Amendment No. 1_72052222R00003 final.pdf

(x)

72052222R00003 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.

x

720522

00000 USAID/Honduras

11/23/20220001

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.is 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

10/18/2022

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.)

The purpose of this amendment is to:

a) Extend the PROPOSALS DUE DATE stated in Block 9 of the SF 33 cover and the Cover Letter to Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:00 pm Honduras local time. All other delivery instructions remain the same.

b) Materialize in a single administrative action the questions posed by prospective offerors regarding this RFP, as well as USAID’s responses. This RFP is hereby amended by posting the responses to offerors’ questions in the attached Questions and Answers Document

(refer to Attachment J.12).

Continued ...

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)

Nathan Olah

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 .

ITEM NO. SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR

2 5

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED PAGE OF

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

72052222R00003/0001

c) Provide a revised version of RFP No.

72052222R00003 as amended.

All other terms, conditions, and attachments not amended by Attachment J.12 remain the same.

NSN 7540-01-152-8067 OPTIONAL FORM 336 (4-86)

Sponsored by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.110

SOL-72052222R00003

SDG

(Strengthening Democratic Governance Activity) Amendment No. 01

Extend the Deadline for Receipt of Proposals stated in the Cover Letter and in Block 9 of the SF-33 from November 30, 2022, at 3:00 p.m. Honduras local time to Friday, January 6, 2023, at 3:00 p.m.

Honduras local time. All other delivery instructions remain the same.

COVER LETTER

In the Cover Letter of the RFP, delete the Closing Date: line in its entirety, and insert in lieu thereof with the following:

“Closing Date: Friday, January 6, 2023, at 3:00 p.m. Honduras local time”

STANDARD FORM 33 (SF-33)

In Block 9 of SF-33, Delete “11/30/2022” and insert in lieu thereof “1/06/2023”

Update RFP Sections, as described in the following pages, to reflect revisions made as a result of the Questions and Answers Document (ATTACHMENT J.12)

SECTION F – DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

● Under Section F.6.1 IDIQ Reports, (1) IDIQ Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning System and Plan, pg. 31 delete “and should address the following:” and insert in lieu thereof, “Activity MEL system and MELP should address the following:”.

● Under Section F.6.1 IDIQ Reports, (8) IDIQ Annual Progress Report, pg. 36 delete at the end of the page letter “A”.

SECTION H – SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

● Under Section H.9 GRANTS UNDER CONTRACTS (GUCs), (e), pg. 54 delete “The total value of any individual grant to any U.S. organization will not exceed $100,000.” And insert in lieu thereof, “The total value of an individual grant to a U.S. organization must not exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT), as defined in 48 CFR Section 2.101.”

● Under Section H.27 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE, pg. 64, last paragraph, first sentence delete “…LAC-IEE-20-49 approved by the Acting Mission Director, Honduras on July 16, 2020.”

and insert in lieu thereof, “…LAC-IEE-22-96 ETD approved by the Mission Director, Honduras on April 3, 2022”. In addition, delete “Attachment J.9” and insert in lieu thereof “Attachment J.10”

SECTION J – LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

● Delete the following attachments:

“ATTACHMENT J.3 – BUDGET TEMPLATE

ATTACHMENT J.8 – INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXAMINATION (IEE) LAC-IEE-20-49

ATTACHMENT J.11 – CERTIFICATION REGARDING TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS

COMPLIANCE PLAN”.

(Strengthening Democratic Governance Activity) Amendment No. 01

And insert in lieu thereof:

“ATTACHMENT J.3 – BUDGET TEMPLATE (V2)

ATTACHMENT J.8 – INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXAMINATION (IEE) LAC-IEE-22-96 ETD

ATTACHMENT J.11 – CERTIFICATION REGARDING TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS

COMPLIANCE PLAN (V2)”.

● At the end of this section add the following attachment:

“ATTACHMENT J.12 – QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS DOCUMENT”.

SECTION L – INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

● Under Section L.9 – INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL

PROPOSAL:

i) On page 115, second paragraph, delete “a maximum of twenty-eight (28) pages” and insert in lieu thereof “a maximum of thirty-three (33) pages”.

ii) On page 116, insert “● Executive Summary (2 page maximum)” as part of the documents not included in the page limitation found in L.9.1. – L.9.3.

iii) On page 116, Section L.9.1 - Title, delete “not to exceed 8 pages” and insert in lieu thereof “not to exceed 9 pages”.

iv) On page 116, Section L.9.1, delete “The technical approach for the IDIQ must be in the following structure:” and insert in lieu thereof “The technical approach for the IDIQ must include (in no particular order) the following information:”.

v) On pages 116 – 119, Sections L.9.1 and L.9.2, delete all uses of “(not to exceed 1 page)”, “(not to exceed 2 pages)”, and “(not to exceed 3 pages)”.

vi) On page 118, Section L.9.2, delete “The technical approach for TO1 must be in the following structure:” and insert in lieu thereof “The technical approach for TO1 must include (in no particular order) the following information:”.

vii) On page 117, Section L.9.2 - Title, delete “not to exceed 14 pages” and insert in lieu thereof “not to exceed 16 pages”.

viii) On page 119, Section L.9.3 - Title, delete “not to exceed 6 pages” and insert in lieu thereof “not to exceed 8 pages”.

● Under Section L.10 – INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE

COST/BUSINESS PROPOSAL:

(Strengthening Democratic Governance Activity) Amendment No. 01

i) On page 122, Part 2, (1), first and last paragraph, delete “Attachment J.2” and insert in lieu thereof “Attachment J.3”.

ii) On page 125, Part 2, (3) i., delete “Please use the plug figures, broken out by year in your cost proposal.”

iii) On page 126, Part 2, (3) j., first paragraph, delete in its entirety and insert in lieu thereof “The proposed fee may be justified based upon the following factors: technical, management, support for Federal socioeconomic programs, and cost control. Any additional factors may be discussed as a basis for fee. A written discussion justifying the proposed fixed fee may be submitted, including the rationale for the proposed amount of fixed fee.”.

iv) On page 129, Part 3, (2), delete first paragraph in its entirety and insert in lieu thereof “(2) The Offeror and each proposed subcontractor must complete and sign all the Representations, Certification, and Other Statements as described in Section K. Online submission of Annual Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements via www.sam.gov is sufficient if the Offeror chose paragraph (d) of the provision under FAR 52.204-8. Please indicate in your proposal if online certifications and other statements were submitted.".

v) On page 131, Part 10, insert at the end of this section the following:

“USAID/Honduras discourages signing exclusivity agreements with local partners. Major subcontractors are those expected to perform at least 20% of the Offeror’s total proposed cost. All major subcontractors will need approval by the CO in accordance with FAR part 52.244-2 and part 44.202-2.".

[END OF AMENDMENT No. 01] http://www.sam.gov/

ATTACHMENT J.12_QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS DOCUMENT

Q No

Section Ref Page Ref QUESTION (s) RESPONSE (s)

1 B.7 12 Can USAID advise if section B.7, page 12, needs to be filled in by the contractor at the proposal stage?

A.1. No. Please follow the instructions provided in Section L.10, Part 2 (3) K. Indirect Costs (i).

2 B.7 12

Based on the note in section B.7, page 12, the indirect cost table should have the indirect cost rates for the prime and major subcontractor(s). Aside from the prime, should we interpret this to mean that indirect rates are required from major subcontractors only?

A.2. Confirmed. Aside from the prime, indirect rates are required from major subcontractors only.

3 C.4 16

a. To what extent should SDG plan to work with local governments?

b. To the extent the Activity works at the local level, should SDG focus any local work on local government directly or on decentralized offices of national-level institutions?

A.3. As stated in:

a. Section C.11, pg. 23: "This Activity is envisioned to work mostly at the national level coupled if needed, with select interventions at the regional and municipal levels."

b. Section C.5, pg. 18: "To increase the likelihood of sustainability, the Contractor must support the local system in the contexts in which it works. Local system refers to those interconnected sets of actors, governments, civil society, the private sector, individual citizens, and others, that jointly produce a development outcome."

4 C.4 17

Section C.4 identifies the following priority targeted sectors: “security, education, water, workforce development and agriculture” (p.17) while Attachment J.1 Section C.2 (p.6) identifies “security, education, health, and agriculture” as priority targeted sectors. Please clarify or provide further guidance.

A.4. The listed targeted sectors in Section C.4 and Attachment J.1, Section C.2 are illustrative in nature -- the main focus of the work under Objective 1 is strengthening public expenditure management and accountability in a variety of sectors.

5 C.4 17

C.4, the third paragraph of this section refers to the "State Attorney." Could USAID clarify which office this refers to, the Procuraduría General (which legally represents/defends the Honduran State in litigation), the Public Ministry Attorney General, or more narrowly to the Unidad Fiscal Especializada Contra Redes De Corrupción (UFERCO)? Or is it referring to another office?

A.5. The reference to "State Attorney's office" in Section C.4 corresponds to the "Procuraduria General".

6 C.7 22

C.7, the section indicates that “The total combined value for the grants to be issued under this Activity is estimated to be approximately 10% percent of the total activity.” Given the importance of working through local institutions, grants will play a strategically important part in achieving the IDIQ objectives, but the outlined 10% seems a bit too low for what may be required. Will USAID have the flexibility to increase this amount, if required?

A.6. USAID does not anticipate that the Grants Under Contracts (GUCs) component of a given task order will be the only assistance provided to local organizations. As the RFP notes in Section C.7, "These grants will be secondary or minor to the overall work performed under the task order." Currently, USAID does not anticipate an increase on the combined value for GUCs.

7 C.7 22 C.7 (p. 22), indicates that GOH entities might be eligible for grants under contract (in kind only); however, Section H.9 (Page 53) is silent on the topic. Would USAID please confirm GOH eligibility?

A.7. Section H.9, pg. 54, paragraph (e) states "GUCs to partner government entities may be authorized as in-kind donations only under the IDIQ and any of its task orders, pursuant to USAID Policy found in ADS 302." As such, USAID confirms GOH entities are eligible for grants under contracts as in-kind donations.

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Project Title: Strengthening Democratic Governance (SDG) Activity Solicitation #: Amendment No. 1 RFP No. 72052222R00003

Q No

Section Ref Page Ref QUESTION (s) RESPONSE (s)

8 C.10 23

Section C.10, the Contractor must develop a paid internship program for the duration of the contract and for all task orders. This internship program must be described in in both the technical cross cutting areas approach and the management staffing plan. Could USAID kindly provide additional expectations and conditions for this internship program. Indicating the expected number of interns the program must have at one time? If there must there be a 50/50 split between men/women? Detailing what percentage of TO1 budget goes to the internship program?

A.8. Section C.10 outlines the expectations of the paid internship program. USAID leaves it up to the contractor to propose questions posed (number of interns per TO, split between men and women, percentage of budget) as long as the contractor meets the expectations outlined in Section C.10 and conforms to the spirit of the program as defined.

9 C.11 23

Please clarify the instructions in Section C.11 Geographic Scope (pp.23-24). The section begins with stating that “[t]he Activity is envisioned to work mostly at the national level coupled if needed, with select interventions at the regional and municipal levels.” However, the remainder of the section suggests an emphasis on specific municipalities/clusters. Please clarify the expected geographic scope of a) the IDIQ; b) Task Order 1.

A.9. Section C.11 states, though "This Activity is envisioned to work mostly at the national level", where activities (such as efforts to increase citizen participation or pilot e-governance for example) can focus on regional or municipal level engagement, they should do so taking into account the USAID/Honduras' Country Development Cooperation Strategy and its focus on key “migration clusters,” which comprise roughly 40 municipalities that are the source of more than 60 percent of irregular migrants.

10 C.11 23

C.11, this section in the beginning states that the SDG Activity will focus mostly on the national level with limited efforts at the regional and municipal levels.

Much of the rest of this section, however, seems to stress that the Offeror should focus work on the 40 municipalities identified in USAID's place-based targeting approach. Could USAID further clarify how it sees the project's balance of effort between national level interventions vs. regional and municipal level interventions?

A.10. Refer to Q.9.

11 F.6.1(1) 31 F.6.1(1), toward the top of the page, there is a partial sentence that appears to have been cut off: "and should address the following." Could USAID provide the full sentence?

A.11. For clarification purposes, Section F.6.1(1), pg. 31, partial sentence "and should address the following:" is hereby amended to read: “Activity MEL system and MELP should address the following:”.

12 F.6.1(8) 36 F.6.1(8), On the last line of the page, there is a sentence that begins with "A" but has nothing else. Can USAID provide the full sentence?

A.12. Thank you for noting this typo. The letter "A" has been removed in the amended RFP.

13 H.9(e) 54

Section H.9(e) (page 54) states, “The total value of any individual grant to any U.

S. organization will not exceed $100,000.” In USAID’s update to ADS 302.3.4.13 on July 22, 2021, USAID increased the value of a grant to a U.S. organization to the simplified acquisition threshold. Would USAID please modify the language in Section H.6 to incorporate this regulatory update?

A.13. Section H.9(e), pg. 54, is hereby amended to read: “The total value of an individual grant to a U.S. organization must not exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT), as defined in 48 CFR Section 2.101.”.

Project Title: Strengthening Democratic Governance (SDG) Activity Solicitation #: Amendment No. 1 RFP No. 72052222R00003

Q No

Section Ref Page Ref QUESTION (s) RESPONSE (s)

14 H.10 55

Section H.10, the RFP outlines the potential need to do further assessment and build climate resilience into the activity. Since the Contractor may be asked to carry-out this assessment following USAID guidelines and guidance from the Mission Environmental Officer we kindly request clarification if the offerors should present budget figures for this potential Climate Risk Screening and include the screening within the Security Plan?

A.14. Yes, given that a climate risk assessment may be required, USAID advises that prospective offerors plan for it within their proposed budgets. In addition, Attachment J.8 - LAC-IEE-20-49 is hereby replaced with Amendment No. 1 Attachment J.8 - LAC-IEE-

22-96 ETD.

Project Title: Strengthening Democratic Governance (SDG) Activity Solicitation #: Amendment No. 1 RFP No. 72052222R00003

Q No

Section Ref Page Ref QUESTION (s) RESPONSE (s)

15 J.1 4

Should USAID wish to tie fees to results achieved with specified targets, as stated in Attachment J.1, Task Order 1, Section B.7 (page 4), a cost-plus-incentive-fee (CPIF) with performance incentives contract would be more appropriate and likely provide greater value to USAID. Under a cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract with these specifications, the contractor could forfeit the fee associated with a deliverable that the contractor did not achieve in a certain timeframe. The possibility of forfeiture could create a disincentive to devote additional effort and resources to achieve that deliverable, inadvertently resulting in lowered results.

However, should USAID wish to keep a CPFF-type contract, we respectfully request the following changes:

a. Attachment J.1, Task Order 1, Section B.7(g) (page 4) states, “When a Fee Bearing Milestone is not completed or achieved, the portion of the total fixed fee allocated to the Milestone in the Fee Distribution Plan will not be paid.” To ensure the fee under this contract remains fixed and is only adjusted because of changes in the work to be performed, we request the addition of the following sentence to B.7(g): “Any unpaid fee resulting from the Contractor not achieving a certain result beyond its manageable control can be reallocated among other or new deliverables in the work plan for the current or upcoming year.”

b. Attachment J.1, Task Order 1, Section B.7(h) (page 5) states, “When a Fee Bearing result/task is not completed on time or requires more cost/effort to complete than projected in the WP and/or MELP, the portion of the total fixed fee allocated to the Milestone in the Fee Distribution Plan may be subject to adjustment of the fee by the Contracting Officer.” Under FAR 16.306(a), fees under a CPFF completion-type contract do not vary with actual costs but may be adjusted because of changes in the work to be performed under the contract.

Further, it is our understanding, per FAR 16.306(d)(2), that only under CPFF term-type contracts may fees be adjusted because of the need for additional effort to complete a deliverable. The contractor may not achieve certain deliverables on time because of factors beyond the contractor’s control, such as market forces or evolving stakeholder priorities.

To ensure contractors remain eligible to earn the contractual fixed fee upon completion of the contract, we request that USAID revise B.7(h) to read: “When a fee bearing result/task is not completed on time, the portion of the total fixed fee allocated to the result/task in the fee distribution plan will be subject to adjustment, by the contracting officer, regarding when and/or how much fee is paid. Any unpaid fee resulting from the contractor not achieving a certain result beyond its manageable control can be reallocated among other or new deliverables in the work plan for the upcoming year.”

A.15. Payment of fee will be managed in accordance with the terms of the RFP. Deviations, if any, associated with approved modifications to the WP, MEL Plan and/or due to Excusable Delays (FAR 52.249-14), may be evaluated by CO on a one-to-one basis after contract award.

Project Title: Strengthening Democratic Governance (SDG) Activity Solicitation #: Amendment No. 1 RFP No. 72052222R00003

Q No

Section Ref Page Ref QUESTION (s) RESPONSE (s)

16 J.1 4

The RFP Section B.7, recognizes the fluid political context in Honduras in various places – e.g., “the constantly changing and evolving nature of governance challenges” (p. 13); the call for adaptive management to respond to the “evolving circumstances and shifting windows of opportunity” (pp. 18-19 and p. 9 of Attachment J.1); the need for CLA to monitor “non-linear change in evolving governance ecosystems” (p. 19). The realities the past few years of USAID programming in Honduras and Central America more broadly have given ample evidence for this. Such an environment makes it challenging for Offerors to set meaningful milestone targets to tie their fee to other than deliverables which they can control. For example, while the Whistleblower Act listed as an Expected Result may mark an important legislative advance for combatting corruption, an Offeror can’t control the passage of a law. Fixed milestones may also limit implementer flexibility since a contractor would be bound to achieve a result that USAID may no longer deem a priority. Would USAID consider untying the fixed fee to performance milestone and reverting to the conventional application of a fixed fee percentage tied to work performed? If not, could USAID confirm that Offerors should use as milestones only deliverables that are within their manageable interest?

A.16.

a. Refer to Q.15.

b. Confirmed. Offerors should use as milestones only deliverables that are within their manageable interest.

17 J.1 6

Component 2 of TO1 should “[p]rovide localization, learning, adapting, monitoring and information support services to implement activities for all task orders and objectives of the SDG IDIQ” (p.6 of Attachment J.1). However, the period of performance of the IDIQ is seven years while that of TO1 is five years.

The budget template (Attachment J.3) only includes five years, too. Please clarify whether contractors should budget for IDIQ-related work under Component 2 for seven years, and, if so, please provide an updated estimated total cost for TO1.

A.17. As stated in Section L.10, Part 2 (1) "The Offeror MUST organize and provide the Cost Proposal for Task Order 1 in Excel using the Budget Template included in Attachment J.3. The Task Order 1 budget must contain all costs necessary for the overall management for the five years of the entire IDIQ and production of the deliverables found in both Section F.6 of the IDIQ and Task Order 1.". Please budget for the estimated period of performance of Task Order 1 (five years) as set forth in Attachment J.1 - Section F.2.

18 J.1 6

Section C, a. Does the USAID Effective Justice to Combat Criminality and Corruption (JECCC) Activity work plan include activities directed to civil society advocacy, oversight and performance evaluations of justice sector organizations, functions, processes, and outcomes?

b. If so, does USAID envision SDG implementing complementary activities directed to citizen participation for a responsive justice that won’t overlap with activities from this or other USAID projects?

A.18.

a. Through SDG, USAID does not envision direct support to civil society advocacy, oversight and performance evaluations of justice sector organizations, functions, processes, and outcomes.

b. USAID does envision complementary activities that leverage support for SDG results with JECCC and others.

Project Title: Strengthening Democratic Governance (SDG) Activity Solicitation #: Amendment No. 1 RFP No. 72052222R00003

Q No

Section Ref Page Ref QUESTION (s) RESPONSE (s)

19 J.1 7

Attachment J.1 – Task Order 1, Section C. 3 Statement of Work, Component 1, Result 1, Expected Results, page 7, includes a bullet that states: “Percentage of annual improvement in public financial management index for targeted GOH Institutions (defined as a composite index).” We have the following related questions:

a. Does USAID already have this public financial management index or does the Contractor need to create it?

b. If this index already exists, could USAID share it?

A.19. USAID does not have the index, the contractor will need to define and create it. USAID also understands that expected results and indicators (such as indexes) need to be further defined after contract award once the contractor has established targeted sectors and institutions.

20 J.1 7

Attachment J.1 – Task Order 1, Section C. 3 Statement of Work, Component 1, Result 1, Expected Results, page 7, includes a bullet that states: “Level of implementation of select laws based on baseline assessment using a composite index.” We have the following related questions:

a. Does USAID already have this composite index or does the Contractor need to create it?

b. If this index already exists, could USAID share it?

A.20. Refer to Q.19.

21 J.1 7

Section C.3, under Component 1, Result 1, would USAID consider changing the “Percentage of targeted GOH entities employing a results-based budget or budgeting for results” to the “Number of targeted GOH entities employing a results-based budget or budgeting for results”? This would make it easier for USAID to evaluate the program impact since with “percentage” an implementing partner that targeted and achieved only success with one entity would score higher (100%) than if it targeted four and only succeeded with two entities (50%).

A.21. USAID envisions support to a cadre of institutions, but understands not all of them will employ results-based budgeting or budgeting results thus the percentage.

22 J.1 7

Section C.3, Component 1, Result 1 includes the indicator, “Percentage of annual improvement in public financial management index for targeted GOH Institutions (defined as a composite index).” Could USAID clarify if there is a specific composite index it has in mind (e.g., an existing national index or the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability [PEFA] framework)? Or is what is envisioned a project-developed index?

A.22. Refer to Q.19.

23 J.1 7

Section C.3, Component 1, Result 1 includes the indicator, “Percentage of new civil service appointments and promotions that are made in accordance with objective, merit-based criteria for targeted institutions.” Generating data for this indicator will require relying on government entity data, and we foresee resistance by government entities to share this data. Would USAID consider another indicator for this result? If not, could the percentage at least be limited to the government entities that the project is targeting?

A.23. USAID envisions the use of a percentage within targeted insitutions.

Project Title: Strengthening Democratic Governance (SDG) Activity Solicitation #: Amendment No. 1 RFP No. 72052222R00003

Q No

Section Ref Page Ref QUESTION (s) RESPONSE (s)

24 J.1 7

Section C.3, while the RFP states that the SDG activity’s focus is on the national level, Component 1, Result 2 includes “devolved authorities” as one focus areas of the work under this result. To facilitate Offerors properly allocating budget resources, does USAID have priorities for which devolved authorities it would like Offerors to focus on? Does it have a particular scale of work in mind?

A.24. USAID has not defined priorities as stated in that same paragraph in Section C.3, Component 1, Result 2 "...the contractor must prioritize targeted institutions and sectors to modernize state processes, implement compliance certifications such as International Standardization Organization (ISO), increase devolved authorities and e-governance."

25 J.1 8

Section C.3, under Component 1, Result 3, the RFP lists the Solicitor General as one of the accountability Institutions for the project to target. Could USAID clarify if this is referring to the Procurator General (Procuraduria) or the Public Ministry/Attorney General, or more narrowly to the Unidad Fiscal Especializada Contra Redes De Corrupción (UFERCO)? Or is it referring to another office?

A.25. Confirmed. The reference to "Ministry of Transparency" in Attachment J.1, Section C.3, under Component 1, Result 3, is to the "Procuradoria (Procurador General)".

26 J.1 8

Section C.3, under Component 1, Result 3, the RFP lists the Ministry of Transparency as one of the accountability Institutions for the project to target.

Can USAID confirm that this is referring to the Secretaría de Transparencia y Lucha Contra la Corrupción (STLCC)? Or is it referring to another office?

A.26. Confirmed. The reference to "Ministry of Transparency" in Attachment J.1, Section C.3, under Component 1, Result 3, is to the "Secretaría de Transparencia y Lucha Contra la Corrupción (STLCC)".

27 J.1 8

Section C.3, Component 1, Result 3 lists the “Establishment of a whistleblower act” as an expected result. Given that this would require broad political support to enact and significant resources to implement with due protections for whistleblowers, witnesses and their families, would USAID consider scaling down the ambition of this result to something an implementing partner can have more control of – “Build coalitions of support for the establishment of a whistleblower act”?

A.27. USAID understands expected results and indicators (such as the establishment of a whistleblower act that can be defined by process) need to be further defined with the successful Offeror after contract award once the contractor has defined targeted sectors and insitutions.

28 J.1 9

Section C.3, under Component 2, Result 1, would USAID consider changing the “Percentage of local entities that provide technical advising services” to the “Number of local entities that provide technical advising services”? Implementing partners will only be targeting a select number of local entities to support the achievement of this result, so it would help if the focus were more on targeted beneficiaries.

A.28. USAID envisions support to a cadre of entities but understands not all of them will provide advising services thus the percentage. Nevertheless, the successful Offeror is expected to collaborate with USAID after contract award to determine the final indicators and their respective targets, as necessary.

29 J.1 9

Section C.3, Component 2, Result 1 has several indicators that appear on the surface to fit better with different results – e.g., “Measure of change in targeted governance ecosystems” (Component 1, all results); “Change in norms, behaviors and structures that drive corruption” (Component 1, Result 3); and “Capacity of local research organizations increased” (Component 2, Result 1). Would USAID consider re-assigning these indicators or are these indicators intended to be overarching indicators for the whole program?

A.29. USAID understands that some expected indicators can be used in one or more results depending on how they are defined.

The successful Offeror is expected to collaborate with USAID after contract award to determine the final indicators and their respective targets, as necessary.

Project Title: Strengthening Democratic Governance (SDG) Activity Solicitation #: Amendment No. 1 RFP No. 72052222R00003

Q No

Section Ref Page Ref QUESTION (s) RESPONSE (s)

30 J.1 10

Section C.5, the RFP states that “The total combined value for the grants to be issued under this TO1 is estimated at, but not limited to, 4% percent of the TO1 total estimated cost.” Given the importance of working through local institutions, grants will play a strategically important part in achieving the project objectives.

The RFP wording suggests that Offerors may propose a grant budget of more than 4%. If this is the correct understanding, does USAID have any limits on what can be proposed or a range that would be allowable?

A.30.

a. For purposes of this RFP, please follow the instructions on pg.

125, Section L.10, Part 2, (3) i., "The total combined value for the grants to be issued under TO1 must amount to 4% of the TO1 total estimated cost...". Instructions found in Attachment J.1, Section C.5,

pg. 10, will remain as such to provide flexibility to the contractor in the implementation of the SDG activity.

b. USAID confirms that the denominator to be used for this purpose is the TO1 Total Estimated Cost.

31 J.1 10

Section C.5, the RFP allows for in-kind grants to government institutions, which will be quite critical as an implementer supports counterparts to modernize, including through expanded e-governance, which may involve often costly IT (Information Technology) hardware upgrades and software design and/or procurement. Given the nature of these procurements and to allow for sufficient budget resources targeted to these interventions, is it allowable for Offerors to include budget for in-kind equipment and consultancy service procurements, which falls outside the grant budget and would be included in the Consultant, Procurement, Subcontract and/or Other Direct Costs line items?

A.31. In-kind grants to government may include donations of Equipment/Materials or Services. The Grants Under Contracts cost category line item should only include the grant amounts that will be directly transferred to subgrantees; all other associated costs (i.

e., grant management and administration) should be incorporated into other cost categories, as appropriate.

32 J.1 21

Section F.6.1, the submission deadline for the final version of the Annual Work Plan (AWP) is within 15 days after the annual SRS, which is given a due date of within 120 days of TO1 award, which would mean that the AWP is due within 135 days of TO1 award. In the description of the AWP on p. 21, however, it sets the final AWP deadline at 120 days after award. Can USAID clarify which deadline should be used?

A.32. The contractor should use the date of the description on page 21 of Attachment J.1., "Final version 15 calendar days after SRS but no later than 120 days after award".

33 J.3 85 Attachment J.3, Budget Template, may offerors delete the “Rate” column given that the template also asks for a Year 1 rate in columns D, G ,J, M, and P?

A.33. Attachment J.3 is hereby amended to (refer to revised attachment):

a. Tab "c_Detailed Budget:" "Rate" column is hereby deleted.

34 J.3 85

Attachment J.3 Budget Template, on the worksheet “d LOE Summary”, please clarify how Home Office Support Staff should appear in this table. Should there be another row inserted, for example, or should the Home Office LOE not be considered?

A.34. Home Office support must be included under the STTA - USN/TCN row.

Project Title: Strengthening Democratic Governance (SDG) Activity Solicitation #: Amendment No. 1 RFP No. 72052222R00003

Q No

Section Ref Page Ref QUESTION (s) RESPONSE (s)

35 J.3 85 The Summary Budget and Detailed Budget tables contain a line for Fixed Fee.

Does USAID want offerors to separate their proposed Fixed Fee and Fixed Fee on GUCs into two separate lines or combine them?

A.35. USAID does not have a preference, as long as all information required in the RFP is provided.

36 J.3 85 The LOE Summary table does not contain Consultants LOE. Does USAID want offerors to separate STTA Direct LOE and Consultants LOE?

A.36. It is not necessary to separate STTA Direct LOE and Consultants LOE.

37 J.5 85

As the past performance matrix (Attachment J.5) is not printer-friendly (the table stretches over multiple pages and some of its columns would feature disproportionally more text than other columns), please allow offerors to select a different reader-friendly format to present the required information.

A.37. The Past Performance Matrix provided in Section J Attachment 5 is a sample, not a requirement, which offerors may use to provide the information requested under Section L.9.4.

38 J.9 85

The sample in Attachment J.9 requires cost information and technical proposals shall not include cost information. It also requires significant level of detail while presenting such a thorough annual work plan within three pages is unrealistic.

Please confirm that the sample in Attachment J.9 is illustrative and that offerors may use their own templates for the purposes of the TO1 Illustrative Work Plan.

A.38. The TO1 Illustrative Work Plan to be submitted in the technical proposal should not include cost. Also, the Sample Work Plan provided in Section J Attachment 9 is a sample, not a requirement, which offerors may use to provide the information requested under Section L.9.2. (f)

39 J.11 85 Section J, The list of attachments includes a reference for “Certification Regarding Trafficking.” Can USAID advise under which section in the proposal the certificate should be included?

A.39. Provision 52.222-56 was included by reference under Section L.1. according to Attachment J.11, “A signed copy of the below certification will be requested of the apparent successful Offeror prior to award. If at the time of Proposal submission, the Offeror has a compliance plan that meets the below requirements, the Offeror is requested to submit the certification as part of its Cost/Business Proposal.” A revised version of Attachment J.11 is included with Amendment 1 to the solicitation.

40 L.6 112

Section L.6, page 112, states: “No Agency waiver will be authorized to extend beyond August 13, 2022.” However, given USAID’s modified foreign assistance waiver does not expire until September 30, 2028, please confirm this limitation no longer applies.

A.40. The language being referred to pertains to the Agency-approved waivers and not to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) waivers. USAID confirms that the DNI Modified Foreign Assistance waiver could be applied to this award if the Offeror certifies that no other Section 889-compliant alternatives are available in the countries where the Offeror discloses the use of covered technology.

Project Title: Strengthening Democratic Governance (SDG) Activity Solicitation #: Amendment No. 1 RFP No. 72052222R00003

Q No

Section Ref Page Ref QUESTION (s) RESPONSE (s)

41 L.9 116

Sections L.9.1 and L.9.2 (pages 116-119) require offerors to follow a specific structure with defined page counts for each subsection.

a. Would USAID please remove the page limitations for the subsections of the Technical Approach for IDIQ and Technical Approach for Task Order 1 (TO1) to allow offerors greater flexibility to respond to Section L/M requirements while still adhering to the overall page limits for these sections of the proposal?

b. Would USAID also please allow offerors to structure the Technical Approach for IDIQ and Technical Approach for Task Order 1 using a different order of subsections while adequately addressing all elements referenced in Section L?

This adjustment will enable offerors to present the information in an order that will facilitate USAID’s review of proposals.

c. Would USAID please consider allowing one additional page in the Technical Approach for IDIQ so that offerors could present the overall methodology for the IDIQ before going into the methodologies specific to each IDIQ objective?

d. Would USAID please grant offerors one additional page to present the overall approach for TO1 before detailing the component-level approaches?

A.41. Section L.9 is hereby amended as follows:

a. On pages 116 - 119, Sections L.9.1 and L.9.2, delete all uses of "(not to exceed 1 page)", "(not to exceed 2 pages)", and "(not to exceed 3 pages)".

b. On page 116, Section L.9.1, delete "The technical approach for the IDIQ must be in the following structure:" and replace with "The technical approach for the IDIQ must include (in no particular order) the following information:". Also, on page 118, Section L.9.2, delete "The technical approach for TO1 must be in the following structure:" and replace with "The technical approach for TO1 must include (in no particular order) the following information:".

c. On page 116, Section L.9.1 - Title, delete "not to exceed 8 pages" and replace with "not to exceed 9 pages".

d. On page 117, Section L.9.2 - Title, delete "not to exceed 14 pages" and replace with "not to exceed 16 pages".

In addition, on page 119, Section L.9.3 - Title, delete "not to exceed 6 pages" and replace with "not to exceed 8 pages". Consequently, on page 115, Section L.9, second paragraph, delete "twenty-eight

(28) pages" and replace with "thirty-three (33) pages".

42 L.9 116

We request that USAID allow offerors to structure the technical approach for the IDIQ and for Task Order One as they see fit as long as the overall page restriction (22 pages) is observed. This would help offerors provide more informative proposals and would help avoid repetition. For example, gender, CLA, and to a certain extent, geographic scope are to be covered both under the Guiding Principles and Cross-Cutting Areas Approach sub-sections. (Sections L.9.1 and L.

9.2, pp.116-119)

A.42. Refer to Q.41.

43 L.9 115

Section L.9 (beginning on page 115) outlines instructions for preparing the technical proposal. The section does not mention an executive summary. Would USAID allow offerors to include a two-page executive summary (excluded from the page limitation) to highlight the key aspects of the proposal?

A.43. Yes, but is it not considered mandatory; however, the two-page Executive Summary will not count towards the maximum page count or be used as a part of the evaluation.

44 L.9 115 May offerors include a two-page Executive Summary with the technical proposal (not to count against the page limit)?

A.44. Refer to Q.43.

Project Title: Strengthening Democratic Governance (SDG) Activity Solicitation #: Amendment No. 1 RFP No. 72052222R00003

Q No

Section Ref Page Ref QUESTION (s) RESPONSE (s)

45 L.9 115

Section L.9 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, page 115, states: “Only 12-point Times New Roman font may be used…The font used in tables and charts may be adjusted as appropriate but must be no smaller than 8-point.” Could USAID confirm that the font used in textboxes and graphics can also be a different font type and a smaller size, as long as it isn’t smaller than 8-point?

A.45. USAID confirms that the font used in textboxes and graphics can be a different font type and size, so long as it is not smaller than 8-point.

46 L.9 116

Section L.9 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, page 116, states that the cover page, table of contents, list of acronyms and any divider page are not included in the 28-page limitation. Would USAID allow Offerors to submit a two-page executive summary that would not count against the technical proposal page limit?

A.46. Refer to Q.43.

47 L.9 116

Section L.9.1 Technical Approach for IDIQ, page 116, states that the Technical Approach for the IDIQ section of the proposal cannot exceed eight pages. The RFP then lists how these eight pages should be divided amongst the subsections, including one page for Background, one page for IDIQ Objective 1 Approach, and so on. Similarly, Section L.9.2 Technical Approach for Task Order 1, page 117, states that the technical approach for this task order cannot exceed 14 pages.

The RFP then lists how these 14 pages should be divided amongst the subsections, including one page for Background, three pages for Component 1 Approach, and so on.

Would USAID consider granting Offerors flexibility in the division of the number of pages among the subsections within the Technical Approach for the IDIQ and Technical Approach for Task Order 1, as long as the Technical Approach for the IDIQ is no more than eight pages overall, and the Technical Approach for Task Order 1 is no more than 14 pages overall?

A.47. Refer to Q.41.

48 L.9 116

The RFP (L.9.1 and L.9.2) asks for methodologies to be written for each of the IDIQ objectives and TO components. There is no place, however, to articulate a program level methodology that could better demonstrate how Offerors will use systems thinking to provide USAID an integrated approach in response to the political complexities found in the Honduran context. Would USAID consider allowing Offerors to provide a 2-page strategy/methodology section for the IDIQ that can then be referenced within the methodologies for the IDIQ objectives and TO components? This will avoid unnecessarily fragmented approaches to these sections and offer a much clearer picture of how the Offeror will achieve the IDIQ's and TO's objectives.

A.48. Refer to Q.41.

49 L.9 116 The RFP (L.9.1.a and L.9.2.a) asks for 1-page Background write-ups for both the IDIQ and TO Technical Approaches. Given that there will be significant overlap between these and to allow for a wider and more nuanced discussion, would USAID consider allowing Offerors to write one 2-page Background section that applies to both? Offerors could use the narrative to point out areas that may apply particularly to either the IDIQ or TO.

A.49. Refer to Q.41.

Project Title: Strengthening Democratic Governance (SDG) Activity Solicitation #: Amendment No. 1 RFP No. 72052222R00003

Q No

Section Ref Page Ref QUESTION (s) RESPONSE (s)

50 L.9 117

L.9.1.e and L.9.2.d, the IDIQ Scope of Work in Section C.5 includes 14 Guiding Principles, which it defines in close to 4 pages of narrative. Offerors, however, are only given 2 pages to discuss their methodology for implementing all 14 principles in the IDIQ and 2 pages in the TO. To allow enough space for a substantive discussion and given that the application of the principles will be quite similar in the IDIQ and the TO, would USAID consider allowing Offerors to have one 4-page Guiding Principles section for both the IDIQ and TO? If this is not possible, could the Guiding Principles sections be expanded to 4 pages?

A.50. Refer to Q.41.

51 L.9 117

L.9.1.f and L.9.2.e, the RFP asks for Cross Cutting Areas Approach write-ups in both the IDIQ (2 page) and TO (1 page) sections. Given that there will be significant overlap between these and to allow for a wider and more nuanced discussion, would USAID consider allowing Offerors to write one 3-page Cross Cutting Areas Approach section that applies to both? Offerors could use the narrative to point out areas that may apply particularly to either the IDIQ or TO.

A.51. Refer to Q.41.

52 L.9 117

L.9.1.f and L.9.2.e, For the Cross Cutting Areas Approach sections, USAID asks Offerors to discuss their overall methodology for implementing "grants under contracts, gender, monitoring, evaluating, learning, and adapting, internship program and geographic scope across task orders." Two of these areas – "gender" and "monitoring, evaluating, learning, and adapting" – have significant overlap with three of the Guiding Principles – "Gender and Marginalized Populations/Inclusive Development," "Adaptive Management," and "Collaboration, Learning, and Adaptation." So that Offerors can avoid repeating material for compliance purposes and to thereby allow for fuller and more detailed explanations of approaches, would USAID allow Offerors to present write-ups in one section and to then refer to these write-ups in the other section?

A.52. Refer to Q.41.

53 L.9.2 119

L.9.2, the requirements listed under L.9.1 Technical Approach for IDIQ do not include an overall IDIQ Monitoring Evaluation and Learning system and Plan-beyond a brief mention in L.9.1 Section F Cross Cutting Areas Approach. Can USAID please clarify if there should be a detailed IDIQ level MELP?

A.53. Confirmed. Offerors are not required to provide an overall IDIQ Monitoring Evaluation and Learning System and Plan.

54 L.9.2 119

We request that USAID replace the requirement for a TO1 Draft MELP (Section L.

9.2.g, p.119) with a requirement for a TO1 MEL Approach as presenting a Draft MELP (to include indicators, targets, CLA elements, and discussion of linkages to an IDIQ MEL System and Plan) will require significantly more space than two pages.

A.54. USAID has considered this request and has declined the recommendation to allow offerors to replace the requirement for a TO1 Draft MELP with a requirement for a TO1 MEL Approach. Also, refer to Q.41.

Project Title: Strengthening Democratic Governance (SDG) Activity Solicitation #: Amendment No. 1 RFP No. 72052222R00003

Q No

Section Ref Page Ref QUESTION (s) RESPONSE (s)

55 L.9.2 118

Section L.9.2(f) (page 118) sets a three-page limit for the Illustrative TO1 Work Plan and Section L.9.2(g) (page 119) sets a two-page limit for the TO1…