 20: L.5(B) (RFP pg.95): Please confirm that offerors may use an alternate font (e.g., Arial) for maps, charts, and exhibits.

Response 20: USAID confirms that alternative font types can be used for maps, chart, and exhibits. This RFP Amendment 1 also clarifies this in Section L.5(B)

Question 21: L.5(B) (RFP pg.95): Please confirm that offerors may use a font size smaller than

12 point for textboxes.

Response 21: The smaller size fonts are only applicable to maps, charts and exhibits. Text boxes are not exempt from the font size requirement unless these text boxes are integral part of maps, charts and/or exhibits.

Question 22: On pages 99-101, the RFP discusses Section L Factor 4: Relevant experience and past performance. Within this Past Performance, the RFP requests that the Offeror "List in an annex to the technical proposal up to five (5) for the prime offeror of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal." Can USAID please confirm that USAID will accept past performance including cooperative agreements?

Response 22: USAID confirms that past performance may include cooperative agreements as long as they are relevant and has the minimum information sought in Attachment J.7 of the RFP. This RFP Amendment 1 revised the past performance record requirements in Section L.5(C)6(a)(i) to clarify the quantities and types of past performance records.

Question 23: On pages 99-101, the RFP discusses Section L Factor 4: Relevant experience and past performance. Within this Past Performance, the RFP requests that the Offeror "List in an annex to the technical proposal up to five (5) for the prime offeror of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal." Can USAID please confirm that USAID will accept past performance including cooperative agreements to assist USAID with reviewing “a broad range of information related to an offeror’s performance”?

Response 23: Please see Response 22 above

Question 24: Page 99 of the RFP, regarding Past Performance states for the prime to submit up to five of the “most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal… contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity to the requirements of the SOO”. Can USAID confirm that the offeror may only submit contracts (i.e., not cooperative agreements) as Past Performance?

Response 24: Please see Response 22 above.

Question 25: Section L.5 (c) 6 Factor 4 Relevant experience and past performance. Point (a) indicates that “(a) The offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself, the contractor teaming arrangements, if any, and each major subcontractor….” However sub-point (i) indicates “(i) List in an annex to the technical proposal up to five (5) for the prime offeror of the most recent and relevant contracts…”, which conflicts with preceding point. Can USAID please confirm that the offeror can provide past performance information for its Major subcontractors and the number of reports allowed for each?

Response 25: Please see Response 22 above.

Question 26: May the offeror include an annex with letters of support from key stakeholders?

Response 26: This is not required. Annexes not included in the list in Section L.5(A) will not be evaluated/considered.

Question 27: The RFP requests that the Offeror prepare a Performance Work Statement (PWS) for submission to USAID/Philippines. Can USAID confirm that it will accept references to the consortia firm names, key personnel names, and collaborating organizations in the PWS?

● For instance, may the offering contractor’s and proposed subcontractors’ firm names appear in the PWS or should only alternative terms be used (e.g., “The Contractor”, “The Contractor’s consortium members)?

● May the offeror make specific references to the named key and non-key personnel in the PWS? May the offeror refer by name in the PWS to specific past project experiences of the offeror and proposed sub-contractors that could demonstrate effectiveness of the offeror’s approach?

● May the offeror refer by name in the PWS to collaborating organizations (e.g., businesses, NGOs, and business support providers, incubators, accelerators)?

Response 27: For proposal submission purposes, offerors can make references to specific names of the consortia, key and non-key personnel, and collaborating organizations in the PWS.

Question 28: Section L.5(c) 3: The RFP requests under Factor 1 for Offerors to provide a

Performance Work Statement (PWS). It would help if USAID could provide further clarification as to what content it desires here since this procurement type is quite a departure from USAID’s standard approach. As currently written in the RFP, USAID asks for a methodology and in several places asks for “how” results will be achieved, an emphasis that seems more fitting with conventional procurement approaches. These requests for methodology appear to be in conflict with how a PWS is described in USAID’s primer for this procurement approach – “Performance-Based Service Acquisition: A Guide for the USAID Practitioner” (2019) – which states that a PWS should focus on measurable results, not methods, and that references to “how” the work should be performed should be removed, where possible. Could USAID confirm that it still wants such methodology to be included despite USAID’s guidance that discourages this?

Related to this concern, the USAID primer also provides a template for a PWS matrix that includes outcomes, services, performance standards, acceptable quality levels, and monitoring methods. Does USAID want such a matrix to be included in the technical proposal? If so, can this be added as a separate annex since in our experience such a matrix, if done according to the USAID guidelines, is quite lengthy?

Response 28: USAID retains the requirement for offerors to demonstrate their methodology as such information will be the basis for evaluating proposals and determining the feasibility and innovativeness.

Question 29: L.5(C) (RFP pg. 97): In the Management and Staffing Plan, the RFP states that

“the total number of key personnel should not exceed 5 positions” (COP, DCOP, and three component leads). Please confirm that bidders may propose four component leads in total, one of whom would be non-key personnel.

Response 29: USAID confirms that offerors can propose less than 5 positions as Key Personnel positions, however,, offerors must clearly specify the Key Personnel positions.

Question 30: Section L.5 (C)(4)(b) (page 98) notes that the deputy chief of party will “be responsible for the overall administrative and operational aspects of the project.”

Also, in Section L.5 (C)(4)(c), USAID asks offerors to name component leads, but stipulates “the team lead for component 1 and 4 may be the same person”. To optimize the overall strength of the team and complementarity of skills/ experience, we respectfully ask that USAID give offerors the flexibility to propose key personnel positions and responsibilities in line with their proposed PWS and approach.

Response 30: In Section L.5(C)4, on page 97 of the RFP, the flexibility is provided (see extravet from RFP below):

“The Offeror must propose qualified individuals as key personnel and define their respective roles and responsibilities. The Offeror shall propose no less than the following five key personnel (Chief of Party, Deputy Chief of Party, and technical leads for each component) to lead the successful implementation of this activity. The total number of Key Personnel should not exceed 5 positions as per ADS 302.3.5.4.a (if alternative key personnel positions and/or position requirements 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). Key Personnel are expected to have the ability to manage teams of professionals to produce key results and outcomes.”

The above clarification is reflected in this RFP Modification 1.

Question 31: L.5(C) (RFP pg. 98): In the Management and Staffing Plan, the RFP states

“Component Team Leads: Leads for each of the four components... The team lead for component 1 and 4 may be the same person.” May bidders choose to combine the component 4 team lead position with the component 2 or component 3 team lead position, to best align with the expertise of each bidder’s component team lead candidates and best execute the objectives of the RFP?

Response 31: This RFP Amendment 1 clarifies the flexibility for Key Personnel composition as discussed in Response 30 above.

Question 32: Page 97 of the RFP (number 4) regarding Key Personnel states: “The total number of Key Personnel should not exceed 5 positions per ADS 302.3.5.4.a (if alternative key personnel positions are proposed, justification should be provided on the deviation from minimum position requirements, and each alternative position must be supplemented with the respective description, responsibilities, and minimum qualification requirements).” Does USAID have a preference for how justifications of deviations from Key Personnel descriptions be presented?

For example, should this justification be a separate annex, within position description for each Key Personnel Annex, or can it be incorporated in the overall management plan?

Response 32: Justification should be incorporated into the overall management plan. Please also see Response 30 for further clarification on the alternative position and position requirements.

Question 33: Page 98 of the RFP (number 4.A) regarding the Chief of Party requirements notes that “the proposed candidate should have at least fifteen (15) years of experience managing projects that are similar in size and scope.” Can you confirm the term “projects” is inclusive of equivalent experience in the private sector?

Response 33: Yes. Equivalent experience in project management in public, non-profit and private sector-is acceptable.

Question 34: Would USAID consider realignment of key personnel across the four objectives proposed in the RFP? Specifically, would USAID consider a different component lead for objective 4?

Response 34: Please see Response 30.

Question 35: Please confirm that offerors can submit an additional, optional annex containing

CVs for any named non-key personnel.

Response 35: This RFP Amendment 1 revises the Annex list that revised the Personnel Matrix from optional to mandated. This matrix intends to provide information for all personnel including non-Key and thus the CVs for non-Key are not required.

Question 36: Section L.5(C)(6)(d)(iii)(b) (page 101) states that offerors are required to supplement the narrative summary in (A) by providing a list of the recent contracts for the past five years for which the offeror submitted subcontract reports to eSRS (FAR 52.219-9(d)(10) and a copy of any similarly recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS. Could USAID please confirm that these reports can be submitted as a list, and that this does not require the full inclusion of the SF 294 forms for the past five years?

Response 36: This RFP Amendment 1 removes the requirement to submit eSRS reports.

Question 37: Section L.5(C)(5) (page 108) and the narrative in Section M.2.3 indicate that the monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) plan and collaborating, learning, and adapting (CLA) plan will be evaluated for Factor 3. However, the title of Section M.2.3 cites the Gender and Social Inclusion Plan as part of Factor 3. Can USAID confirm that:

● The GESI plan will not be evaluated under Factor 3, and

● The draft Sustainability, Environmental, Gender, and Social Inclusion

Plans cited in Section L.5(A) must be submitted with the proposal but will not be evaluated.

Response 37: This RFP Amendment 1 rephrases the heading of Section M.2.3 to read

“Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning/Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting Plan”. USAID confirms that the GESI plan will not be evaluated under Factor 3 but under Factor 1 instead. The draft Sustainability, Environmental, Gender, and Social Inclusion Plans are required for submission and will be evaluated under Factor 1 (see Subfactor M.2.1.2) as part of Additional Considerations of the SOO.

Question 38: In Section L.5.C.6 Factor 4: Relevant experience and past performance it states that, “The offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself, the contractor teaming arrangements, if any, and each major subcontractor (one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost)….” However, it is followed by, “List in an annex to the technical proposal up to five (5) for the prime offeror of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal.”

Please confirm past performance information is only required for the Prime offeror or also any major subcontractors?

Response 38: As stated in Response 22, this RFP Amendment 1 updates Section L.5(C)6(a)(i) to reflect: “List in an annex to the technical proposal up to five (5) for the prime offeror, and up to three (3) for each of the major subcontractors proposed (if any), of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal.”

Question 39: Definition of Major Subcontractor: On pages 94 and 105 it refers to major subcontractors as any firm utilizing 20% of the budget. On pg 101, however, it states that a major subcontractor could include firms that are considered “essential to successful project implementation”. The latter definition is more flexible and is preferred. Please confirm.

Response 39: If the question is related to the past performance information record submission requirement (see Response 38 above), then the offeror has the option to provide for past performance records of proposed subcontractors it determines to be essential, in addition to those that already represents 20% of the budget.

Question 40: RFP (pg. 1) states that the total cost plus fixed fee for the entire period is between a range of $15 million to $19.95 million. Can USAID provide the range for the Base Period and the range for Option Year 1?

Response 40: This RFP Amendment 1 provides additional information on the cost ranges in Section L.6(C)3.

Question 41: On page 103 and 104 on Fringe Benefits and Allowances, the RFP states that

“Fringe Benefits for local long-term staff must be budgeted as a separate item of cost and include only the social contributions (excluding income tax) in accordance with the labor law”. And on Allowances, the RFP further states “AIDAR 752.7028 provides guidance for differentials and allowances with further references to Standardized Regulations. Any proposed allowances should be broken down by specific type and by person and should be in accordance with offeror’s policies and the applicable regulations.” Since AIDAR 752.7028 only refers to expatriate allowances – not CCNs, can USAID confirm which category CCN allowances can be listed under?

Response 41: Fringe benefits for local long-term staff should not be construed as an allowance.

Should the offerors identify any specific allowance(s) for CCNs, it must be indicated/supported in the cost proposal as a separate (segregated from expatriates) cost item with the appropriate regulation (to be referenced in the budget narrative).

Question 42: L.6(C) (RFP pg. 104): The RFP states that offerors should include Grants Under Contract for a total of $800,000. Can USAID clarify if Grants under Contracts in the amount of $800,000 should be for the Base Period or Base Period plus Option Year 1?

Response 42: Because of recent internal policies within the agency, the Mission shall defer response to this question for a separate RFP Amendment to be issued later.

Question 43: Section L.6(C)(3)(b) (page 104) states that “Time and Materials subcontracts will not be allowed.” We 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 their indirect cost rates 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 adequately administered

● An organization has established indirect cost rates and the use of indirect cost rates is an integral part of their cost accounting standards

With strong prime contractor oversight and the requirement for subcontractors to undergo annual audits per the cost principles of FAR Part 31, this contracting mechanism serves as a tool to build our partners’ capacity to eventually have the financial and administrative ability to receive direct funding from USAID.

In cases where T&M subcontracts are prohibited and fixed-price mechanisms are not appropriate due to the scope of work, the most common option is to engage with organizations using cost-reimbursement subcontracts with indirect costs billed as direct costs typically — managing this kind of subcontract results in higher financial and administrative burden for prime contractors. They will have to review the subcontractor’s indirect costs every month and reduce overall cost control because monthly costs will vary significantly based on the fluctuation of indirect costs incurred by the subcontractor every month. Fixed multipliers under T&M subcontracts lessen the government’s cost risk of potential indirect cost increases and allow for a higher level of cost control and financial and administrative oversight by the prime contractor.

Response 43: T&M is the least preferred contract type (https://acqnotes.com/Attachments/Time-and-Materials%20and%20Labor-Hour%20Contracts.pdf). Section L.6 of this RFP Amendment 1 is revised to add qualifiers on allowability of Time and Materials subcontracts.

https://acqnotes.com/Attachments/Time-and-Materials%20and%20Labor-Hour%20Contracts.pdf https://acqnotes.com/Attachments/Time-and-Materials%20and%20Labor-Hour%20Contracts.pdf

Question 44: Subcontract, Pg. 104: It states that “Time and Material subcontracts will not be allowed”. Would USAID please delete this sentence? The reason is that in order to promote New Partnerships, particularly with local firms that may not have USAID contracting experience, our experience is that a Time and Materials contracts is the most flexible and also allows for cost containment when properly executed. Very few local firms – particularly new, start up, innovative firms, have the accounting systems to abide by Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts. And the nature of the SPEED project is such that it is sometimes preferable to provide technical assistance on a LOE basis rather than via deliverables which are not always possible to define in advance – particularly if there is an ongoing co-design process taking place after contract award.

Response 44: See Response 43 above.

Question 45: On page 105, section on Fixed Fee, the RFP states that “The Offeror must propose a fixed fee schedule by accomplishing the table in section B.5 Payment of Fixed Fee of this solicitation, for USAID consideration.” Can USAID confirm that the RFP is referring to section B.4 rather than B.5 Indirect Costs?

Response 45: USAID confirms that payment of fixed fee is referring to Section B.4. This RFP Amendment 1 corrects the reference in Section L.6(C)3 under Fixed Fee.

Question 46: Section B.4 ( p. 10) Payment of Fixed Fee: This states that the fixed fee will be based on Section C and F deliverables. Will there be some flexibility and allowance by USAID to include other deliverables/outcomes linked to the fixed fee that are not part of the Section C and F deliverables?

Response 46: Typically these would be from Section C and F. Should offerors identify any other additional deliverables outside of these, it must be properly justified and noted in the budget narrative and be included in Section F.

Question 47: Section L.6(c) 3: The RFP states that the Grants under Contract for this project will for a total of $800,000. Is this total inflexible or can offerors propose to allocate more of the proposed project budget to grants?

Response 47: See Response 42.

Question 48: USAID defines Major Subcontractors as those “whose costs exceed 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost or who are otherwise defined by the prime to be essential to successful project implementation,” but requires budgets with the same level of detail as that of the prime (p. 104). Can USAID clarify whether detailed budgets are required for all subcontractors or just for major subcontractors?

Response 48: Detailed budget breakdown and narrative are required for subcontractor(s) defined as major and those identified as essential by offerors.

Question 49: Would USAID please confirm if the budget narrative is required for the subcontractors? If yes, please advise if this applies to major subcontractors, or all subcontractors.

Response 49: See Response 48 above.

Question 50: On page 106 to 107, the RFP lists Evidence of Responsibility as 8th cost proposal requirement, then the next requirement is #10. Legislative Reporting Information.

Can USAID confirm that there are no additional required cost annexes associated with requirement #9?

Response 50: This RFP Amendment 1 corrects the numbering for the Legislative Reporting Information as item “9” under Section L.6(C).

Question 51: Section L.6(C)(5) (page 108) states that Part 5 shall be a “Representation under

FAR 52.204- 24(d)(2).” However, Section L.8 (page 109) of the RFP seems to ask for this as an annex. Can USAID please confirm that this can be submitted as Part 5 of the Cost Proposal?

Response 51: RFP Amendment 1 removes the mention of “annex” in Section L.8.

Question 52: M.1 (a), pg. 112: USAID states that it plans to go to award “without discussions”.

Does this apply to technical as well as cost? Or will USAID plan to allow firms the chance to modify cost proposals?

Response 52: Award without discussions covers both technical and cost considerations. Under such circumstances, offerors can no longer revise its cost proposal.

Question 53: Section M.2.1 Factor 1 – Performance Work Statement includes two sub sections, M.2.1.1 Performance Work Statement (PWS) and M.2.1.2 Performance Work Statement (PWS) which are titled the same but have different descriptions. Could USAID please clarify the intended title for M.2.1.2. to ensure offerors respond appropriately?

Response 53: This RFP Amendment 1 revised the heading of Section M.2.1.2 to read “Additional Considerations of the SOO.” Section M.2.1.2 intends to evaluate how the offerors have factored in the specific “Other Considerations” of the SOO into the PWS.

Question 54: Evaluation sub-factor M.2.1.2 (RFP pg. 113): This sub-factor reads “How the

PWS incorporates the requirements mentioned in Section V Additional Considerations of the SOO (Attachment J.1 of the solicitation), particularly for gender and social inclusion, private sector engagement, sustainability, environmental compliance and the use of the grants under contract.” Please confirm that offerors will be evaluated against the additional considerations exactly as written in the SOO Section V: Additional Considerations, which is: 1.

Gender and Social Inclusion (SOO pg. 12), 2. Engagement with the private sector, donors and other USAID activities (SOO pg. 12), 3. Sustainability (SOO pg. 13),

4. Environmental Guidelines and Climate Risk Management, and 6. Grants Under Contract (SOO pg. 14).

Response 54: USAID confirms that M.2.1.2 will be evaluated against the aforementioned Additional Considerations of the SOO.

Question 55: Section M.2.3.2. Factor 3 - Collaboration, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) plan includes a description that seems to be for the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) plan. Could USAID please provide an updated description of the MEL plan to ensure offerors are responsive to USAID’s MEL needs?

Response 55: The description under M.2.3.2 is clearly referenced to the CLA aspect of the proposal. USAID retains the description under M.2.3.1 and M.2.3.2. Section L.5(C)5 includes reference links to USAID’s MEL and CLA guidance.

Question 56: Section M.2.3. Factor 3 is titled ‘Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning/Gender and Social Inclusion Plan’, however neither sub-factors include a Gender and Social Inclusion Plan. Could USAID please clarify what sub-factors are to be written about for Factor 3.

Response 56: This RFP Amendment 1 corrects the heading for Section M.2.3 to read “Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning/Collaborating, Learning and Adapting Plan” to be consistent with the subfactor headings. The Gender and Social Inclusion Plan will be evaluated under Factor 1.

Question 57: Attachment J.1: Statement of Objectives, IV Objectives (SOO pg. 8): USAID states that a desired minimum outcome for Objective 1 is “$300 million in new investment in SMEs engaged in e-commerce.” Please confirm that this refers to Philippine SMEs investing $300 million in their own e-commerce and/or digital transformation capabilities.

Response 57: USAID confirms that new investments within SMEs to boost their own e-commerce capabilities will be considered. Equity investments by outside parties, both foreign and domestic, to recipient SMEs will also be counted.

Question 58: Attachment J.1: Statement of Objectives (SOO pg. 9): USAID states that SPEED

“will build on the achievements of USAID's E-PESO program that helped establish a National Retail Payments System in the country and promoted the transition from a cash-based economy to an electronic one.” Can USAID kindly share all E-PESO quarterly and annual reports from FY20 and FY21? They are not currently available on USAID’s Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) as of January 19, 2021.

Response 58: The pertinent reports of E-PESO are attached in this RFP Amendment 1.

Question 59: Attachment J.1: Statement of Objectives (SOO pg. 9): USAID states that a desired minimum outcome for Objective 2 is “3-5 new payment systems established under the NRPS that address financial inclusion (including SMEs and the larger consumer economy).” Can USAID please confirm that various services and business models (i.e. government payments systems, private multilateral payment arrangements, private companies offering payment aggregation, processing or gateways) fall under the definition of a payment system?

Response 59: USAID recognizes the Philippine government's definition of a payment system, that covers institutional frameworks, rules, procedures, systems and standards for the settlement of financial transactions. The scope of this solicitation focuses on the establishment of payments systems that will accelerate B2B and B2C transactions.

Question 60: On page 10 of the Scope of Work, the RFP cites the Ken Research, “Philippines Express and E-Commerce Logistics Market Outlook to 2023”. Can USAID provide the Ken Report to the offerors?

Response 60: All reports referred to in the RFP are available on-line.

Question 61: Section J.1.IV: Under Objective 1, USAID lists as a desired outcome as “$300 million in new investments in SMEs engaged in e-commerce.” How is it defined?

Would USAID consider removing this metric or provide added clarification on this intended outcome? Instead, USAID could consider introducing the amounts leveraged with the private sector through grants made under the SPEED project as a desired outcome.

Response 61: USAID retains this requirement. Amounts leveraged through grants may also be considered.

Question 62: A strategic approach of SPEED is to “undertake efforts to engage companies and investors to explore opportunities for collaboration and where and when possible, cocreate new solutions and innovative approach to achieve project outcomes.”

The proposed grant funding will be a crucial factor to mobilize private sector co-investment in large-scale initiatives that support attaining the project’s desired outcomes. Given the maximum leverage rate such grants can achieve, will USAID consider increasing the total grant budget to maximize private investment in transformative and innovative solutions for SME digitization?

Response 62: Please see Response 47.

Question 63: What is USAID’s proposed resource allocation across each of the 4 components?

Response 63: Because this is an SOO, resource allocation is dependent on the respective offeror’s implementation strategy and cost allocation across objectives.

Question 64: For objective 1, given the emphasis on support to growth and technology startups, would USAID consider adding related outcomes?

Response 64: Offeror can propose additional outcomes to complement the illustrative outcomes provided in the RFP.

Question 65: Who is the key counterpart within the Government for the SPEED project?

Response 65: The primary counterpart will be the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). The project is also expected to work closely with the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) for e-payments and fintech.

Question 66: Given the proliferation of several China supported/majority owned payment processing, logistics and e-commerce platforms, what would be USAID’s position on SPEED partnering with such platforms?

Response 66: USAID has specific restrictions in accordance with covered telecommunication equipment, systems and services in accordance with Section 889 of the John S.

McCain National Defense Authorization Act. Offerors are required to understand the requirements of FAR 52.204-24 to 26 and the submission requirements in Section L.8 and L.9.

Question 67: Objective 3 outcomes as relates to number of “new SMEs with improved access to delivery services” and number of “new SMEs with improved in-house logistics operations” will require more clarity.

Response 67: This refers to new SMEs connected to logistics providers for their on-line business or with improved internal logistics operations/enterprise management systems assuming they already are undertaking on-line deliveries/transactions.

Question 68: Would USAID make public the recent reports and studies conducted by the

USAID EPESO and other relevant activities, including information about the recent partnerships with prominent e-commerce and social platforms?

Response 68: Please see Response 58.

Question 69: Attachment J.5: U.S. Embassy Philippines Compensation Plan, Note: (a) states that fringe benefits amount to PhP18,130 per employee per annum. Can USAID confirm that offerors should budget that amount for each local employee regardless of the grade level of the employee? Can USAID kindly confirm that this amount includes all “social contributions in accordance with local labor law” (per L.6 (C) Contents Fringe benefits: page 103?

Response 69: Attachment J.5 is just a reference for what the Mission has established in terms of fringe. But for purposes of proposals, the offeror is expected to estimate for the statutory fringe benefits of CCNs in accordance with local labor laws appropriate for the position. Please see also the specific instructions under Section L.6(C)3(b) under Fringe Benefits.

End of Q&A