Attachment J.8 RFP 7201121R00002 - Questions and Answers.pdf

ATTACHMENT J.8 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

SECTION B – SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS

1. Section B.4 of the RFP states that the payment of fee will be in accordance with the fee schedule provided on page 6. However, the RFP further states that the table is “an illustrative table that will be filled in at time of award,” and Section L.6.2 states that the “Offeror may propose their own fee schedule to be inserted in Section B.4”. Can USAID clarify what, if any, latitude offerors have to deviate from the fee schedule as presented in Section B.4 to propose their own fee schedules?

USAID Response: The offerors may maintain the current fee table and/or propose on of their own as stated under Section L.6.2. We encourage and welcome offerors to come up with their own unique fee table.

2. Section B.5 page 6-7, a company’s indirect rates are acknowledged to be proprietary and sensitive financial information, the disclosure of which would result in competitive harm and, consistent with the Trade Secrets Act, should therefore be protected from such disclosure to third parties (including prime contractors whom may be competitors on other

Procurements). Thus, we respectfully request that the Subcontractor’s indirect rate information not be included in Section B.5 or any part of the final Contract and that such subcontractors pursue the option of submitting their confidential information directly to USAID. Please acknowledge your acceptance of this clarification and request for protection of proprietary company financial data.

USAID Response: Indirect rate information is required under Section B.5 and L.6.2(d). The

Offeror and each major subcontractor must include a complete copy of its most current

NICRA or other documentation from its cognizant Government Audit Agency, if any, stating the most recent provisional indirect cost rates. If the offeror or sub find that this would cause harm or release proprietary information, the sub may submit directly to USAID. However, please note any transmittal error will result in the entire submission being deemed non-compliant. The offeror and sub may proceed at their own risk. Please also refer to H.22 on page 59 for further guidance on disclosure of information.

SECTION C – STATEMENT OF WORK

1. Section C.3 – Background, page 9, mentions that “focus on mining taxation is distracting attention from broader issues in the country’s tax regime.” Does USAID intend for ReMEG to address mining sector taxation?

USAID Response: Mining taxation may be included in the activity, after consultation and coordination with host-country partners and other donor agencies. This will be decided at the initial work planning phase, and periodically reviewed thereafter.

2. On page 15 of the RFP, under C.4 Gender, it states that “USAID will also support diagnostic studies and surveys on the potential social and economic effects on population

Attachment J.8

RFP Questions & Answers groups expected to be affected by reforms.” Please clarify whether ReMEG will be expected to conduct those diagnostic studies and surveys, or if USAID is supporting them through another mechanism.

USAID Response: There are a number of studies and surveys generated by USAID as well as other actors. The implementor will be expected to use available data sets to assist counterparts in assessing potential social and economic effects of specific reforms. Limited additional data collection may be required, for instance, to support counterparts’ efforts to conduct gender-informed analyses, such as studies of taxpayer compliance costs or tax incidence analyses.

SECTION D- BRANDING STRATEGY, IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND

MARKING PLAN

1. On page 19 of 144 in the RFP, it states the following: The Branding Strategy, Implementation and Marking plan must be submitted by the apparently successful offeror only.

However, Annex 6 of the technical proposal submission is for the Branding and Marking Plan.

Please confirm that no Branding and Marking Plan is required to be submitted with the proposal and that USAID will request one from the apparently successful offeror.

USAID Response: No Branding and Marking Plan is required to be submitted with the proposal and that USAID will request one from the apparently successful offeror. The Branding

Strategy, Branding Implementation Plan, and Marking Plan must be submitted by the apparently successful offeror only and will be reviewed and subject to approval prior to contract award.

SECTION F – DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

1. Section F.3 page 22, could USAID provide guidance on how it plans to address COVID

19 with respect to new program start-up and mobilization given the current COVID travel advisory for Zambia is Level 3? For example, does USAID plan to allow for remote performance should travel restrictions and/or conditions merit?

USAID Response: USAID requires key personnel to be in-country and operational, with appropriate risk mitigation measures taken. USAID will be flexible with the realities on-the-ground.

2. Section F.5.2(a) page 24-25, is the inception-phase work plan something apart from the

Year 1 Work Plan or to be incorporated into the latter? That is, do the Plans overlap or are they sequential?

USAID Response: The inception-phase work plan and Year 1 work plan are sequential. The inception phase work plan covers the 3 month period of the inception phase. The Year 1 work plan is due at the end of the inception period.

3. In Section F9 the RFP states that 5 positions (a Chief of Party and 4 “TBD” positions) will be provided by the contractor and that the offeror “must propose all other Key Personnel positions” (page 34). However, in L.5.2I Factor 3: Key Personnel USAID states that “The

Offeror will propose an appropriate mix of key personnel (up to five), including a Chief of

Party.” Would USAID kindly clarify whether offerors are required to submit all 5 Key

Personnel positions, or whether offerors may determine the number of Key Personnel positions to propose in addition to the Chief of Party (not to exceed 5 total key personnel positions)?

USAID Response: Offerors may propose the number of Key Personnel positions in addition to the Chief of Party, not to exceed a total of 5.

4. On page 34 of the RFP, under F.9 Key Personnel, it lists the Chief of Party’s primary

Roles and Responsibilities, and states that the COP must “Provide technical guidance in the areas of local government performance and decentralization.” Given that the Section C

Statement of Work makes little reference to local governance or decentralization work – except as areas under the remit of other donor programs which ReMEG is to potentially collaborate with – please confirm if this area is one of the Chief of Party’s primary Roles and

Responsibilities.

USAID Response: This is a typo. The text should read as follows: “Provide technical guidance in the areas of revenue policy and administration.” The RFP has been amended.

5. On page 34 of the RFP, under F.9 Key Personnel, it states that “All Key Personnel must be employed by the Prime Contractor…”. Given the limited budget ceiling, the 20% cost threshold for major subcontractor status, and the desirability for major subcontractors to be fully integrated into the delivery of primary technical activities, would USAID consider expanding this requirement to allow major subcontractors to also employ Key Personnel?

USAID Response: USAID maintains the language under F.9. To maintain the privity of contract with the prime and ensure appropriate lines of reporting, it is important that the Key

Personnel be employed by the prime. Having a sub provide a key personnel may lead to management challenges and create issues with providing technical direction.

SECTION H – SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

1. Section H.3 (e)(1) on page 45 states, “U.S Staff (including expats: Annual salary increases

(e.g. cost of living, merit, promotion increase, or any other type) of not more than 3% of the current labor pool may be granted after the employee’s completion of each twelve-month period of satisfactory services under the Contract. Annual salary increases of any kind exceeding these limitations or exceeding USAID maximum SES established rate (AWCPAS), or the USAID CST, require the advance written approval of the Contracting Officer.” Could

USAID confirm that offerors should follow their own established personnel policies for annual increases for their home office staff providing STTA for this activity?

USAID Response: Annual salary increases for US staff exceeding 3% as stated under Section

H.3 (e) (1) is subject to advance approval of the Contracting officer and must be supported by accompanying justification.

2. Page 46 of 144 in the RFP, Section H.3(f)(2) – limits compensation for third-country

(TCN) consultants to the highest level of the local compensation plan (LCP). This requirement is also noted on page 131 of 144, Section L.6(2)(d). Will USAID consider lifting this requirement as it may impact the quality of expertise the implementing partner will be able to secure in tax policy and administration specializations?

USAID Response: Requests for a waiver to this compensation guidance must be fully justified and requires the advanced written approval of the Mission Director through the Contracting

Officer.

3. RFP Section H.3 (ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONNEL

COMPENSATION) states in (f)(2) that “TCN and CCN Consultants: Compensation must not exceed the maximum rate of the highest senior FSN position authorized under the Mission

Local Compensation Plan.” However, in Section H.3.1 the solicitation states that “(1) Salary ranges for all positions under this contract must be reflective of the “market value” for the position in the country of performance as well as based on the Contractor’s established personnel policy.” In the specialized field of public financial management and domestic resource mobilization, highly qualified consultants may be assigned a role critical to achieving the activity objectives where the market value exceeds the established Mission Local Compensation Plan

(LCP). Can USAID kindly confirm that offerors may compensate TCN and CCN consultants at a rate that exceeds the LCP, should the market value justify that rate and if the offeror is using their established personnel policies?

USAID Response: All requests for rates above the LCP require a waiver which must be fully justified (demonstrating how the market rate was derived) and requires the advanced written approval of the Mission Director through the Contracting Officer.

4. Section H.29 on page 71 makes reference to the requirements of ADS 548 that has been archived by USAID per this website:

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/548.pdf. As such, we respectfully request that USAID remove Section H.29 in its entirety.

USAID Response: Archived information is still accessible.

5. Section H.35 states “Offerors are barred from entering into exclusive relationships with

Zambian local organizations such as civil society groups and private sector associations, for proposal purposes.” As implementing partners have been in preparation for this opportunity and may have discussed exclusive relationships, how does USAID plan to enforce section H.35?

USAID Response: Offerors must not enter into exclusive relationships as part of the technical proposal. The apparently successful offeror may establish partnerships with local organizations post-award, subject to USAID approval, irrespective of discussions held with other offerors during the bid preparation phase.

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/548.pdf

SECTION I – CONTRACT CLAUSES

1. In Section I.1, Page 78 of the RFP, the Government incorporates by reference FAR

52.229-8 Taxes-Foreign Cost-Reimbursement Contracts. Would USAID please clarify the following:

i. Please confirm if the resultant Task Order will be exempted from all host country taxes – VAT, duties, income tax (for US and local teaming partners and their personnel.

In order to allow contractors to better assess their potential tax liabilities, can USAID please provide offerors with copies of any applicable bilateral agreements with the governments of

Government of the Republic of Zambia (GRZ).

USAID Response: Correct, contractors and subcontractors are exempted under USG awards. Please refer to Section H.16 AIDAR 752.229-71 REPORTING OF FOREIGN TAXES

(JUL 2007).

2. In Section I, Page 82 of the RFP, the Government has included FAR 52.216-25 Contract

Definitization. Does the Government intend to issue a letter contract prior to execution of a final subcontract with the awardee?

USAID Response: Letter contract is to be issued only when negotiating a definitive contract is not possible within the estimated timeframe to meet the schedule requirement for start up of activities. USAID intends to issue a definitive contract within the expected timeframe estimated.

If there is ambiguity, the offeror may bring this up during the competitive range stage during discussions.

SECTION J – ATTACHMENTS

1. In Attachment J.4, (Section L.5) Past Performance Matrix, the file name at the top of the excel worksheet is labeled “Attachment J.8.” Please confirm that the RFP does not contain

Attachment J.8.

USAID Response: Typo. Past Performance Matrix is Attachment J.4 and not J.8.

2. Please confirm that the J.5 Contractor Performance reference sheet must be completed by the offeror’s reference and submitted via proposal submission on December 10th by the offeror and that they do not need to be submitted directly to USAID by the referrer.

USAID Response: That is correct.

3. For contracts not in CPARs, can USAID clarify which sections of the Contractor

Performance Reference sheet (Attachment J.5) should be filled out by offerors? Should offerors fill out Section 1. Reference Information and Section 2. Description of Scope of Work/Tasks only or fill out Section 3. Performance Information as well?

USAID Response: For ease onto the referee, the offeror may fill out the basic information

(Sections 1 & 2). However, the actual performance information must be completed by the referee.

SECTION L – INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

1. Can USAID confirm that offerors may include an executive summary, a table of contents, cover page and a list of acronyms in the technical proposal that do not count against the page limit?

USAID Response: Yes, offerors may include an executive summary, a table of contents, cover page and a list of acronyms in the technical proposal that do not count against the page limit.

2. Can USAID clarify whether the 18-page limit described in RFP Section L.2(a) applies only to Factor 1: Technical Approach, and if so, confirm that Offerors’ responses to Factor 2:

Management Approach and MEL Plan are to be included in Annex 2: Management Plan, Annex

3: Organogram/ Staffing plan, and Annex 4: Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning Plan (MEL) plan? If

Factor 2 is included in the 18-page limit, can USAID provide further clarification on what information about offerors’ management approach, organogram/staffing plan and MEL Plan should be included in the technical proposal, versus the information required in Annexes 2-4?

USAID Response: The 18 page limit applies to Factors 1-3. Any supplementary information may be presented in the annexes.

3. Section L.5 (pages 122-123) lists the annexes to the technical proposal, and Section L.5.3

(pages 126-127) also includes an annex list. However, the list in Section L.5.3 includes Annex 4:

Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning (MEL) plan, while the list in Section L.5 does not. Can

USAID please confirm that the list in Section L.5.3 is the correct annex list?

USAID Response: Section L.5.3 is the correct annex list. The RFP is amended to also include

MEL plan as Annex 4 under Section L.5 on page 123.

4. Can USAID confirm that the “Illustrative Implementation Plan” referenced in Section

L.5.2(a) on page 123 is the same as Annex 1 described in Section L.5.3 on page 127? If so, given the extensive instructions provided on page 123, would USAID consider extending the page limit for Annex 1?

USAID Response: The Illustrative Implementation Plan referenced in Section L.5.2 (a) is the same as the Illustrative Implementation Plan (Annex 1) in Section L.5.3. USAID will extend the page limit for Annex 1 from 3 to 5 pages. RFP is amended.

5. Section L.5.2 (a) states that “the work plan must demonstrate a clear understanding of the objectives and expected results of this activity. The work plan should demonstrate the offeror’s knowledge of the current priorities of USAID and the GRZ and current issues in domestic resource mobilization.” Please confirm the Work Plan being referred to in the above statement and the Illustrative Implementation Plan (Annex 1) are the same.

USAID Response: Yes, the Work Plan referred to in Section L.5.2 (a) and the supplementary material presented in the Annex 1 are the same.

6. In section L.5.2.(a) USAID seems to be requesting a life-of-project implementation plan

(or work plan). Whereas in M.2.2. USAID calls for a “detailed first year work plan”. Does

USAID want the offeror to provide both an “life-of-project implementation plan” and a “first year work plan” or are these one and the same?

USAID Response: These are the same. The life of project implementation plan should include more detail for year one. The year one implementation plan is illustrative and is expected to be revised during the inception period and resubmitted for approval. See Section

F.5.2 List of Reports and Plans. USAID expects that activities in later years will also be illustrative, more general in nature, and subject to change as implementation proceeds.

7. Section L.5.2a, page 123: The description of the Illustrative Implementation Plan asks for a timeline for the inception phase (briefly described in section F.5.2a, page 26). How long does

USAID anticipate the Inception Phase will last, and can USAID provide any other details about what is expected during this inception phase?

USAID Response: The inception phase is 3 months. Please see Section F.5.2 (a). Offerors are encouraged to outline their approach to the inception phase to ensure adequate consultation, analyses, and generate partner ownership on the approach and deliverables due at the end of the inception phase (90 days).

8. Section M.2.2(b) FACTOR 2 – Management Approach & MEL Plan, Page 141 of 144, first bullet states:

● Proposes the Management plan, which demonstrates the offeror’s ability to facilitate a rapid start- up of high-quality contract services, maintain high-quality service delivery, and interact constructively and productively with host country counterparts, USAID/Zambia, its

Implementing Partners (IPs) and other stakeholders

Section L.5.2(a) Factor 1: Technical Approach, Page 123 of 144, third bullet states:

● The Offeror will also describe what steps, and corresponding timeline, will be taken to mobilize activity personnel, open central office, award key partner’s subcontracts or grants, and procure equipment necessary to open the offices

Both of the aforementioned bullets are requiring a mobilization plan. Please clarify if USAID will evaluate an Offeror’s mobilization plan in both Technical and Management sections or just one of the sections – and which one?

USAID Response: USAID will evaluate the Offeror’s plan Under Factor 2. RFP is amended.

9. RFP Section L.5.2(b) states that the management plan “must detail the position title, position description, and how the position relates to achieving the goals and tasks set forth in

Section C.” Can USAID clarify whether this requirement applies only to proposed key personnel, or if offerors should include these details for all full-time field-based personnel positions proposed by the offeror to implement the ReMEG program? If the latter, we respectfully request that Offerors be allowed to submit that information in a separate Staffing

Matrix Annex , given the 5-page limit for Annex 2: Management Plan (which must also address areas including home office support, STTA, LTTA, sub-contractor management, rapid start-up, interaction with host country-counterparts and other stakeholders, etc., per the RFP instructions in Sections L.5.2(b) and the evaluation criteria in Section M2.2.(b)).

USAID Response: Offerors will provide summary information for all personnel positions.

This can be presented in the table form in the main body of the proposal, or in the Annex.

Annex 2 is increased to 6 pages. RFP is amended.

10. Please clarify what offerors are required to submit for the Management Approach described in Section L.5.2(b) on pages 123 and 124 and what they are to submit for Annex 2:

Management Plan described on page 127. For example, may offerors address the requirements related to position titles and descriptions in the annex?

USAID Response: Offerors are free to decide how best to present the information using both the main body of the proposal and the Annex.

11. If the Organogram/Staffing Plan referenced in Section L.5.2(b) (page 124) is the same as

Annex 3 listed on page 127, the one-page limit appears to be insufficient to address the RFP’s requirements. Can USAID confirm that offerors may include an organizational chart in the annex and present the requirements related to adaptive management and partner/subcontractor roles in the body of the technical proposal?

USAID Response: Offerors may include an organizational chart in the annex and present the requirements related to adaptive management and partner/subcontractor roles in the body of the technical proposal.

12. Section L.5.2(c), can USAID further clarify whether Factor 3: Key Personnel is included in the 18-page limit for the technical proposal (except for key personnel resumes, letters of intention and references which are included in Annex 5: Key Personnel CVs, per the RFP instructions on page 124)?

USAID Response: Offerors should summarize Key Personnel in the main body of the proposal. Resumes, letters of intention and references will be included in the Annex.

13. Per L.5.2(c) Factor 3: Key Personnel, offerors are required to provide resumes limited to 3 pages per each individual proposed in as Key Personnel. Offerors are also required to include three references and a letter of intent per individual. Could USAID please confirm that letters of intent and references are to be included in Annex 4 separately from the resumes and will not count against the 3-page limit for each resume?

USAID Response: Letters of intent and references do not count against the 3-page limit for each resume and are to be included in the Annex.

14. In L.5, the instructions for submission format state that Annex 4: Key Personnel is limited to 3 pages. In L.5.2(c) Factor 3: Key Personnel, the instructions state

“resumes/curriculum vitae shall not exceed three (3) pages in length per individual”. Could

USAID please confirm that Annex 4: Key Personnel is not limited to three pages, but rather the resumes for Key Personnel that are to be included in the Annex are limited to three pages per individual?

USAID Response: Key Personnel CVs that are in the Annex are limited to three pages per individual.

15. Regarding Factor 4: Contractor’s Past Performance, Section L.5.2(d) on page 125 of the

RFP states that offerors are to provide all official CPARS reports for contracts for which information is submitted. Given the volume of information that would be required to meet these instructions, would USAID agree that offerors may include a copy of only the most recently received CPAR for each project for which past performance information is submitted?

USAID Response: Under L.5.2.(d)(a)(1) it states “The offeror must list up to five (5) for itself and up to an additional five (5) for each major sub-contractor.” The offeror is to list the most recent and relevant CPARS for the proposal.

16. L.5.2(d) and L.5.3, could USAID kindly confirm whether the past performance section is meant to have a narrative in the technical proposal volume or be entirely provided in Annex 7?

USAID Response: Past performance may be provided entirely in Annex 7, no narrative is necessary unless there is negative performance information to which the Offeror has not previously been afforded an opportunity to respond.

17. Section L.5.2(d), can USAID please confirm that all information required under Factor 4:

Contractor’s Past Performance – including the Past Performance Matrix, CPARS reports, Contractor Performance Reference Sheets for contracts not in CPARS, description of quality awards or certifications, and Performance in Using Small Business Concerns – should be submitted in Annex 7 and will not count against the 18-page limit for the technical proposal?

USAID Response: Information required under Factor 4 should be submitted in the Annex and will not count against the 18-page limit.

18. In Section L.5.2(d) it states that, “The Offeror (including all partners of a consortium/joint venture) must provide performance information for itself, the contractors teaming arrangements, if any, and each major subcontractor…” Please confirm past performance information is only required for the Prime contractor and major subcontractors.

Please confirm that teaming arrangements are also only required for any joint ventures, and for major subcontractors.

USAID Response: That is correct. Therefore, past performance will be provided for either

(1) Prime and Major Subs or (2) Joint Venture Prime(s) and Major Sub(s), whichever scenario is applicable.

19. Section L.5.3 and M.2.2 (a), the Annex 1 Illustrative Implementation Plan is limited to 3 pages and, per M.2.2 (a) Factor 1, is evaluated on the degree to which the offeror provides an implementation schedule ‘... including a detailed first year work plan as described in section L’.

Given the extensive requirements for the Y1 Work plan this is not feasible within this page constraint. Would USAID please delete the detailed Year 1 requirement.

USAID Response: The life of project implementation plan should include more detail for year one. The year one implementation plan is illustrative and is expected to be revised during the inception period and resubmitted for approval. See Section F.5.2 List of Reports and Plans.

USAID expects that activities in later years will also be illustrative, more general in nature, and subject to change as implementation proceeds. The Annex 1 page limitation has been increased from 3 pages to 5 pages. RFP is amended.

20. Section L.5.3, page 127, states that Annex 1, the Illustrative Implementation Plan, should cover the three-year base period and two option years. However, section M.2.2a, page 140, states that offerors should provide a detailed first year work plan. Can USAID clarify whether

Annex 1 is meant to be a 5-year work plan or a 1-year work plan? Given the annex limit of 3 pages and the need for flexible, adaptive management and implementation over the life of the

ReMEG program, we respectfully recommend that USAID require offerors to submit a 1-year illustrative implementation plan.

USAID Response: See response to Question 19, above.

21. Section L.5.3 and M.2.2 (a)The Annex 1 Illustrative Implementation Plan and, per M.2.2

(a) Factor 1, is evaluated on the degree to which the offeror provides an implementation schedule ‘... including a detailed first year work plan as described in section L’. Is USAID using the terms implementation schedule and work plan as referring to the same output or is the implementation plan the strategy and work plan the detailed listing of activities with milestones and deliverables?

USAID Response: Offerors may choose how to present this information. They should present the overarching strategy as well as how the proposed strategy will be implemented.

22. Section L.5.3 Annexes: Annex 2 Management Plan (not to exceed five (5) pages), page

127 of 144 states: The Offeror will submit a detailed Management Plan that is logically organized, realistic, and demonstrates the ability to rapidly respond to the SOW in Section C.

Please confirm that Annex 2 will contain the following requirements:

● L.5.2(b) Factor 2: Management Approach and MEL Plan, the top two of three bullets on pages 123-124 of 144 and

● M.2.2(b) Factor 2 Management Approach and MEL Plan, the top two of three bullets on page 141 of 144

If this is not the case, please clarify what should be in Annex 2 in comparison to the sections

L and M requirements.

USAID Response: The main body of the proposal and the information in the Annexes will both be used for evaluation. The information presented in the technical body of the proposal versus the Annexes is at the discretion of the Offeror.

23. Section L.6.1 on page 129 states that an original signature is required for the Standard

Form (FF) 33. Since proposals will be submitted electronically, could USAID please confirm that a scanned or electronic signature would be sufficient?

USAID Response: Both scanned or electronic are sufficient.

24. Section L.6.2(b) on page 130 states that the offeror’s detailed budget is to include a complete breakdown of the cost elements associated with each component. Would USAID please confirm that “each component” refers to the major cost categories included in the summary budget as reflected in Section B.3(b) on pages 4 and 5?

USAID Response: Correct, major cost components/categories are the same as reflected in the summary budget table on pages 4 & 5. However, a detailed budget must include further breakdown of cost categories showing corresponding cost elements.

25. Section L.6.2(b) on page 130 states that detailed budgets are only required for the offeror and major subcontractors; however, Section L.6.(d) on page 133 states that

“subcontract budgets must be provided in the same level of detail as for the prime offeror.”

Would USAID please confirm that detailed budgets are only required for major subcontractors?

USAID Response: Correct, detailed budgets are only required for major subcontractors.

26. In Section L.6.2.(b), on page 130 of the RFP, the instructions for “TAB 2” and “TAB 3” in the Excel workbook for the Cost/Price submission both indicate that Offerors should complete Section B.4, the fee schedule, for that tab. Can USAID clarify the instructions for the content that offerors should provide on each of those tabs, and what the difference between the two should be?

USAID Response: Tab 2 must reflect Section B.4, as is. Whereas Tab 3 is meant to allow offeror’s to propose their own fee schedule for consideration by USAID. If the offeror decides to maintain the same fee schedule as listed in B.4, this may be a duplication, or the offeror may simply denote this in the tab.

27. May Offerors include additional tabs in their Excel workbook beyond the five tabs described in Section L.6.2(b), in order to provide sufficient budget detail and supporting information for USAID to perform a complete analysis of proposed costs?

USAID Response: Yes, that is permissible. All the corresponding Tabs are to be linked to

Tab 1 i:e “Summary budget”, as applicable.

28. The terminology “Locally Hired Personnel and Non-U.S. Expatriates,” used in Section

L.6.2 under “Salaries and Wages” on page 131, is not fully understood. Do these terms correspond to CCNs and TCNs, respectively?

USAID Response: Correct. Locally Hired Personnel and Non-U.S. Expatriates are interchangeably used for CCNs and TCNs.

29. Section L.6.2 states that, “The offeror must provide a description of the methodology used to determine the blended rate for each consultant with sufficient information to determine the reasonableness of the cost.” Please confirm that the sentence should be corrected to read as follows, “The offeror must provide a description of the methodology used to determine the blended rate for each type of consultant with sufficient information to determine the reasonableness of the cost.”

USAID Response: RFP is amended as follows: “The offeror must provide a description of the methodology used to determine the blended rate for each type of consultant with sufficient information to determine the reasonableness of the cost.”

30. Section L.6.2(d) on page 134 outlines the cost requirements for the “Strategic Tax

Transformation Costs,” which total $1,000,000 over the five-year period of performance;

however, these costs are not mentioned anywhere else in the solicitation. Would USAID please clarify whether these costs have been replaced by the $500,000 total for grants under contract

(GUCs) referenced in multiple sections of the RFP or whether these costs should be included in addition to the plug for GUCs?

USAID Response: These costs are in addition to the plug for GUCs.

31. On page 134 of the RFP, under L.6.2, it states that offerors should budget up to

$600,000 for the base period and an additional $400,000 for the option period for a “strategic tax-transformation fund to support investments agreed to by USAID and its GRZ partners” which may include “in-kind grants, the purchase of hardware (such as high capacity laptops or servers) and software, including licenses, or other initiatives”. Given the reference to in-kind grants in the above, can offerors account for any of these strategic tax transformation costs as part of the GUC component? Or must this all be budgeted for separately and in addition to the

GUC costs?

USAID Response: GUCs are intended for civil society and private sector actors. The

Strategic Tax Transformation Fund is in addition to the GUC costs.

32. In Section L.6.2 of the RFP (page 134), USAID instructs the Offeror to include environmental compliance costs of 2% to 5% of the total budget. However, Section C.6 states that a categorical exclusion was reached for this award. Please provide additional detail on the necessity for these costs in the context of the ReMEG scope of work as described in Section C.

USAID Response: RFP is amended to remove the environmental compliance costs.

33. Section L.6.4 on page 137 states that “each Offeror must submit a copy of its most current personnel policies, especially regarding current salary and wage scales, fringe benefits …

” Would USAID please confirm that only offerors without extensive prior USAID contracting are required to submit personnel policies?

USAID Response: RFP is amended to read “USAID reserved the right to request a copy of the apparently successful offerors most current personnel policies,”

34. Section L.6.8 on page 138 states that offerors must submit information to support consent for major subcontractors. Could USAID please confirm that offerors may submit this information for all subcontractors to ensure their timely engagement?

USAID Response: Yes. Please ensure requirements of FAR 52.244-2(e)(1) are met, especially sub section (vii), where applicable.