Amendment 1 - DCCP RFP No. 72049222R00003.pdf

(x)

72049222R00003 x x copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR

OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted , such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

720492

00000 USAID/Philippines

See Block 16C

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.

Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended , by one of the following methods: (a) By completing

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

12/16/2021

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

1 REQ-492-22-000015

is extended,x x 1

Jennifer L. Crow, Supervisory Contracting Officer

Digital Connectivity and Cybersecurity Partnership (DCCP) - Pacific

The purposes of this amendment are to:

1.Respond to the questions received from prospective offerors on January 14, 2022;

2.Extend the closing date of proposal submission to February 18, 2022; and 3.Revise the RFP to reflect the changes made in response to the questions.

RFP No. 72049222R00003 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with Amendment No. 1 and is attached to this amendment. Questions and answers are also attached to this amendment as Amendment No. 1 Questions and Answers.

1/26/2022

JENNIFER LYNN

CROW (affiliate)

Digitally signed by JENNIFER LYNN CROW (affiliate) Date: 2022.01.26 15:14:52 +08'00'

RFP No. 72049222R00003, Amendment 1 Digital Connectivity and Cybersecurity Partnership (DCCP) - Pacific

Questions and Answers

General

1. We would have liked to respond to the following call for projects: DCCP-PACIFIC RFP No.

72049222R00003 published on December 16, 2021. To do this, can you put us in touch with the right people?

USAID: The RFP provides the instructions on how an offeror will submit its proposal. This amendment clarifies and addresses all questions to help offerors in their proposal preparation.

2. I didn’t see a link that would take me to the details of the contract. Is it possible that someone can reach out to me and provide me this information?

USAID: The solicitation document provides the requirement that will be set forth in the contract-the link for this information herein: DCCP-Pacific RFP No. 72049222R00003. You can also go to https://sam.gov and put the Solicitation number 72049222R00003 in the search box.

3. It seems that attachments for Digital Connectivity and Cybersecurity Partnership (DCCP) -

Pacific were not published. Will those become available soon?

USAID: The attachment for the DCCP-Pacific solicitation was published and the document included as an attachment. Please see DCCP-Pacific RFP No. 72049222R00003.

4. Could USAID clarify whether offerors are required to only submit responses to Step 1, Technical Concept Note, by February 9, 2022 (Manila Time)? Please indicate whether offerors will subsequently receive an advisory notification after February 9, 2022 and if USAID will then provide a new submission due date for responses to Step 2, Full Technical and Cost Proposal.

USAID: Yes, Offerors are required to only submit responses to Step 1, Technical Concept Note no later than 12:00NN, February 18, 2022 (Manila Time). Offerors will receive an advisory notification to inform whether the offeror’s proposal qualifies or does not qualify for Step 2 submission of Full Technical Proposal after February 18, 2022. Offerors who qualify for Step 2 will be informed of the new submission due date to respond to Step 2, Full Technical and Cost Proposal.

5. Cover page – Could USAID confirm that offerors are required to only submit responses to Step 1, Technical Concept Note, by February 9, 2022 (Manila Time)? Please indicate whether offerors will subsequently receive an advisory notification after February 9, 2022 and if USAID will then provide a new submission due date for responses to Step 2, Full Technical and Cost Proposal.

USAID: Please see response to question 4.

6. Will USAID allow another opportunity for offerors to ask questions upon launch of Step 2 in the procurement process?

USAID: Yes, only offerors who qualify for Step 2 will have the opportunity to ask questions.

7. Section H.6 Page 40 Due to the global nature of the digital providers in the Pacific region, such as

Australia and Japan, would USAID consider changing the geocode to 935 from 937 in order to access global services and resources?

USAID: USAID will take this into consideration at the time of award.

8. Sections H.8, H.30 Pages 41 & 55 Limitation on Acquisition of Information Technology clause is included twice in the RFP at Section H.8 and H.30. Please review and revise.

USAID: H.30 is deleted. Please see the revised RFP.

9. Section H.29(14), page 54: We respectfully request that USAID remove the following sentence from Section H.29(14) “Copies of all reports received from grantees must be promptly forwarded to the COR,” — the COR will be kept informed of grant program implementation by other means such as project-level quarterly and annual performance reports, however, there is no requirement for the COR to receive grantee reports in ADS 303 or the GUC authorizing language of ADS 302.

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.

USAID: Deleted. Please see the revision in Section H.29(14). However, USAID retains the right to review all documents and reports upon request.

10. Section H.29 (15), page 54: Please note that the Standard Provision entitled “Publications and

Media Releases” referenced in Section H.29(15) 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 DEC submission, we respectfully request that the requirement to obtain written clearance from the COR before submission to DEC be removed.

USAID: We have reviewed your request and for quality control, USAID retains the right to approve DEC submissions.

11. Section H.32, page 56: Is USAID at the proposal stage stating that Alternate 1 of FAR 52.244-2 will not apply to the resulting contract?

USAID: Alternate 1 of FAR 52.244-2 will apply to the resulting contract. Section H.32 is deleted from the RFP.

Further, can USAID please clarify when USAID states under H.32 (c), “in addition to the requirements of FAR 52.244-2 and prior to awarding any subcontract, the Contractor must notify the Contracting Officer in writing of Contractor’s intent to subcontract and obtain Contracting Officer’s approval to award said subcontract(s).” Is USAID requiring that all subcontracts at any value be approved by the Contracting Officer (CO)? Requiring CO approval for all subcontracts will seriously impede completing the required deliverables in a timely manner.

USAID: Section H.32 has been deleted from the RFP.

12. Section H.32, page 56: We respectfully request that Section H.32 Subcontracting Requirements be removed from the RFP, since the substance of the clause is already covered by FAR 52.244-2, FAR 52.215-23, and FAR 52.215-2. As currently written, no minimum thresholds or limitations are specified; applying H.32’s requirements to local subcontracts of all types and any value will be excessively burdensome for both the implementing partner and USAID.

USAID: Section H.32 has been deleted from the RFP.

13. If USAID does not remove H.32 entirely, we respectfully request the following modifications to the clause:

• Qualify that these additional requirements only apply to subcontracts that will include a lower-tier subcontract. This limitation will significantly reduce the burden on USAID and implementing partners without compromising on the objectives of the clause stated in paragraph (b).

• Qualify that these additional requirements will only apply above the simplified acquisition threshold. Without this limitation, even simple vendor agreements or operational service subcontracts would be subjected to these approval requirements; this would likely result in programmatic delays and increased implementation costs.

• Qualify that these additional requirements do not apply if Alternate 1 of FAR 52.244-2 applies. Alternate 1 already provides sufficient assurance to USAID of the Contractor’s capacity to accomplish the objectives of the clause stated in paragraph (b).

• Remove paragraph H.32(f), as its substance is already covered by FAR 52.215-2.

Alternatively, limit its application to cost reimbursement or time-and-materials-type subcontracts. This level of record-keeping is not appropriate for fixed-price subcontracting where the subcontractor already bears the cost and performance risk and payment is strictly based on completion of fixed-price deliverables.

• Revise paragraph H.32(h) as follows: “Intentional submission of false information required by this clause or willful, grossly negligent non-compliance with the requirements of the clause must be considered a material breach of the contract.” Good faith mistakes in complying with the requirements of H.32 should not be considered a material breach, especially given the clause’s complexity and extensive scope of application.

USAID: Please see response to question 12.

14. Section I.5 Page 73 In light of the current judicial stay on enforcement of the federal vaccine mandate for contractors, would USAID consider deleting this clause from the RFP until the stay is lifted?

USAID: USAID will not delete this clause as the place of performance identified in the solicitation is not in a U.S. state or outlying area subject to a court order prohibiting the application of requirements pursuant to the Executive Order (hereinafter, “Excluded State or Outlying Area”).

AAPD No. 21-042 (Revision 3), issued on December 14, 2021, provides guidance related to any court order affecting the implementation of E.O. 14042 and is incorporated in the RFP.

15. Sections L and M, Evaluation Factors: Would USAID please confirm that offerors should follow the numbering of evaluation factors in Section M? Section L uses Factors 1, 2, and 3, for the evaluation Factors 3, 4, and 5 listed in Section M.

USAID: Offerors must follow the numbering of evaluation factors in Section M consistent with the instructions to offerors in Section L. For Step 1 - Section L and M use Factors 1 and 2 only.

For Step 2 - Section L and M use Factors 3, 4, and 5.

16. Section L.5 (p. 101) – Could USAID share the anticipated timeline for the advisory notification following Step 1 Technical Concept Note review and the anticipated due date for submission of the Step 2 full technical and cost proposals?

USAID: The timelines will be provided after the review has been completed. The advisory notification letter will contain this information.

17. Section L.6 (p. 102) – Could USAID confirm offerors may use a non-serif font for maps, charts, and exhibits?

USAID: No. Offerors may use font size smaller than 12-point as long as they remain legible using Times New Roman or similar serif typeface.

18. Section L.6 (p. 102) – As with maps, charts, and exhibits, may the offeror use a smaller, clearly legible font for textboxes?

USAID: Yes. The RFP states that offerors may use font size smaller than 12-point as long as they remain legible using Times New Roman or similar serif typeface.

19. Section L.6 (P. 103) – Can USAID please confirm or clarify the requested subject lines for Step 1 and Step 2 proposal submissions? The listed subjects instructed on page 103 do not seem to be a suitable length for an email subject line.

USAID: The email subject line for Step 1 is: Solicitation No. 72049222R00003 DCCP-Pacific Activity [Offeror’s name] TECHNICAL CONCEPT NOTE PROPOSAL (STEP 1) Email 1 of XX

The email subject line for Step 2 is: Solicitation No. 72049222R00003 DCCP-Pacific Activity [Offeror’s name] TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (STEP 2) Email 1 of XX

20. Section L.7 Page 105 Can USAID confirm that Offerors may include an acronym list exempt from the page limit as part of Step 1 and Step 2 submissions?

USAID: Acronym is not part of the Step 1 list of Annexes; Acronym list in Step 2 is optional and is not counted against the page limit.

21. Section L.7, page 106. Regarding both the Step 1 and Step 2 submissions, would USAID allow an acronym list that is not counted toward the respective page limits?

USAID. Please see response to question 20.

22. Section L.7, L.8 Page 105 Will USAID provide feedback on Technical Concept Notes deemed high/some confidence? Will Offerors participating in Step 2 have an opportunity to ask additional questions of USAID and receive answers before the Full Technical Proposal is submitted?

USAID: Yes.

23. Section L.7 Page 107 Does USAID have a specific number of pages as part of the 12-page limit it would like Offerors to use in addressing Factor 2 in the Technical Concept Note?

USAID: Offerors are encouraged to present their proposal within the 12 page limit. There are no specific page limits across sections of the proposal.

24. Section L.8, pages 108-109. Regarding the Step 2 submission, USAID states “The full technical proposal should be limited to 30 pages inclusive of the elements identified in this section and all attachments (including those that are not included in the page limitation below). Could USAID clarify that the cover page/letter, table of contents, executive summary, and all Annexes are not counted toward the 30-page limitation?

USAID: Yes. Cover page/letter, table of contents, executive summary, and all Annexes are not counted toward the 30-page limitation. However, please follow the limitation set for executive summary which is 2 pages only.

25. Would USAID please confirm that since L.16 (p. 122) is only required for the successful offeror, that offerors do not have to submit legislative reporting information in their proposal? However, if this is required from offerors, please provide instructions as to where offerors should include this information in their proposals.

USAID: The subcontractor’s information should be provided in the proposed subcontractor’s cost proposal.

Technical Questions

26. Section F.6.2, p.16: The RFP states that “Where projects or activities are implemented in particular locations, the MEL Plan must include a discussion on ways to map and track the type of intervention by project component and fund use.” Can USAID provide more clarity on how it anticipates that funds used for specific interventions should be tracked under this contract?

USAID: USAID tracks and reports all activities under its Development Information Solution (DIS) platform. The Offeror’s MEL plan should indicate how this will be tracked and reported by implementing partners.

27. Section F.8, p.26: Per the schedule of deliverables, the Final MEL Plan is due 30 days after award, while the Annual Work Plan is due 45 days after award. Since it is important that revisions to the work plan be reflected in the MEL Plan, would USAID consider amending the schedule of deliverables? A suggestion would be to have the Draft MEL Plan due 30 days after award, and the Final MEL Plan due upon or after submission of the Draft 1st-year Work Plan.

USAID: Please see the revised RFP. The MEL Plan is due 30 days after submission of the annual work plan.

28. Section J.1, p. 140: In the Statement of Objectives, USAID has included the following indicator “Number of institutions with cyber security practices in country that meet the criteria for cyber security Maturity Indicator Level 1 (MIL1) or higher in several or more domains as a result of USG assistance.” Would USAID consider expanding this indicator to one that would allow for similar criteria that would allow more wide adoption/application?

USAID: These are illustrative indicators. Offerors may propose indicators that more accurately capture intended outcomes.

29. Section L.7, p. 106: An Organizational Profile is listed as a required annex in Section L7 on Page

126. No further requirements for the Organizational Profile are provided.

a. Please confirm the Organizational Profile must be included as an Annex.

USAID: Yes.

b. Please provide requirements for the Organization Profile.

USAID: Organizational profile should include information about the main offeror’s company, its history, specialization, and resource and organizational capability.

30. Section L.7, page 106. For the Step 1 submission, USAID requests an Organizational Profile

Annex with no instructions on the required content. Would USAID provide instructions for the Annex or consider removing the requirement?

USAID: Please see answer to question 29b.

31. Section L.7.2, p. 107: The RFP requires past performance references to be submitted by major subcontractors (those exceeding 20%).

a. As offerors will not be providing cost proposals at this stage, and therefore cannot be certain if subcontractors will qualify as major subcontractors, will USAID consider waiving the requirement to submit past performance references from major subcontractors for Step 1 and instead allow for updated past performance submission in Step 2?

USAID: For Step 1 submissions, past performance information is required for the prime offeror and highly desired for known subcontractors. Offerors may be requested to submit an update in Step 2 for major subcontractors.

b. If USAID will not allow updated past performance in Step 2, would USAID be willing to accept past performance from subcontractors that will play a significant role but may not reach the 20% threshold?

USAID: Please see response in question 31a.

32. L.7.2, Factor 2, Past Performance (p. 107) – Prime Offerors are instructed to provide past performance information for up to 5 (for the prime) of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal. Could USAID confirm offerors may provide recent and relevant cooperative agreements as past performance information for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal?

USAID: Yes, Offerors may submit recent and relevant cooperative agreements as past performance information.

33. L.7.2, Factor 2, Past Performance (pp. 107-108) – Could USAID confirm “3. Quality Awards or

Certifications” and “4. Performance in Using Small Business Concerns”, are both to be included in the Past Performance Information (PPIs) Annex, and that does not count against the 12-page concept paper limit?

USAID: Yes, items 3 and 4 of the Past Performance under Factor 2 should be included in the PPI Annex and does not count against the 12-page technical concept note limit.

Section L.7.2, p. 108: The RFP requires Offerors to “submit past performance information where it utilized or awarded to small business concerns. Provide a narrative summary of your organization's use of small business concerns over the past three (3) years.” Please confirm this should be included in the Past Performance annex and not in the Relevant Experience section of the Technical Concept Paper.

USAID: Yes, small business information should be included in the Past Performance annex.

34. Section L.7, p. 106-107: Please confirm that Offeror’s proposals for Step 1 should not include performance indicators or targets as part of the Results/Logical Framework. Per our understanding, performance indicators and targets are only requested in Step 2 proposals.

USAID: That is correct. Performance indicators and targets will be included in the proposed MEL plan under Step 2 proposals.

35. Section L.8 and M: The RFP includes instructions for including a MEL plan and CLA plan in Step 2 under both Factor 1 and Factor 3 (or Factor 3 and 5 per Section M). The descriptions of what the MEL plan and CLA plan should include vary slightly under each Factor.

a. Could USAID please confirm that the MEL plan and CLA plan is under Factor 3 only

(Performance Indicators and Targets, also Factor 5 per Section M), and amend the RFP to include only one description of instructions for both of these plans under Factor 3 (Factor 5 per Section M)?

USAID: The RFP is amended to correct the number sequencing of the factors mentioned. The MEL and CLA plans are under Factor 5 in both Sections L and M. Please see the revised RFP.

b. Also, please confirm that the MEL plan and CLA plan will be evaluated under Factor 3 only

(Factor 5 per Section M).

USAID: The MEL and CLA plans will be evaluated under Factor 5 only. The RFP is amended to reflect the correct number sequencing of the factors mentioned. Please see the revised RFP.

36. Section L.8, p. 109: The RFP requires submission of biodatas as an annex to the Technical

Proposal. However, as biodatas contain cost information, which is not allowed in technical volumes, would USAID please remove this requirement from the technical proposal instructions?

USAID: The cost information on the key personnel should be included in the cost proposal and not the technical proposal.

37. Section L.8, Annexes (p. 109) – Please confirm that for Step 2, Submission of full technical proposal, Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheets (Form AID 1420-17) should be submitted only with the cost proposal (see L.9(C)2.iv.a., p. 115) and not in an annex to the technical proposal, given these documents can contain cost/salary information.

USAID: Please see response to question 36.

38. Section L.9(C)2.(iv)(b)b., p. 115: “Compensation Plan”, USAID has listed “illustrative” titles.

Would USAID please confirm that aside from the key personnel already identified in Section F, offerors may propose their own position titles?

USAID: Titles for Key Personnel are specified in Section F.10.

39. F.10, Key Personnel (p. 28) – Paragraph (1) states that there are “three required positions below” to be included of the up to five designated key personnel positions allowable. On p. 112, Factor 2: Management and Staffing Plan, USAID states that “no less than the following five key personnel” are required to include: “Chief of Party, Deputy Chief of Party, and technical leads for the four components – (Offeror may determine based on their approach whether the same individual can be assigned as Objective team lead for Objectives 2 and 3).”

a. Can USAID confirm that it expects Offerors to propose 5 Key Personnel?

USAID: Key personnel are limited to five personnel. Offerors can propose merging positions to comply with the limit. Key personnel are specified in the RFP. The RFP is amended to reflect the correct number sequence of this factor (Factor 4 instead of Factor 2). Please see Section L.8 of the revised RFP.

b. Would USAID please confirm that offerors may either combine the leadership of two components into the scope of work of one individual, or alternately designate technical leads for three of the four components, but may choose to have 1 of the leads for a technical component not be a key personnel role?

USAID: Yes. Keeping in mind that there are 5 required key personnel positions (a) Chief of Party (COP) (b) Deputy Chief of Party (DCOP); (c) 3 Objective Team Leads). All team leads are considered key personnel as provided for in the RFP. Offerors may propose combining assignments to cover all components.

c. With this approach, would offerors be allowed to provide CVs for non-key, but important senior technical roles in order for USAID to evaluate the competencies and expertise of these candidates to contribute to the project to contribute to successful implementation?

USAID: Information for non-key personnel is not required.

40. Section F.10, Key Personnel (p. 29) – USAID states that the requirements for the Chief of Party position include “a minimum of ten (10) years of recent management experience at a senior level position on successful projects(s) with similar magnitude, scope to DCCP and demonstrated leadership towards achieving results.” Given many highly relevant senior-level experts have careers that have work spanning across donor-funded development projects, leadership roles in the private sector or ICT-focused organizations, and managing initiatives within government agencies, would USAID consider revising this qualification to read, “a minimum of ten (10) years of recent management experience in senior level positions, such as on successful projects(s), in the private sector, in organizations, and/or government institutions, leading activities with similar magnitude, scope to DCCP and with demonstrated leadership towards achieving results”?

USAID: Relevant experience from the private sector, government and other ICT-focused organizations will be considered in the evaluation for the COP position.

41. Section F.10, Key Personnel (p. 30) – The requirements for the Objective Team Leads include “a minimum of five (5) years of professional experience in the relevant field of his/her assigned objective and in managing teams, project design and planning, budgeting.” Many relevant experts for this role, particularly those hailing from DCCP-Pacific’s target region, have a combination of experience that may include on donor-funded initiatives, in the private sector, and government agencies. In order to provide the most qualified and highest caliber candidates for DCCP-Pacific, could USAID please confirm that experience managing teams, project design and planning, and budgeting not only on donor-funded projects, but also for activities in the private sector and government agencies is considered equally relevant and permissible within these qualifications?

USAID: Relevant experience from the private sector, government and other ICT-focused organizations will be considered in the evaluation for the Objective team lead positions.

42. Attachment J.1, Statement of Objectives (p. 138) – Under Objective 3 USAID states, "This activity will support broadband access and adoption across relevant social sectors, such as health and education." Does USAID envision support across relevant social sectors at the institutional level (e.g. public servants within schools and health clinics) or rather at the user level (e.g.

patients, students)?

USAID: Improved access and adoption are viewed from the user level or demand perspective.

43. Section J.1 Page 140 Of the 12 countries that the USAID DCCP-Pacific is supporting, does

USAID have any further guidance on priorities or emphasis for a particular country or sub-region?

USAID: Offerors are encouraged to propose criteria for prioritization in country or sub-region selection.

44. Section J.1 Page 140 Will USAID consider making the country location of the PMO the choice of the Offeror to optimize the proposed technical approach and regional programming?

USAID: Offerors can propose location of the PMO subject to USAID approval upon award of the contract.

45. Attachment J.1, Statement of Objectives, F.a Place of Performance (p. 140) – Would USAID accept an alternative management approach in which the main Project Management Office is in a different Pacific Island Country (PIC) suggested by the Offeror, with a secondary field office in Port Moresby, PNG?

USAID: Please see response to question 44.

46. Section L.7 Page 106 Can USAID clarify what Offerors are required to provide in the Organizational Profile Annex required as part of Step 1 submission? Also, is there a page limit for this Annex?

USAID: Please see response to question 29b. There is no page limit to the Annex.

47. Section L.7 (p. 106) Could USAID clarify the format and what information is to be included in the "Organizational profile" Annex?

USAID: Please see answer to question no. 29b.

48. Section L.7 105, 107 Are Offerors required to address Past Performance as part of the 12-page Technical Concept Note or can Past Performance be addressed entirely in the annex?

USAID: Yes, past performance can be entirely in the Annex with a reference in the technical concept note.

49. Section L.8, M.2.2 108, Page 129 Can USAID please explain how an Offeror’s Technical

Concept Note will be incorporated or factored into the Full Technical Proposal / Step 2 submission and review process?

USAID: Offerors invited to submit proposals for Step 2 are encouraged to provide more specificity and information following the RFP guidance and consistent with their Step 1 proposal.

50. Section L.8.2 Factor 2: Management and Staffing Plan, (p. 111) – USAID states that “the Offeror must provide relevant contractor biographical data sheets and CVs/resumes for each key personnel proposed, describing their educational qualifications and professional experience not to exceed two pages. The Annex will also include each position describing their roles and responsibilities, relationship to other key personnel and staff.” Can USAID please confirm that:

a. The page limit for CVs/resumes is 2 pages per individual?

USAID: Yes, 2 pages per individual is the limit.

b. The position description for each key personnel role is not included in the 2-page limit, and that that position description would be up to an additional page following the CV/resume?

USAID: Position description is not part of the 2-page limit for the CV/resumes.

51. Section L.8., page 109. Given that the Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet (Form AID 1420-17) contains proposed salary information, can USAID confirm that these should be placed in an Annex of the cost/price proposal and not the technical proposal?

USAID: Please see response to question 36.

52. Section L.8.2, p. 109-111: The RFP lists the CLA plan and MEL plan as two separate annexes.

However, learning is included in both and typically the MEL plan and CLA plan are related.

a. Would USAID consider Offeror’s including just one MEL annex evaluated for Factor 3 that is inclusive of its plan for CLA to avoid redundancy in terms of describing learning, evaluation, and adaptive management under two separate plans/annexes?

USAID: MEL and CLA plans will be examined separately and should be contained in separate annexes. The RFP is amended to reflect the correct number sequence of this factor. Please see Section L.8 of the revised RFP.

b. If not, Can USAID Confirm that Factor 3 of the Full Technical Proposal comprises the Annex for the MEL plan and the Annex for the CLA Plan, which will not be counted in the page limit for the Technical Proposal?

USAID: Annexes will not be counted in the page limit.

53. Section L.8.2, p. 111: Under Factor 2: Management and Staffing Plan, it states that “the offeror must propose no less than the following five key personnel to lead the successful implementation of this activity including a Chief of Party, DCOP and technical leads for the four components.”

these positions grouped would total six key personnel. If the offeror does not elect to merge two objectives under one lead, can the offeror determine which of the positions are key as long as they include the COP and total five positions?

USAID: Key personnel are limited to five personnel. Offerors can propose merging positions to comply with the limit. Key personnel are specified in the RFP. The RFP is amended to reflect the correct number sequence of this factor (Factor 4 instead of Factor 2). Please see Section L.8 of the revised RFP.

54. Section L.17 Page 124 Can USAID confirm that this section and its requirement to submit a branding and marking plan can be met by the submission of the draft Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan required by Section L.11?

USAID: The draft Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan in Section L.11 must be submitted together with the full technical proposal for Step 2. The final Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan must be submitted 30 days after contract award.

55. Section M.2.2 Page 129 Can USAID please confirm the evaluation and scoring from Step 1 is separate and distinct and will not be factored in or have a bearing on the evaluation for Step 2?

USAID: Evaluation for Steps 1 and 2 will be separate and distinct. Only those who pass the evaluation in Step 1 will be invited to participate in Step 2.

56. Could USAID confirm whether they would accept Public International Organizations (PIOs) as subcontractors within bidding implementer teams?

USAID: A PIO will not be excluded from participating as a sub-partner in submission of an offer.

Cost Questions:

57. Section B.5 Page 3 There is a typo in this section. The referenced section for Fixed Fee Payment Schedule needs to be updated to Section F.9.

USAID: Section B.5 has been revised to replace F.8 with F.9. Please see the revised RFP.

58. Section B.5, Payment of Fixed Fee (p. 3, 27, 113, and 118) – Can USAID please clarify the instructions for the Fee Payment Schedule?

a. USAID states payment of fixed fee will be “in accordance with the fixed fee payment schedule in Section F.8 of the contract.” However, Section F.8 of the RFP refers to “Reporting, Deliverables, Delivery Schedule.” Can USAID clarify whether they mean to reference RFP Section F.9?

USAID: Please see response to question 57.

b. Additionally, Section F.9 Fixed Fee Payment Schedule (p. 27) states that the Offer must propose a Fixed Fee Payment Schedule as required in Section L. However, section L.9 (C) 2.

Proposed Cost/Price states “Please see Section F.8 for additional instructions” (p. 113).

USAID: Section L.9(C) 2 has been revised to replace F.8 with F.9. Please see the revised RFP.

c. Furthermore, on page 118, the RFP states “Propose fee with rational supported by application of the profit-analysis factors.”

USAID: The offeror shall propose a fee in consideration of the profit-analysis factors stipulated in FAR 15.404-4(4)(d)(1)(i) through (vi).

59. Sections B.8 and B.9 Page 6 As currently worded, the second paragraph in B.9 seems to suggest that USAID intends to include an Offeror’s negotiated provisional or predetermined rates in B.9 as the ceiling on indirect rates. Can USAID please confirm that Offerors should instead propose indirect rate ceilings for inclusion in B.9 as distinct from the Offeror’s provisional indirect rates?

USAID: In addition to the NICRA, offerors should propose indirect rate ceilings for inclusion in B.9.

60. Section B.9 Page 6 A company’s indirect rates are widely acknowledged to be proprietary and sensitive financial information, the disclosure of which could result in competitive harm and, consistent with the Trade Secrets Act, should therefore be protected from such disclosure to third parties, including to competitors. Thus, we respectfully request that the Major Subcontractor’s indirect rate information, including indirect rate ceilings, not be included in the final Contract.

USAID: Only the prime contractor’s indirect cost rates will be reflected in the contract.

61. Section F.9, p. 27: For preparation of the Fixed Fee Schedule that will be incorporated in F.9, should offerors use the deliverables in F.8 for column A, since B.5 indicates that payment of fixed fee will be in accordance with F.8?

USAID: Section B.5 has been revised to replace F.8 with F.9. Please see the revised RFP.

62. Section H.2, p. 37: The DBA provided are for years 2015 – 2021 and include a base period and three option years. Please confirm these rates will be the same as aligned to the years of the contract (base period years 1-4; option year 5) or will a different schedule apply?

USAID: The rates provided in the DBA matrix refer to the base year, option periods and extensions of the DBA insurance contract with AWAC. The applicable rate that should be followed is the Contract Year Extension Period of Performance 12/1/21 - 04/30/22 until further notice.

63. Section H.27, p. 52: The RFP states “VAT and custom duties are excluded from the price of this contract. The COR will assist the Contractor in obtaining this exception from the Government in the country.” Can USAID confirm this applies in all countries in which DCCP – Pacific may operate?

USAID: USAID is still working with Pacific Islands governments to secure a bilateral agreement.

USAID will provide a letter of introduction/support recognizing that USAID has a business relationship with the Implementing Partner.

64. H.27 53 This clause establishes that VAT and custom duties are to be excluded from the contract and that the COR will assist in obtaining tax exemptions from the relevant country Government.

Can USAID provide any relevant bilateral agreements that would entitle the contractor to such exemptions and any existing guidance regarding the obtaining of these exemptions in the relevant countries?

USAID: Please see response to question 63.

65. Section H.29, Grants Under Contract (2) (p. 53) – USAID states the following:

(2) In accordance with ADS 302 and ADS 303, the total value of any individual grant to a U.S.

organization, if any, must not exceed $100,000. This limitation does not apply to grant awards to non-U.S. organizations.

With the changes in ADS 302.3.4.13 GUC effective July 22, 2021, where the award amount threshold for an individual grant to a U.S. NGO must not exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) which is currently at $250,000, can the ceiling amount of $100,000 stated in H.29 (2) of the RFP be revised to reflect the current SAT of $250,000 applicable to U.S. NGOs?

USAID: The RFP has been updated to reflect the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) which is currently at $250,000.

66. Section H.29(2), page 53: In USAID’s update to ADS 302.3.4.13 on July 22, 2021, the value of a grant to a U.S. organization was increased to the simplified acquisition threshold. Will USAID modify the language in section H.29(2) to incorporate this regulatory update?

USAID: Please see response to question 65.

67. Section J.3, Budget Template: The second page of J.3 instructs offerors to include allowances under Fringe Benefits, but also has a separate line item for Allowances. Please clarify where offerors should budget for allowances.

USAID: Allowances are treated as a separate budget line item. The revised RFP reflects this change.

68. Section J.3, Budget Template: The tables provided in J.3 do not account for Year 5 as an option year. Should offerors include a separate total column for Years 1-4 and then a second total column for Years 1-4 + Year 5 in their budgets?

USAID: Please see the revised budget template in Attachment J.3.

69. Attachment J.3, page 145. Can USAID confirm that the Sample Budget Template provided in Attachment J.3. is only a sample, meaning offerors can reformat the template for consistency with all other RFP cost instructions?J.3

USAID: Attachment J.3 Sample Budget Template is USAID’s preferred budget template to allow a more streamlined cost evaluation across all offerors.

70. Section J.5 Page 149, 150 The local compensation plans provided by the RFP for Papua New

Guinea and Fiji are provided in local currency. Can USAID please provide exchange rates to use for these two locations to ensure consistency across offers?

USAID: The exchange rate used for Papua New Guinea local compensation plan is USD1 =

3.419 PNG Kina. The exchange rate for Fiji is USD1 = 1.80 Fiji Dollar.

71. Section L.9(C)2.(iv)(b)b., p. 115 “Fringe Benefits” USAID states that for local staff, offerors should “include only the social contributions…in accordance with the labor law”. May offerors budget for benefits in excess of legally required benefits, if such benefits are considered customary in-country, and necessary to attract qualified candidates?

USAID: The benefits afforded to local staff should conform with the mandatory labor laws specific to each country and the offeror’s benefits policy.

72. Section L.9(c)2., p. 116: Under “Travel and Transportation” the RFP states “The cost proposal will indicate the number of trips, domestic and international, and the estimated costs per trip along with justification for the travel in the cost narrative. Specify the origin and destination for each proposed trip, duration of travel, name/position of personnel, and number of individuals traveling.” Given the program will be located across 12 islands with changing priorities, would USAID consider removing “Specify the origin and destination for each proposed trip, duration of travel, name/position of personnel, and number of individuals traveling”?

USAID: The costs associated with travel and transportation must be consistent with the technical approach. Travel and transportation budget is an estimate. USAID, for cost realism purposes, would like to know the basis of the proposed costs, the origin, destination, duration of travel and number of personnel traveling.

73. Section L.9.6., p. 118: The RFP only requires that the prime contractor provide an evidence of responsibility form. However, Section L.15 indicates that subs must also demonstrate sufficient evidence of responsibility. Would USAID please confirm if subcontractors should also complete the evidence of responsibility form in FAR 9.104-1 and that the forms should be included in the same section of the cost volume as the prime’s evidence of responsibility?

USAID: When subcontracting, the prime contractor must comply with the FAR 44.202-2 Considerations.

74. If applicable, for requirements under L.9(C)2.(iv)(b)b., p. 117: “Indirect Costs”, would USAID please allow prime contractors to provide reviewed financials, rather than audited financials, from small business major subcontractors, in line with Exemptions for Small Business Offerors in L.12 of the RFP?

USAID: The RFP states in Section L.12 that small business offerors must include either the Audited Financial Statements or the Reviewed Financial Statements in the absence of a negotiated indirect cost rate (NICRA).

75. Section L.9(C)2.(iv)(b)b., p. 116: “Subcontracts”, USAID states that time-and-materials subcontracts are not allowed. Would USAID please consider revising this instruction since many small and local firms who are new to USAID are unable to meet the indirect cost rate requirements of having either a NICRA or 2 years of externally audited or reviewed financials?

Further, as many firms operate in the commercial space and bill commercial rates rather than salaries + indirect rates, their systems may not be set up to break out salaries from indirect cost rates. However, if USAID will not entertain T&M subcontracts, please provide guidance on what type of mechanism USAID would entertain for major subcontractors who are unable to provide sufficient indirect cost documentation and whose SOWs are not conducive to firm-fixed-price mechanisms.

USAID: The T&M subcontract restriction has been removed from the RFP. Please see Section L.9 of the revised RFP.

76. Section L.9, page 112: The RFP states, under the heading for “Subcontracts,” that “Time and

Material subcontracts will not be allowed.” This ban on using Time and Materials (T&M) mechanisms restricts subcontractors’ ability to furnish long-term personnel who will provide technical assistance to the DCCP Activity. T&M subcontracts may be appropriate where there is an estimable amount of labor required over an extended period, but contingencies and/or uncertainties in the performance make it impractical to determine costs with sufficient accuracy to set fixed prices. Therefore, we respectfully ask USAID to remove the T&M subcontract restriction from the DCCP RFP to provide offerors with flexibility to determine subcontract mechanisms conducive to offerors’ envisioned technical approaches and performance work statements.

USAID: Please see response to question 76.

77. Section L.9(C)(3), page 118: The RFP lists Completed Section K as a submission requirement with the Cost Volume only for offerors and major subcontractors, but Section L.13 appears to require a completed Section K from each proposed subcontractor. Can USAID please clarify whether a Completed Section K should be submitted with the Cost Volume for each proposed subcontractor, or only for major subcontractors?

USAID: Completion of Section K is required for the prime and major subcontractors only. The revised RFP reflects this change.

78. Section L.9 (C)(2), page 114. USAID states “"The Offeror must present a summary budget that segregates cost by Objective as shown in Section B.4 above.” However, Section B.4 does not disaggregate costs by Objective, but rather CLINs. Can USAID confirm that the offeror should only present a summary budget in accordance with the CLINs as presented in Section B.4?

USAID: Yes, USAID confirms that the offeror should present a summary budget in accordance with CLINs. Section L.9(C)2(b) is revised to replace Objective with CLIN.

79. Would USAID please remove the requirement from L.13, p. 121-122 that subcontractors be registered in SAM, since SAM registration requirements in FAR 52.204-7 do not flow down to subs?

USAID: USAID/Philippines prefers that subcontractors be registered in SAM, unless there are considerations that prevent them from being registered.

U.S. Agency for International Development Annex 2 Building U.S. Embassy 1201 Roxas Boulevard 1000 Ermita, Manilla, Philippines

Tel: (632) 5301-6000 Fax (632) 5301-6213 http://philippines.usaid.gov

RFP Issuance Date: December 16, 2021 Questions Closing Date and Time: January 14, 2022, 8:00AM, Manila Time RFP New Closing Date and Time: February 18, 2022, 12:00NN, Manila Time

Subject: Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 72049222R00003 Digital Connectivity and Cybersecurity Partnership (DCCP) - Pacific

Dear Prospective Offeror:

The United States Government, represented by the United States Agency for International Development Mission to the Philippines, Pacific Islands and Mongolia (USAID/Philippines), is soliciting proposals from qualified organizations interested in providing the services described in the attached solicitation.

USAID is soliciting a cost plus fixed fee (CPFF), completion contract with a 4-year base and 1 year option for a maximum performance period of five (5) years. The maximum amount of the contract (cost and fee) is $24 million, subject to the availability of funds. The principal geographic code is 937 and the NAICS code is 541990.

This solicitation, amendments to this solicitation, and announcement of contract award will be made available through the government point of entry at SAM.gov | Home. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to check this site periodically for official updates to this solicitation.

USAID/Philippines reserves the right to reject any or all offers if such action is considered to be in the best interest of the U.S. Government. Issuance of this solicitation and receipt of proposals from interested Offerors neither obligates USAID/Philippines to award a contract nor does it constitute a commitment to pay any costs incurred by the Offerors in the preparation of their submissions.

Sincerely, Stéphane C. Bright Contracting Officer Regional Office of Acquisition and Assistance

SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD

4. TYPE OF SOLICITATION2. CONTRACT NUMBER 3. SOLICITATION NUMBER

72049222R00003

7. ISSUED BY CODE 8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If other than Item 7)

ORDER UNDER DPAS (15 CFR 700)

6. REQUISITION/PURCHASE NUMBER

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

NEGOTIATED (RFP)

SEALED BID (IFB)

5. DATE ISSUED

1. THIS CONTRACT IS A RATED RATING PAGE OF PAGES

1 153

C. E-MAIL ADDRESS

EXT.NUMBERAREA CODE

B. TELEPHONE (NO COLLECT CALLS)A. NAME

10. FOR

INFORMATION

CALL:

CAUTION: LATE Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals: See Section L, Provision No. 52.214-7 or 52.215-1.