72051423R00006 (01) - Attachment 2 - Questions and Answers Document.pdf

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) 72051423R00006

INVEST FOR CLIMATE (IN4C) ACTIVITY

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (Q&A) DOCUMENT

I. TECHNICAL:

1. Section C, IR 3.2, page 18: RFP states that in “coordination with the interventions under IR 1.1, and with the objective of improving the generation of climate finance information, the Contractor will improve financial institutions' understanding and application of inclusive climate metric reporting and the use of Colombia’s Green Taxonomy.” Would USAID please confirm that this statement is intended to include public and private financial institutions?

Yes, public, and private financial institutions.

2. Section F.5.10. Annual Performance Report, page 44: RFP lists the annual performance report as due “15 calendar days after the end of each U.S. Fiscal Year.” Would USAID consider revising the annual performance report as due “30 calendar days after each fiscal year?”

The RFP was amended in Section F.5.10. Annual Performance Report as due “30 calendar days after each fiscal year”.

3. Would USAID consider sharing any progress reports for the Pilot Program for Climate Finance Acceleration, which is currently being developed under the INVEST Project: Mobilizing Private Investment for Development USAID/Colombia?

INVEST’s quarterly reports can be found through the following links on the DEC:

● Y6 Q1 - Relevant Information can be found on page 89

● Y6 Q2 - Relevant Information can be found on pages 36-37

● Y6 Q3 - Relevant Information can be found on 38-39

The following report will be available soon on the DEC:

● Sustainable Banking Alliance’s deliverables 1 and 2

Equitable Finance Activity, deliverables can be found through the following links on the DEC:

● Mapa de Finanzas Climáticas en Colombia

● Borrador de Concepto para el Agregador de Proyectos de Cambio Climático https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19O6ZJ7HLLshtlYjm1JLgmLz9p_ye4B9T?usp=drive_link https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/content/Detail_Presto.aspx?ctID=ODVhZjk4NWQtM2YyMi00YjRmLTkxNjktZTcxMjM2NDBmY2Uy&rID=NjExMTkx&inr=VHJ1ZQ%3d%3d&dc=YWRk&rrtc=VHJ1ZQ%3d%3d&bckToL= https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/content/Detail_Presto.aspx?ctID=ODVhZjk4NWQtM2YyMi00YjRmLTkxNjktZTcxMjM2NDBmY2Uy&rID=NjE1NDA2&inr=VHJ1ZQ%3d%3d&dc=YWRk&rrtc=VHJ1ZQ%3d%3d&bckToL= https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/content/Detail_Presto.aspx?ctID=ODVhZjk4NWQtM2YyMi00YjRmLTkxNjktZTcxMjM2NDBmY2Uy&rID=NjE4Mzgz&inr=VHJ1ZQ%3d%3d&dc=YWRk&rrtc=VHJ1ZQ%3d%3d&bckToL= https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/content/Detail_Presto.aspx?vID=47&ctID=ODVhZjk4NWQtM2YyMi00YjRmLTkxNjktZTcxMjM2NDBmY2Uy&rID=NjIxNTAw https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/content/Detail_Presto.aspx?vID=47&ctID=ODVhZjk4NWQtM2YyMi00YjRmLTkxNjktZTcxMjM2NDBmY2Uy&rID=NjIxNTAw

4. Would USAID please clarify the expectations and scope of the digital tools to be developed? Under IR1.1 on page 10, the RFP states, “The Contractor will develop open, secure, and interoperable digital tools to assess the profitability and inclusivity of climate-smart projects/businesses, develop alternative scoring systems and forms of collateral;” however, in Section C.6.11. Digital transformation, the RFP reads, “In addition, the Contractor will help financial and government institutions supported through Components 1 and 3 to incorporate climate risk management and carbon accounting in their digital solutions, ideally these will be open, secure, and interoperable.”

The scope of this type of tool will depend on the financial institution’s needs. We encourage offerors to gauge the needs in this regard by talking to potential FI’s that could partner with the contractor to fulfill this request. USAID expects offerors to respond to this RFP requirement as part of their Technical Approach.

5. Section C.4, Page 10, “As part of this, the Contractor will develop open, secure, and interoperable digital tools to assess the profitability and inclusivity of climate-smart projects/businesses develop alternative scoring systems and forms of collateral.”

a. What is the level of sophistication expected from these tools in terms of digitalization and use of new technologies?

The scope of this type of tool will depend on the financial institution’s needs. We encourage offerors to gauge the needs in this regard by talking to potential FI’s that could partner with the contractor to fulfill this request.

b. Are there any references in the market that the agency thinks are a benchmark (especially considering the tools need to be open and interoperable)? Any clarification and further exemplification here will be helpful.

No specific references in the market will be provided by USAID. USAID expects offerors to respond to this RFP requirement as part of their Technical Approach.

6. On page 15 and 16, would USAID please confirm if the reference to FONSUREC is correct, or is the correct reference “Fondo para la Vida y la Biodiversidad?”

The RFP was amended, and Section C now includes the correct reference “Fondo para la Vida y la Biodiversidad”. Please see the modification document to the RFP for details.

7. Section L.9, Part 2.A.16 on page 142 states in the first sentence of paragraph two that a security plan is not required as part of the proposal. The fifth sentence of the same paragraph requests a “coherent, overall integrated security plan that demonstrates that the Offeror has undertaken a thoughtful review of their security needs and includes analysis of the various elements of a security system.” Would USAID please confirm that a security plan is not required as part of the proposal?

As stated in this section, a Security Plan is not required as part of the proposal. The entire sentence referenced by the Offeror reads: “The budget must delineate and justify for reasonableness all costs and provide a coherent, overall integrated security plan that demonstrates that the Offeror has undertaken a thoughtful review of their security needs and includes analysis of the various elements of a security system. ”, and therefore refers to the budget plan related to security.

8. Section F.8 (page 56) lists the minimum qualifications for the chief of party position, including “At least 10 years of experience in the management of climate, environment, and/or development finance projects funded by international organizations or the private sector.” To cast a wide net of strong chief of party candidates, would USAID confirm that donor-funded projects — in lieu of or in addition to projects funded by international organizations or the private sector — would be acceptable experience?

The requirement has the intention to have a Chief of Party with wide experience (at least 10 years) in the management of “climate, environment, and/or development of finance projects” regardless of the source of funding of those projects; therefore donor-funded projects are also acceptable. The RFP has been amended to clarify this information.

9. Section F.8, page 56 lists the chief of party’s minimum education qualifications to include a “Master’s degree in finance, business administration, business law, economics, international public affairs, sustainable development, or relevant fields.” Given the project’s focus on sustainable landscapes — including agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) — clean energy, and climate adaptation, would USAID confirm that degrees that focus on any of these technical areas are acceptable as “relevant fields”?

Master Degrees that focus on the target sectors of the Activity (AFOLU, clean energy and climate adaptation) are acceptable as relevant fields. The RFP has been updated to reflect this update, please see the modification document to the RFP for details.

10. Section F.8, page 56, Given the importance of collaborating across the public, private, and international donor space would USAID consider expanding the Chief of Party experience managing climate, environment and or development finance projects to include those funded by the public sector?

The intention is to have a Chief of Party with wide experience (at least 10 years) in the management of “climate, environment, and/or development of finance projects” regardless of the source of funding of those projects. The RFP was amended, and Section F.8 has been updated COP’s experience requirements to “At least ten (10) years of experience in the management of climate, environment and or development finance projects funded by international organizations, public, and/or private sectors”. Please see the modification document to the RFP for details.

11. Section F.8, page 56-58, through the key personnel requirements, USAID clearly indicates that experience managing large climate, environment, and/or development finance projects AND financial sector experience are both important. Instead of making these as mandatory requirements for the Chief of Party or the Deputy Chief of Party’s experience (respectively), would USAID consider requiring instead a combined 10 years of experience in managing climate, environment and or development finance and 8 years of experience in the financial sector with emphasis on investment operations, project finance, portfolio, and asset management across the COP and DCOP positions. For example, the COP may have 8 years of management experience and 2 years of finance experience and the DCOP could have 2 years of management experience and 6 years of finance experience. This would still provide USAID with strong management and finance skills across the IN4C leadership team but expand the pool of qualified candidates.

USAID will not consider changes in these requirements.

12. Section F.8, Page 57, To complement the technical focus of the DCOP (Technical) role as written and ensure compliant project delivery across the complex IN4C scope, would USAID allow Offerors to propose an DCOP (Operations) with strong USAID management experience in addition to the DCOP (Technical)?

In Section L.7.4.b Management Approach, offerors are asked to propose a team structure, including an organizational chart with all the positions necessary to accomplish the proposed Technical Approach. In that regard, offerors, as part of their management approach, can propose additional positions beyond the key personnel required by USAID in Section L.7.4.a. Please keep in mind that according to Sections F.8 and L.7.4a there are only three key personnel that the contractor must furnish for the performance of the contract.

13. Section C.4, Page 11, USAID suggests the use of the Activity Fund to deploy results-based grants to financial institutions that achieve climate and social outcomes. Can USAID confirm that it does not view such uses of the Fund as contradicting any previous prohibitions against capitalizing an intermediary to on-lend to prospective borrowers?

Results-based grants aim at incentivizing financial institutions’s decisions to mobilize funding for climate investments. They can be designed in different ways, for example, grants in which payments are made upon FI achieving results or milestones that evidence resources mobilization. Grants should not be used to provide capital for financial institutions or financial vehicles. Offerors should respond to Section C being mindful of Sections L.7.3 Technical Approach, Section M.3 Technical Evaluation Criteria, and others.

During implementation, USAID will monitor that the Activity Fund is not used to provide capital for financial institutions or financial vehicles.

14. Section F.5.5, Page 41, The RFP Deliverables table states that “the contractor is required to submit an Activity Fund Manual in the USAID template”. As the Activity Fund will be used to fund GUCs and Subcontracts, we kindly request USAID to provide a copy of the template referenced in this section to ensure offerors can plan ahead to address the requirements or sections requested in this Manual.

Typically, a grants manual exceeds 10 pages and considering that the AFM manual will include GUC and Subcontracting guidance would USAID clarify expectations or remove the 10 pages limit.

The Activity Fund Manual template will be provided to the successful offeror after award. Page limitation will not be removed from this Section.

15. Section F.5.5 (page 41) states, “The Contractor is required to submit an Activity Fund Manual for USAID’s review and approval using USAID’s template to not exceed ten (10) pages total, including all annexes and attachments.” We request that USAID consider removing the page limitation to allow the contractor to provide more comprehensive descriptions of processes aligned with IN4C’s scope of work and applicable regulations. If the contractor is still required to submit an Activity Fund manual under the specified page limit, would USAID confirm whether the grants under contract (GUC) manual can be submitted as a separate document?

Grants under contract (GUC) manual can be submitted as a separate document; however, Activity Fund and Grants Under Contract combined must not exceed the 10 pages limit. Page limitation will not be removed from this Section.

16. Section H.10, Page 77, The Social Safeguards Implementation Plan draft is not listed in section F as a deliverable. Can USAID please update the deliverables table or remove the requirement from the RFP?

The RFP was amended in Section H.10 to clarify that this deliverable is only required if work is envisioned in Parks, Protected Areas and with Indigenous Peoples. Section F.6 has been amended to add this deliverable as applicable. Please see the modification document to the RFP for details.

17. Section C.4, Page 10, The Contractor will work with financial institutions to improve their understanding of green bonds, carbon markets, and the adoption of tools, such as net-zero target setting, using methodologies like those established under the Science Based Target Initiative (SBTi).22,

a. Does USAID expect the contractor to provide capacity building and technical assistance to FIs in getting their decarbonization targets validated and approved by the SBTi?

Working with FI’s on SBTi is part of the scope of work laid out in Section C.

b. Is the Contractor expected to provide funding to FIs to pay for the cost of such validation with resources from the Activity Fund?

As stated in the Section C.4, when working with financial institutions, the Contractor must demonstrate a clear case for additionality. In addition, as described in Section C.5, financial institutions are among the actors that can be supported with the Activity Fund.

18. Section C.4, Component 1, p.8, In addition, the Contractor will provide financial institutions capacity building support and technical assistance to expand existing or develop new risk-mitigation and concessional capital instruments. Is the contractor expected to help individual Fis develop these instruments or given the focus on scale, is the objective to provide the knowledge and tools to a large number of FIs and then have them evaluate when and how to develop these instruments?

Capacity building support and technical assistance provided at an individual level or group level are accepted as long as the Contractor responds to Sections C’s instructions that they are expected to take a systems approach and reach impact at scale towards the purpose of the Activity. USAID expects offerors to respond to this RFP requirement as part of their Technical Approach.

19. Section C.4, IR 1.2 p.9, The contractor will assist in the creation of financial products that leverage first-loss tranches for climate projects, and that decrease investments risks for senior tranches funded by private investors. The contractor will also support the design of green bonds or impact bonds with payment for climate results, and other capital market transactions. As per the previous question, this reads as if the Contractor is expected to build capacity in these topics in a large number of FIs. But, IR1.2 refers to working directly with a subset of FIs in designing these investment instruments for each individual FI. FIs that participate in this must meet the requirements to undertake this in the designated period for this activity. Can USAID confirm if the development of these capital instruments is expected to happen at scale (e.g., one large fund or a green bond issuance that finances projects from various FIs) with a number of FIs having access to capital through them?

How offerors will propose the development of these capital instruments is under the autonomy of each offeror. In proposing alternatives to implement these requirements, offerors must respond to Section C’s instructions that they are expected to take a systems approach and reach impact at scale towards the purpose of the Activity. USAID expects offerors to respond to this RFP requirement as part of their Technical Approach.

20. Section C.5, P.18, Depending on the technical approach of the Contractor, project priorities, and climate finance mobilization potential, it is anticipated that 40-70% of the total Activity Fund will be set aside as GUCs. All GUCs must leverage third-party resources, depending on the size and capacity of partners, leverage contributions will vary. At a minimum, the ratio will be 1:1. Could you please clarify if partners mentioned such as FIs, business development service providers, universities, international organizations, etc. must provide resources in the 1:1 ratio to the Activity and for what types of activities? Are these resources expected to be in cash or in-kind contributions?

All GUC partners must leverage resources in a ratio of at least 1:1 for all types of activities considered under the GUC. These can be in case or in kind-contributions, but preferably cash contributions.

21. Section L.7.3 Technical Approach, p. 130, The offeror must also include a list of illustrative indicators that it proposes to use to measure success in the implementation of each of the IRs. Offerors must propose 2-5 indicators for each objective and how they are related to achieving the components as stated in the SOW. This section refers to both Irs (Intermediate Results) and objectives for providing illustrative indicators. Please confirm if the 2-5 indicators are to be provided for each Objective (Result) or for each Intermediate Result?

Offerors should provide at least one indicator for each Intermediate Result and maximum 5 indicators per component.

22. F.8 – KEY AND NON-KEYPERSONNEL, P.55, Restructuring 3 key positions, Given the visibility and the size of funding, would USAID be amenable to restructuring the requirements for the DCoP to also place emphasis on management of prior USAID projects of the size and scope as In4C? Some of the technical expertise called for in this position could be fielded through other long-term and short-term resources.

USAID will not consider restructuring the 3 key personnel requirements. Management of prior USG projects is required for the Activity Fund Manager. The requirement for the Chief of Party of “At least ten

(10) years of experience in the management of climate, environment and or development finance projects…” can also include management of prior USAID projects. In addition, the experience required for the DCOP can also include management of prior USAID projects.

23. C.4 - RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND TASKS, Page 8, Table on top of Page 8,

a. With respect to Target 1- would USAID provide more clarity on amount of investment mobilized?

Direct and/or Indirect? Also, would commitment also suffice given the long gestation period associated with maturing these into real investments?

The question does not clarify what it means by direct or indirect funding.

The target of the contract is to mobilize $75 million in investments in climate smart projects and business during the period of performance. It is expected that the full amount will be mobilized by the Implementing Partner, or what USAID calls indirect engagement (page 4 on the document “Guidance for Monitoring USAID/Colombia’s engagement with stakeholders”). The contractor must aim at mobilizing the maximum amount of the target during the life of the project. The RFP has been amended to include the document, “Guidance for Monitoring USAID/Colombia’s Engagement with Stakeholders” as an attachment for reference purposes. Please see the modification document to the RFP for details.

b. Targets 2 and 3- Is there some background information that USAID can share on these two targets, and is there flexibility on the same?

These targets have been estimated based on the experience from other USAID/Colombia contracts of similar size and complexity. USAID is not considering modifying the targets under this RFP.

24. L.7.3. Technical Approach –(see Section M.3.1), P130, In the Technical Approach the Offeror must include the following sections: Practical methodology: Strategy to Leverage Resources and Attract Capital, It’s our understanding that the Strategy to Leverage Resources and Attract Capital is a distinct section and should be discussed separately from the Practical Methodology. Can USAID please confirm?

As instructed in section L.7.3 Technical Approach, offerors must include one section on “Practical Methodology” and another section on “ Strategy to Leverage Resources and Attract Capital”.

25. Section L.7.3, Pages 130-131, Under the practical methodology section, Offerors are required to include their proposed methodology for meeting targets across each IR. Further, the Offeror must also include a list of illustrative indicators that it proposes to use to measure success in the implementation of each of the IRs and must propose 2-5 indicators for each objective and how they are related to achieving the components as stated in the SOW. As this information is already captured in the technical, would USAID consider moving the Fee Schedule to the cost volume where it is typically presented?

The location of this requirement will not be changed. Please note that Section L.7.3, page 131 states also that “In the technical fee schedule, the offeror must include the fixed fee percentage but not the associated dollar value”.

26. The RFP mentions "innovative financial instruments" and specifically mentions "green bonds or impact bonds with payment for climate metrics." Can USAID confirm that the use of innovative financial instruments beyond green bonds or impact bonds, such as advance market commitments, volume guarantees, and pull finance mechanisms in general, would be encouraged throughout the proposal?

USAID encourages proposing all sorts of innovative financial instruments as long as they are feasible tools to mobilize climate investments at scale. USAID expects offerors to respond to this RFP requirement as part of their Technical Approach.

27. Can the activity fund resources be used in a smaller, initial stage to develop, with a local partner, an outcomes-based framework for the remaining bulk of the activity fund?

Offerors are free to propose different ways to use the Activity Fund as long as they respond to the requirements of the Request for Proposals.

II. COST:

28. Section B.6 LEVEL OF EFFORT (CLIN 002), page 3: RFP states that in “performing Government orders for Technical Assistance under CLIN 002, the Contractor is obligated to provide up to a maximum of 7,600 person-days.”

a. Would USAID please confirm that person days is not limited to the prime contactor’s staff?

Confirmed., As instructed on Section L.9, B. CLIN 002 “the Government has specified a maximum of 7,600 person-days of labor, to include subcontractor and consultant hours, as the maximum level of effort that may be required during the contract period for performance for authorized work under IDIQ CLIN 002, “Supplemental Technical Assistance” this limit only applies to CLIN 002.

b. Would USAID please confirm that person-days could include long-term and short-term technical assistance?

Confirmed. As instructed on Section L.9, B. CLIN 002 “For estimating purposes, the Offeror must propose costs for a total of 1,520 person-days equally distributed across all labor categories for each year of the five-year contract”.

29. Section F.2, page 30: RFP states that the “period of performance for this contract is five (5) years from [TBD] to [TBD] subject to the conditions set forth in Section H.24.” Section H.1, page 67: RFP states “All Cooperating Country Nationals (CCNs) and Third Country Nationals (TCNs) salaries must not exceed the Local compensation Plan (LCP). Approval of the Contractor’s budget does not absolve the Contractor’s duty to request and receive Mission Director’s approval prior to hiring CCN and TCN personnel whose salaries are above the LCP.” A recent update to the USAID forecast lists the “anticipated award date” of

“10/24/2024.” An October 2024 award date would start Cooperating Country Nationals two years after the current 2022 Local Compensation Plan attached to the RFP.

a. Would USAID please clarify if October 2024 is the anticipated award date?

USAID forecast was updated with an anticipated award date of 06/06/2024

b. Would USAID confirm that offerors may use a combination of the current 2022 LCP and justified market rates in the cost proposal?

Yes, but with the limitation stated in H.1. “Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation,” a.

“Limitations” (p. 52): USAID notes that all “Cooperating Country Nationals (CCNs) and Third Country Nationals (TCNs) salaries must not exceed the Local compensation Plan (LCP). Salaries must not exceed the Local compensation Plan (LCP), unless an exception is approved by the Mission Director in accordance with AIDAR section 722.170(b). Please also note that USAID will not accept any adjustments in the proposed labor rates of any personnel within 12 months of the contract award date.

30. Section H.1 (page 67) states, “All Cooperating Country Nationals (CCNs) and Third Country Nationals (TCNs) salaries must not exceed the Local compensation Plan (LCP).” We request that the above-mentioned salary restriction be removed from the RFP as it appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007, Personnel Compensation (incorporated in Section L.9, page 136), and the language in the previous paragraph under Section H.1, which stipulates that personnel compensation be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, with reimbursement subject only to the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold. The salary restriction above may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices, as required by AIDAR 752.7007.

This language reflects a Mission policy to ensure fairness between Mission staff and local contractor staff.

The LCP is also based on market rates, which is in line with USAID policies related to compensation.

Salaries must not exceed the Local Compensation Plan (LCP), unless an exception is approved by the Mission Director in accordance with AIDAR section 722.170(b).

31. Section L.9. A. CLIN 001, Direct Labor Salary and Wages, page 136: RFP states that offeror “must budget for a Construction Activities Coordinator (CAC), Engineer, or similar, with sufficient years of experience implementing activities in similar settings. The holder must have obtained a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering or related field from an accredited university and be licensed per local rules and regulations.”

a. Would USAID clarify if substantial construction is anticipated under the project?

No construction is anticipated under the statement of work.

b. Would USAID consider removing the “Construction Activities Coordinator, Engineer, or similar” requirement?

The requirement for a Construction Activities Coordinator (CAC), Engineer, or similar has been removed from the RFP. Please see the modification document to the RFP for details.

32. The last paragraph of Section L.9.2.A.1 on page 136 states, “While not Key-Personnel, the offeror must budget for a Construction Activities Coordinator (CAC), Engineer, or similar, with sufficient years of experience implementing activities in similar settings.” As this activity does not include construction, would USAID please clarify whether Offerors should budget for a CAC under this bid?

The requirement for a Construction Activities Coordinator (CAC), Engineer, or similar has been removed from the RFP. Please see the modification document to the RFP for details.

33. Section L.9 (page 136) states, “While not Key-Personnel, the offeror must budget for a Construction Activities Coordinator (CAC), Engineer, or similar, with sufficient years of experience implementing activities in similar settings. The holder must have obtained a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering or related field from an accredited university and be licensed per local rules and regulations.” Section C of the RFP does not appear to include any construction or engineering work. Would USAID confirm that no construction work is required under the scope of work for IN4C?

No substantial construction is anticipated under the statement of work. The requirement for a Construction Activities Coordinator (CAC), Engineer, or similar has been removed from the RFP. Please see the modification document to the RFP for details.

34. Section L.9, Page 144, The Direct Labor Salary and Wage portion of the Cost instructions indicates Offeror must budget for a Construction Activities Coordinator (CAC), Engineer, or similar. Can USAID please remove this requirement as there is no other portion of the RFP that references construction related activities?

The requirement for a Construction Activities Coordinator (CAC), Engineer, or similar has been removed from the RFP. Please see the modification document to the RFP for details.

35. On page 138, the RFP states: “Offerors should use the Activity Fund to account for subcontracts to local organizations and Grants Under Contract (GUCs).” However, Section L.9.2.A(10) – Subcontracts with Local Organizations – on page 138, also states, “Information sufficient to determine the reasonableness of the cost of each specific subcontract and consultant expected to be hired must be included.” Would USAID please confirm that local short-term technical assistance (STTA) consultants/contracts also should be budgeted as part of the Activity Fund?

Short Term Technical Assistance Consultants (STTA) should not be budgeted as part of the Activity Fund, the reference to “consultant” in this section has been removed from the RFP. Please see the modification document to the RFP for details.

36. Section L.9, Part 2.A.10 on page 138 indicates that subcontracts with local organizations are considered part of the Activity Fund. The Detailed Budget tab in Attachment J.7 does not include a separate cost category for subcontracts, which seems to indicate that all subcontracts would be budgeted under the Activity Fund:

a. Would USAID please provide guidance about where to budget subcontracts with non-local organizations?

As instructed on Section L.9, Part 2. b. “The cost proposal must be prepared in a manner consistent with your current accounting system.” Under subsection f, the RFP states “The Offeror must submit a detailed budget and budget narrative that supports item for item the cost estimates proposed in its detailed budget.” Offerors may include non-local subcontractors with sufficient justification and information to determine cost realism and reasonableness; however, these may not be included in the Activity Fund, but only as separate budget items.

b. Would USAID please confirm that the following international subcontractor costs may be budgeted under the Activity Fund: local STTA and programmatic activity costs?

Offerors should use the Activity Fund to account for subcontracts to local organizations and Grants under Contract (GUCs). Local STTA should be budgeted under the STTA labor category apart from the Activity Fund. Depending on the offeror’s accounting system, international subcontractor costs may fall under this category; as the RFP also states, “The Offeror must submit a detailed budget and budget narrative that supports item for item the cost estimates proposed in its detailed budget.” Offerors may include non-local subcontractors with sufficient justification and information to determine cost realism and reasonableness; however, these may not be included in the Activity Fund, but only as separate budget items. .

c. Would USAID consider subcontracts with locally established partners, as qualified within the New Partnership Initiative, to count toward the 46 percent Activity Fund total under CLIN 001?

Yes, USAID confirms that subcontracts with locally established partners, as qualified within the New Partnership Initiative count toward the 46 percent Activity Fund total under CLIN 001. They must comply with the definition included Section L.9, Part 2. A. 10.i Subcontracts with local organizations and the purpose of the subcontract must advance progress towards the goals of the components and intermediate results.

37. Section L.13, Page 135, Please confirm that the labor costs associated with a Communications Officer should be budgeted under Labor rather than ODCs.

As instructed on Section L.9, Part 2. b. “The cost proposal must be prepared in a manner consistent with your current accounting system” Under literal f, the RFP states “The Offeror must submit a detailed budget and budget narrative that supports item for item the cost estimates proposed in its detailed budget.”

38. Section L.13, Page 139, Please confirm that the labor costs associated with an AMEL Manager should be budgeted under Labor and other associated costs should be included in ODCs.

As instructed on Section L.9, Part 2. b. “The cost proposal must be prepared in a manner consistent with your current accounting system” Under literal f, the RFP states “The Offeror must submit a detailed budget and budget narrative that supports item for item the cost estimates proposed in its detailed budget.”

39. Section I.1 on page 85 includes a restriction on severance payments (FAR 52.237-8). Would USAID please consider removing this clause or adding FAR 52.237-9, Waiver of Limitation on Severance Payments to Foreign Nationals?

This clause will not be removed.

40. Section L.9, Part 2(e) on page 135 states, “The Summary Cost Worksheets provided must include separate worksheets for the prime and all major subcontracts identified at the proposal stage.” Would USAID please confirm/clarify the following items?

a. The Summary Budget tab in the required Budget Template includes only two budget line items with aggregate costs for CLIN 001 and CLIN 002. As major subcontractors are unlikely to have separate budgets for CLIN 002, is it correct to assume that major subcontractor summary cost worksheets will consist of a single line item for their CLIN 001 budget totals?

Correct.

b. Would it be correct to assume that non-major subcontractors identified at the proposal stage are not required to complete separate summary cost worksheets?

Correct. Per section L.9 Part 1(e), “The Summary Cost Worksheets provided must include separate worksheets for the prime and all major subcontracts identified at the proposal stage”. This section of the RFP also mentions “the Offeror assumes full responsibility to ensure that it submits sufficient information to allow USAID to determine the reasonableness and realism of proposed costs in the opinion of the Contracting Officer” and instructs the offeror to “Include in your cost proposal sufficient detail to support and explain all costs proposed, giving figures and narrative explanation”.

41. Section L.9, Part 2(g) on pages 135–136 states, “The summary budget must reflect summary cost information for each of the major budget categories for each of the contract years separately and then offer the program total for the entire contract, item for item in the last column of the spreadsheet.” The Summary Budget tab in the required Budget Template includes only two budget line items with aggregate costs for CLINs 001 and 002. Would USAID please confirm that only the Summary Budget tab in the required Budget Template must be provided?

Offerors must fill the budget template provided in Attachment J.7. Offerors may also complement the information by using their own detailed and summary budget separate tabs within the excel file.

42. Regarding Section L.9, Part 2, B (CLIN 002) on pages 142–143, please clarify the following items:

a. The last sentence of paragraph two states, “For each of the positions, qualifications include at least 5 years of relevant experience.” Should Offerors assume that there is one level for all labor categories for all types of staff/consultants or may Offerors propose separate ceiling daily rates (CDRs) for mid-level and senior for expatriates and CCNs, respectively?

Offerors can propose separate ceiling rates for the same position by level; if that is the case, it must include in its cost proposal sufficient detail to support and explain all costs proposed, giving figures and narrative explanation, in accordance with Section L.9. Part 2. B. CLIN 002.

b. Must Offerors use the proposed CDRs for the CLIN 002 budget or may they use more likely daily rates based on past experience? Please note that this is particularly important, should USAID limit the CDRs to one per labor category (to cover both expatriates and CCNs).

In accordance with Section L.9. Part 2. B. CLIN 002, the Offeror must propose ceiling daily rates for each of the illustrative positions. This section also states that for estimating purposes, the Offeror must propose costs for a total of [1,520] person-days equally distributed across all labor categories for each year of the five-year contract. If an Offeror were to propose separate ceiling rates for the same position by levels, it must use the ceiling rate for each level, as long as the mix provides the required LOE.

c. Would USAID please clarify whether ODCs need to be broken out or would they be budgeted as a lump sum?

For budgeting purposes, the $1,500,000 is a plug figure. If CLIN 002 is activated during implementation, this figure will become a ceiling.

d. Would USAID please confirm that the ODC limitation of $1.5M refers to all direct material costs, e.g., travel, subcontracts, ODCs, etc., and not just ODCs as a single cost category?

Per Section B.5 OTHER DIRECT COST LIMITATIONS UNDER CLIN 002, “The estimated cost of this CLIN includes estimates for material, equipment, subcontracts, travel, and training required for performance of the total amount of work that can be ordered by the government under this CLIN during the life of this contract. “ The $1.5 limit applies to all costs except labor, allowances, indirect rates, and fixed fee.

43. Regarding the Budget Template in Attachment J.7, would USAID please confirm that Offerors may add standard cost categories to the Detailed Budget tab, such as equipment/supplies?

Confirmed. As instructed on Section L.9, Part 2. b. “The cost proposal must be prepared in a manner consistent with your current accounting system” Under literal f, the RFP states “The Offeror must submit a detailed budget and budget narrative that supports item for item the cost estimates proposed in its detailed budget.”

44. Section B.3 (page 3) states that a fixed fee under CLIN 001 will be paid according to the completion of project deliverables. However, deliverables set as part of the proposal process may change during implementation due to evolving technical needs, newly emerged opportunities, and stakeholders’ priorities. To account for these potential shifts, would USAID consider adding the following language to Section F.7 (page 51): “The Fixed Fee Schedule may be adjusted during annual work planning to reprogram any unpaid fees from partially completed or non-accepted deliverables from the past year into other or additional deliverables as mutually agreed to between the contracting officer’s representative (COR) and the contractor, ensuring the fee remains fixed”? Adjusting the fee distribution plan with each annual work plan will enable the contractor to readjust and reallocate efforts and resources, as needed, to achieve the most results attainable within the total estimated cost.

The referenced language “However, deliverables set as part of the proposal process may change during implementation due to evolving technical needs, newly emerged opportunities, and stakeholders’ priorities” is not included in the RFP; however, USAID would like to clarify that if deliverables were only partially completed or not accepted, then fee will not be paid.

45. Page 3; SF 33 Form is missing, and completion of the form is one of the requirements for offer acceptability, per page 126. We kindly request USAID to please provide this form in amended RFP.

Please refer to the last version of the RFP posted in sam.gov on September 21, 2023, which was updated to include SF 33 Form on page 3.

46. Section L.9, Page 135, Please confirm that Offerors can use their own template with similar line items and components as included in Attachment J.7?

As instructed on Section L.9, Part 2. b. “The cost proposal must be prepared in a manner consistent with your current accounting system” Under literal f, the RFP states “The Offeror must submit a detailed budget and budget narrative that supports item for item the cost estimates proposed in its detailed budget.”

Offerors may add line items in the appropriate categories in line with their proposal but must use the provided template.

47. Section I.9, Page 96, To aid in compliance with FAR 52.229-8 Taxes-Foreign Cost- Reimbursement Contracts and the development of the contractor project planning can USAID please:

a. Confirm if the resultant contract will be exempted from host/recipient country taxes – e.g. VAT, duties, and income tax (for US and local teaming partners and their personnel).

Confirmed. In accordance with Concept No. 011207 dated February 22, 2002, granted by the Head of the Tax Doctrine Division of the Legal Office of the National Tax and Customs Directorate (DIAN); Services and funds provided under the resultant contract will be “exempt from all property or use taxes; any other taxes; requirements related to investments or deposits; exchange controls in Colombia;”. Non-nationals working in Colombia for activities related to the resultant contract will be exempted from income taxes and social security contributions, as well as from property taxes on the property of non-national organizations or personnel.

b. Provide offerors with copies of any applicable bilateral agreements or similar relevant document between the Government of Colombia and the U.S. Government establishing such exemption.

Relevant documents may be accessed through the following links:

Convenio General para Ayuda Económica, Técnica y Afín de fecha 23 de julio de 1962

Concepto Tributario 11207 DE 2002 - DIAN

48. Section L.9, Page 143, The RFP states “Offerors and proposed subcontractors must ensure they are registered with CCR (www.sam.gov) per FAR part 4.” However, agency’s guidance in ADS 302.3.6.11 “Contract Reporting and System for Award Management (SAM)” mentions that “There’s no requirement for subcontractors to complete full registration in SAM.” Please review/revise this requirement in the RFP to exempt subcontractors from being required to fully register in SAM, and instead request that subcontractors obtain a unique entity identifier (UEI).

Section L.9 has been amended. Consistent with ADS 302.3.6.11, it now reads “Offerors must ensure they are registered with CCR (www.sam.gov) per FAR part 4; proposed subcontractors are required to have a unique entity identifier in accordance with FAR Part 4.6, Contract Reporting, and 4.11 System for Award Management regardless of whether they are required to be registered in the SAM database.”

49. Section L.9, Page 143, Part 3 states “Offerors and proposed subcontractors must ensure they are registered with CCR (www.sam.gov) per FAR part 4.” Can the Government please confirm that this applies only to the Prime and Major subcontractors?

Section L.9 has been amended. Consistent with ADS 302.3.6.11, it now reads “Offerors must ensure they are registered with CCR (www.sam.gov) per FAR part 4; proposed subcontractors are required to have a unique entity identifier in accordance with FAR Part 4.6, Contract Reporting, and 4.11 System for Award Management regardless of whether they are required to be registered in the SAM database.” Please see the modification document to the RFP for details.

50. Section L.9, Page 143, Part 5 states offerors and subcontractors are required to share “Information Concerning Workday, Workweek, and Paid Absences.” Can the Government confirm that this applies only to the Prime and Major subcontractors?

This is a requirement for the offeror and each proposed subcontractor.

51. Section L.9, Page 144, Can the Government confirm that only the Prime and Major subcontractors need to submit Evidence of Responsibility?

This is a requirement for the offeror and each proposed subcontractor.

52. Section L.9, Page 151, Can Offerors propose Ceiling Daily rates for mid and senior levels staff across each of the required CLIN 002 labor positions to allow for more accurate Ceiling Daily Rate calculations?

Offerors can propose separate ceiling rates for the same position by level; if that is the case, it must include in its cost proposal sufficient detail to support and explain all costs proposed, giving figures and narrative explanation, in accordance with Section L.9. Part 2. B. CLIN 002.

https://www.dian.gov.co/normatividad/convenios/ConveniosBilaterales/B126.pdf https://normograma.dian.gov.co/dian/compilacion/docs/concepto_tributario_dian_0011207_2002.htm

53. L.8 Instructions for the Preparation of Past Performance Information, Section a, Item 2, Notes, page 133, The solicitation states that: “Major subcontractors are those that represent 20% or more of the Total CLIN 001 Budget.”, When determining Major Subcontractors, is the 20% figure to be calculated against the entire CLIN 1 budget or shall bidders exclude the grant amount? Given that the Grants/Fund management is primarily the responsibility of the Prime contractor, and the RFP requires the Activity Fund Manager (a Key Personnel position) to be hired under the Prime Contractor, would USAID agree that the grants fund should not be including in calculating the CLIN 1 budget for determining the major subcontractor role?

The 20% figure is to be calculated against the total CLIN 001 Budget, which includes the Activity Fund.

54. J. 5 - Branding and Marking, Point 1.8 BUDGET, Page 168, Please include all estimated costs associated with Branding & Marking for USAID programs, such as plaques, stickers, banners, press events and materials. Per Section L.9 – Part 2, CLIN 001, point 13, iii, Costs of Branding and Marking must be included under this line item. Would USAID please confirm what costs are to be listed under each of these sections?

All costs related to the execution of the Brading Implementation and Marking Plan must be included in this budget category.

55. Section L.9 – Part 12, Page 154, Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan, Could USAID please confirm that the Branding and Marking plan is to be submitted as part of the Cost proposal and not a separate volume? Historically, USAID has requested that the same be either submitted as an annex to the Technical Proposal or a separate volume.

Confirmed. USAID is requesting the Branding and Marking plan to be submitted as part of the Cost/Business Proposal and not as a separate volume.

56. L.8, P. 132, List two (2) of the most recent and relevant performed contracts or on-going contracts (or assistance instruments, such as cooperative agreements/grants) for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal for the Offeror and two (2) for each major subcontractor using the template provided in Section J.7. Can USAID confirm that the correct number of the Past Performance Form is Section J.6.?

J.7. is a separate attachment for Budget Guidance and Template.

Section L.8 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION, a., 1. has been amended to refer to the template provided in Section J.6. Please see the modification document to the RFP for details.

57. J.6 - PAST PERFORMANCE REPORT – SHORT FORM, p.174/175, Form J.6. states: The form is not required if the below information is available in the Government past performance systems and Section L.8 Instructions for the Preparation of Past Performance, p.132, Section L.8. a.1. states: List two (2) of the most recent and relevant performed contracts or on-going contracts (or assistance instruments, such as cooperative agreements/grants) for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal for the Offeror and two (2) for each major subcontractor using the template provided in Section J.7.

We assume the Form on page 174 (J.6) is the intended Form mentioned in Section L.8. However, the statement on the Form indicates that the form is not required if the information is available in the Government Past Performance systems. Does this mean that when a CPAR exists with the Government system, the contractor should not provide this “Past Performance Report – Short Form”?

As stated in the PAST PERFORMANCE REPORT -SHORT FORM the form is not required if it is available in the Government past performance system; however USAID encourages offerors to list the information.

58. Can a local partner, named in the proposal stage as part of a consortium, be financed as a part of and through the activity fund, assuming this consortium partner's SOW is aligned with and in compliance with the solicited activity fund description?

The contracting relationship for any consortium partners is a subcontract. Given this, offerors must follow the guidance for subcontractors, including major subcontractors. The Activity Fund is meant to be used as a mechanism to achieve the components and intermediate results of the requirements of the contract and any subcontractor that the offeror proposes must include a justification as to how their subcontract will work towards the achievement of these components and results.