Appendix 1 - Response to Questions.pdf

72049222R00006 (Urban Connect) Appendix 1

APPENDIX 1

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS

Question 1: The Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) Request for Categorical Exclusion (RCE) for the Urban Connect Activity prepared on 5/5/2021 listed a total estimated cost of $20M. The Request for Proposal (RFP) issued on April 27, 2022, did not include language stating the total estimated costs of the activity. P.

91 section L.6, C.3 Proposed Costs/Prices states "In terms of budget ranges between major program elements, the five-year period is projected to be within the following ranges: Core Objectives (including cross-cutting and grants under contract): between $6.5 million to $7.5 million; Program Support: between $3 million to $3.5 million." Could USAID please confirm that USAID has revised the total cost of the five-year activity from approximately $20 million to between $9.5 million to $11 million?

Response 1: USAID confirms that the total cost of the five-year activity is approximately $9.5 million to $11 million.

Question 2: In Section L.6, the RFP states that the projected budget for the Core Objectives will be $6.5 to$7.5 million and for Program Support $3.0 to $3.5 million. Do these projected costs include associated operation costs (office rent, travel, project IT, etc.) and indirect costs or do these budgets only include direct project staffing (LT and ST) and associated program costs (e.g.training venues, communications materials)? In short, does USAID see the overall project budget as $9.5 to $11 million or is this just for technical delivery and operational and indirect costs would be in addition to this?

Response 2: See response to Question 1 above.

Question 3: Per p.91 Section L.6, C3. Proposed Costs/Prices, grants under contract are included under the “Core Objectives”. However, under the Summary Tab of the Budget Template, the Grants under Contract plug figures are not linked directly to the Core Objectives’ total estimated cost of the Section B.3 Budget Summary table. Could USAID please clarify whether GUCs are expected to be included within the total costs of the Core Objectives?

Response 3: The GUC is included under Core Objectives costs. This RFP Amendment includes an updated budget template (Attachment J.9) that corrects the summary table.

Question 4: Page 94 under section L.6, C.3 Proposed Costs/Prices states: "Grants Under Contract (GUC) for this activity must not exceed $650,000, in accordance with the approach and the offeror’s proposed PWS." However Attachment in J.1:

Statement of Objectives on page 9, it states: "In meeting the technical assistance objectives, the Contractor will be expected to administer and execute multiple small grants up to a total of $1.2 million over the life of the project." Could USAID please confirm the total maximum amount offerors may include as Grants Under Contract (GUC) in proposals.

Response 4: This RFP Amendment revises the GUC amount in the SOO (Attachment J.1) to a maximum of $650,000.

Question 5: Would USAID please confirm that grants under contract should be set to $650,000?

Response 5: See response to Question 4 above.

Question 6: Section L.6 (c) 3 (Proposed cost/prices) in the “Grants under contract section” (page 94),indicates that “GUC for this activity must not exceed $650,000”;

however, the statement of objectives on page 9 stated that “the Contractor will be expected to administer and execute multiple small grants up to a total of $1.2 million over the life of the project.” Could USAID please clarify the amount of GUC envisioned under this contract?

Response 6: See response to Question 4 above.

Question 7: Section F.8 requires that the annual work plan and grants manual both be submitted 60 days after award. Considering that the activities identified in the work plan and our overall implementation approach will feed into the development of the grants manual, would USAID consider requiring the draft grants manual to be due 90 days after award?

Response 7: This RFP Amendment revises the due date for the Grants Manual as follows:

Draft - 60 days after contract effective date, Final - 90 days.

Question 8: We respectfully request that USAID remove the following sentence from Section H.28(n): “Copies of all reports received from grantees will be promptly forwarded to the COR,” given that there is no requirement for the COR to receive grantee reports in the 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. We will work with USAID during implementation to determine an acceptable approach for ensuring the grantee progress is shared through other methods such as during meetings and quarterly performance reports.

Response 8: This RFP Amendment 1 removes the language from Section H.28(n).

Question 9: Because the standard provisions referenced in Section H.28(o) do 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. We would ensure that reports submitted to the DEC meet the requirements of the standard provision; eliminating this requirement would remove additional burden on USAID during implementation and allow the grants program to operate smoothly.

Response 9: This RFP Amendment removes the language from Section H.28(o).

Question 10: Section L.5(A) states that the annexes to the technical proposal should include a level of effort (LOE) chart. Would USAID elaborate on the requirements of the LOE chart annex to the technical proposal?

Response 10: This chart should present the LOE assigned to each project personnel position across years.

Question 11: Section L.5(C)3(1)(b) on page 88 refers to a QASP template. The link, however, does not provide access to the template. Would USAID please provide the referenced QASP template?

Response 11: The template can also be found in the Acquisition Gateway, managed by GSA’s Digital Innovation Division. This RFP Amendment 1 updates the link in Section L.5(C)3(1)(b).

Question 12: Could USAID provide another link to the QASP Template referred to in Section L.5.p. 88 (b. Program Support). The current link requires a US Government login.

Response 12: See response to Question 11 above.

Question 13: Per Section L.5(C) 4, the RFP states that the chief of party candidate “should have at least fifteen (15) years of experience managing projects that are similar in size and scope to Urban Connect …” and that “S/he has at least a Master’s degree-or equivalent professional experience (10 years) in economics, urban development, public policy and administration, management, development, or and related fields.” Would USAID please clarify whether a candidate without a master’s degree must have 15 years of experience managing similar projects plus an additional 10 years of professional experience?

Response 13: This is confirmed. The required 10 years of professional experience may be part of the total minimum 15 years of managing projects similar in size and scope to Urban Connect as long as they fall under the academic fields indicated in Section L.5(C) 4.

Question 14: Per Section L.5(C)4(1), the RFP states, “The Offeror will also submit its proposed position descriptions for all other non-key technical personnel ….” Would USAID confirm that these positions descriptions belong in the personnel matrix annex to the technical proposal?

Response 14: This is confirmed.

https://hallways.cap.gsa.gov/system/files/doclib/acc-qasp-template-1.pdf?file=1&type=node

Question 15: Section L.6.C(10) states that past performance information should be annexed to the cost proposal; however, Section L.6.C(10)(a)(i) subsection refers only to past performance information as an annex to the technical proposal. Would USAID please clarify which volume should include the relevant experience and past performance information?

Response 15: Past experience and performance information shall be as an Annex to the Cost Proposal. This RFP Amendment 1 revises Section L.6.C(1)(a)(i).

Question 16: In Section L.6 (pp. 97), the RFP indicates that the cost proposal should include the Relevant Experience and Past Performance Information. In other USAID RFPs, this is included in theTechnical Volume. On p.98, it states “Past performance information (see Attachment J.7 of the solicitation) may be presented as an Annex to the Technical Proposal.” However, in the early catalogue of annexes, this isn’t included as an allowable annex. Can USAID clarify, if past performance should be included as an annexin the Technical Volume, the Cost Volume, or both?

Response 16: See response to Question 15 above.

Question 17: Will the major subcontractor definition be 20% of total proposed cost or who are otherwise defined to be essential to successful project implementation (L.6.C.4) or 25% of total proposed cost (L.6.C.10(a))?

Response 17: USAID retains 25%. This RFP Amendment 1 also corrects Section L.6(A) to reflect 25%.

Question 18: Major subcontractors are variously defined in Section L.6 – “those subcontractors whose costs exceed 20 percent of the Offeror’s total proposed cost or who are otherwise defined by the prime to be essential to successful project implementation” ( p. 90); “one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s total proposed contract cost”; and “one whose proposed cost exceeds 25% of the offeror’s total proposed cost.” Can USAID confirm that the definition on p.90 is the one that should be applied?

Response 18: See response to Question 17 above.

Question 19: Under Section L6, 4: Completed Section K – Representations, Certification, and Other Statements of Offerors (p. 95),USAID states that Certs and Reps are required for major subcontractors whose proposed costs exceeds 20% of the offeror's total proposed contract cost. However, also under Section L6, 10. Past Performance (p. 97), USAID states that past performance information is required for any major subcontractor “(one whose proposed cost exceeds 25% of the offeror's total proposed cost).” Could you please clarify whether it is 20 or 25%?

Response 19: See response to Question 17 above.

Question 20: Section L.6.C.10(a) requires past performance information for “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 ….” Would USAID please clarify what specific information about contractor teaming arrangements the offeror should include?

Response 20: If the offeror is submitting a teaming arrangement as defined in FAR Part 9.6 and has past performance information for that teaming arrangement, it must submit that past performance information.

Question 21: Would USAID confirm that the key personnel CVs are limited to five pages each?

Response 21: This is confirmed.

Question 22: Would 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 (technical and operational), and short-term technical assistance?

Response 22: The personnel matrix is confirmed to cover all project personnel, including the Key Personnel, non-key personnel (technical and operational), and short-term technical assistance. This RFP Amendment 1 removes the “Position Descriptions for Key Personnel” annex as it should already be embedded into the “Personnel Matrix” annex.

Question 23: Section L.5(A) includes a “Personnel Matrix” as an annex. Can USAID clarify if this should be included for all budgeted LT staff, including operations and administrative staff, or just for technical staff? Should this include just long-term staff or should short-term consultants be included as well?

Response 23: This matrix should include all project personnel. See response to Question 22 above.

Question 24: Section L.5 (p. 84): For the “Personnel Matrix” annex, should this include all project long-term staff or just key technical and operational staff? Should short-term consultants also be included?

Response 24: See response to Question 22 above. Do not include short-term consultants.

Question 25: Attachment J.1: Statement of Objectives, footnote 1 states, “Urban Connect will extend assistance to the current nine (9) CDI partners …. This activity may also work in the peripheral municipalities … up to an additional three to four (3-4) cities during the life of the project (LOP).” Would USAID provide us with the additional cities’ names that USAID may include under its CDI program?

Response 25: The set of new CDI partner cities has not been identified at this time. The additional set of new CDI partner cities will be determined after the award has been made.

Question 26: Attachment J.1: Statement of Objectives, 4.b.2 states, “The Contractor will also develop and implement a CDI Information and Communications Plan (ICP) nested under the Branding and Marking Plan.” However, Section L.7 does not include this requirement. Please confirm that the ICP is not required for the purposes of the proposal.

Response 26: It is the offeror’s decision on what level of detail to submit. Please refer to Sections L.7 and L.5.

Question 27: Can USAID please provide the final evaluation for Philippines SURGE?

Response 27: This RFP Amendment 1 adds as Attachment J.11 the SURGE Evaluation Report.

Question 28: Section L.5(A) includes a content item "Profiles and description of roles of consortium partners(if any)” under the Draft Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan. This appears to be a typo where a new bullet point was inadvertently left out. Can USAID confirm that this should be included as a separate annex?

Response 28: We confirm that this is a separate annex. This RFP Amendment 1 corrects Section L.5(A) to reflect it as a separate bullet.

Question 29: Can USAID advise if the offeror has the flexibility to use their own budget template, or we must use the one included in Attachment J.8).

Response 29: Section L.6(C) relays “Offerors are welcome to use their own budget worksheets in preparation of cost proposals but USAID requests that pertinent values be migrated into the USAID budget template. Offerors may opt to submit their own worksheets for reference in addition to the aforementioned accomplished template.”

Question 30: The RFP indicated that the offeror must propose a fixed fee schedule by accomplishing the table in section B.4. Can USAID advise if the deliverables and outputs should be based on F.8? Also, will the offer have the flexibility to add additional deliverables?

Response 30: It is the offeror’s decision on what deliverables and outputs to submit. USAID’s preference is for fixed fee milestones to be based on “outcomes” and “results” with minimal allocation for deliverables in Section F.8.

Question 31: Section H.28 (p. 49) seems to allow for in-kind grants to cities, but the description of grants in the Statement of Objectives (p. 9) doesn’t seem to envision such in-kind grants. Can USAID clarify if in-kind grants to cities are allowed?

Response 31: Yes, in-kind grants are allowed. It is the offeror’s decision on how to propose grants under contract.

Question 32 In the description of Program Support in Section L.5 (pp. 87-88), USAID mentions quarterly trips to a CDI city. In order to ensure sufficient resources are allocated to these activities and to ensure comparability across Offerors’ proposals, can USAID further clarify what is expected in terms of Program Support – how many participants on the quarterly trips; length of stay; size of learning events; number of CDI indicators the project will be charged with tracking? Also, is the project responsible just for the organization of the travel, venues, and accommodations or will it fund the cost for procuring these services and the use of these facilities?

Response 32: It is the offeror’s decision on how to structure its proposal based on the parameters in the RFP.

Question 33: Can the Program Support staff working on CDI logistics, MEL, and CLA be shared across the project, so that they also support the project’s Technical Assistance for the Objectives?

Response 33: USAID does not prescribe organizational/ project management structures and roles. This determination is left to the offeror and is expected to form part of Factor 2: Management and Staffing Plan under Section L.5.

Question 34: In the Section L.5 description of the Management and Staffing Plan, Offerors are asked for KeyPersonnel to “propose position titles, functions and responsibilities, minimum education and experience qualifications, and corresponding candidates” and to provide “proposed position descriptions for all other non-key technical personnel.” This seems to be duplicative of what is included in the annexes:

“Profiles and description of roles of consortium partners (if any)” and“Position description for each Key Personnel.” Can USAID confirm that main body of the technical can focus on overarching management approach with the details of position descriptions and qualifications reserved for the relevant annexes?

Response 34: This is confirmed for as long as the appropriate references to the Annex are provided.

Question 35: Under Section 4.b.2: Supporting Collaboration, Learning and Adapting (CLA) activities in CDI USAID writes; “The Offeror may refer to https://usaidlearninglab.org/cla-toolkit”. When we click on this link to the USAID https://usaidlearninglab.org/cla-toolkit

Learning Lab, we get the following notice: “Page not found The Requested page could not be found.” Please provide a link directly to the referenced “toolkit” or provide the toolkit as an attachment to the USAID responses to Bidder questions.

Response 35: Please use this updated link: https://usaidlearninglab.org/cla/cla-toolkit. This RFP Amendment 1 updates the link in Attachment J.1 and the RFP’s Section L.5(C)3(1)(b).

Question 36: In Section L.6 (pp. 92-93), there is a Compensation Plan table that requires “Responsibilities”and “Minimal Qualifications” to be included. This seems duplicative of material required in theTechnical Annexes. Can USAID confirm that this information is necessary here?

Response 36: We confirm that this is separately needed under the cost volume because this allows for evaluation of the appropriate compensation ranges for each type of personnel or each position.

Question 37: Attachment J.1: Statement of Objectives; Sub-Objective 2c: Improved delivery of health and education services (Page 7). Have any of the USAID’s health and education projects undertaken an assessment of the health and education systems in the targeted priority cities;and are there any recent evaluation reports completed on the Special Health Fund and the Special Education Fund. If so, could USAID share these.

Response 37: Please refer to USAID’s DEC and other online sources for publicly available reports.

Question 38: Attachment J.1: On p. 10 of the Statement of Objectives, USAID requires that CDI Coordinatorsbe appointed for each Urban Connect City. Given that there will 12-13 cities, these positions will take a significant amount of the project LOE, which has large budget implications. Can USAIDclarify if these positions are required for the entire span of the project for current CDI cities and from selection the end for future CDI cities? Or if USAID will allow some phasing in/out to economize project resources? Further, could USAID clarify the professional level of the position envisioned? The recently concluded SURGE project used senior level City Project Coordinator To great effect, but, given the size of this project, this would appear to be cost-prohibitive. CouldOfferors appoint junior or https://usaidlearninglab.org/cla/cla-toolkit mid-level professionals to meet USAID needs? Finally, even though this position will fall under the Program Support budget, can the project use these staff members to support the Technical Assistance work under the Objectives?

Response 38: It is the offeror’s decision on how to approach CDI coordinators.

Question 39: Attachment J.1: Transportation infrastructure challenges are mentioned under the Objective 1 introduction (p. 5), but possible project support for resolving these is mentioned under Sub-objective 2b (E-government solutions advanced) on p. 7.

Given the focus of this sub-objective,does USAID envision this project only addressing e-government dimensions to transportation orcan it also address wider issues – e.g. regional planning and connectivity, cold chain integration,service contracting for public transport (perhaps under Sub Objective 1a)?

Similarly, other service areas – “pollution and environmental resilience, disaster preparedness,public safety and health, water service delivery and utility operations (e.g. billing and collection),and workforce development” (p. 7) – are also mentioned under this same Sub-objective. Can The project support initiatives that move beyond e-government? If so, under what Sub-objectives should this be place. On p. 9, Urban Connect work on climate resilience and pandemic preparedness suggests a wider definition of project involvement.

Response 39: Attachment J.1 Statement of Objectives provides offerors with USAID’s desired objectives and outcomes but does not prescribe interventions to be carried out to achieve them. In line with Section L.5 of the RFP (“technical proposal must address how the offeror intends to accomplish the objectives and minimum desired outcomes outlined in the SOO”), Offerors are responsible for proposing the most appropriate set of interventions; USAID does not limit the range of potential activities that offerors will propose. Additionally, USAID does not prescribe any outline or sequence for organizing the proposed set of interventions.

Question 40: Can USAID share the mission IEE that was drafted for this project?

Response 40: This RFP Amendment 1 incorporates the IEE as an additional attachment (Attachment J.10)

Question 41: Budget Template - Summary: (i) Year 1 is not pulling all the data from the salaries and wages tab; and (ii) Fixed Fee total amount is not pulling from the fixed fee tab.

Response 41: For the salaries and wages, the formulas are working. Please make sure to provide complete inputs from the LOE Matrix tab (i.e., USDH/CCN/TCN classification, LOE days per year, and Program Element Allocation percentage) in order for the totals to generate. For the fixed fee tab, the circular error has been corrected. This RFP Amendment 1 provides an updated Budget Template (Attachment J.9 Amendment 1).

Question 42: Budget Template - 1.2 Salaries and Wages: (i) The Long-Term Technical Subtotal line is not adding the total amount(US$) in cell K68; and (ii) E. Home office Support - In year 1 Cells J174 and J175 are not pulling the number of days from the LOE MATRIX cells (D174 and D175).

Response 42: The formulas under the subject cells are corrected. This RFP Amendment 1 provides an updated Budget Template (Attachment J.9 Amendment 1).

Question 43: Budget Template - 1.3 Fringe: 4. CCN Statutory Benefits (lines a-g) – only calculates for the KeyPersonnel Lines, not for all personnel labelled CCN.

Response 43: The formulas are corrected. This RFP Amendment 1 provides an updated Budget Template (Attachment J.9 Amendment 1).

Question 44: Budget Template - 1.6 Equipment and Supplies: (i) The escalation rate formula is not calculating correctly. For example, when we input 3% in the assumptions, it calculates at .03% instead of 1.03; and (ii) IT equipment, office furnishings, software, other supplies do not have an escalation included in the amount column.

Response 44: The formulas are corrected. This RFP Amendment 1 provides an updated Budget Template (Attachment J.9 Amendment 1).

Question 45: Budget Template - 1.5 Travel: (i) International travel- columns E,F, H, J, L, N, P do not allow for data inputs; (ii) Domestic Airfare is locked and does not allow for data input; (iii) Domestic per Diem is locked and does not allow for data inputs.; (iv) International Per Diem is locked and does not allow for data inputs;

and (v) The escalation rate formula is not calculating correctly. For example, when we input 3% in the assumptions, it calculates at .03% instead of 1.03.

Response 45: All cells for data input are now unlocked. The escalation rate formula is correct.

This RFP Amendment 1 provides an updated Budget Template (Attachment J.9 Amendment 1).

Question 46: Budget Template - 1.10 Fixed Fee: (i) Formula Reference Error comes up; and (ii) Amount Columns are not calculating the fee based on the % included.

Response 46: The formulas are corrected. This RFP Amendment 1 provides an updated Budget Template (Attachment J.9 Amendment 1).

Nothing Follows