Amendment 1 Attachment 2_ Supply Chain Strengthening QnA.pdf

Ques�ons on Supply Chain Strengthening Ac�vity RFP No. 72066323R00018

Amendment 1; A�achment 2

1. Given (1) significant changes in the an�cipated proposal design, including changes from the ini�al dra� scope of work previously shared and the shi� to a full proposal from a concept note (as had been forecasted) as well as (2) the upcoming holiday season which will limit the ability to co-create with local partners, will USAID consider extending the deadline for proposal submissions?

Response : The proposal submission date is extended by one week, to January 17, 2024.

This is reflected in Amendment 1.

2. B.8: Would USAID allow offerors to adjust the fee schedule table as presented in Sec�on B.8. Fee Distribu�on Schedule, p. 12, to allow for se�ng of annual targets and to provide addi�onal descrip�on of proposed indicators?

Response : No. Any addi�onal informa�on regarding the proposed budget should be provided in the budget narra�ve.

3. In Sec�on B.8. Fee Distribu�on Schedule, p. 12, we kindly request that USAID remove the first deliverable in regard to the accuracy and approval of the na�onal supply chain maturity baseline assessment report (Year 1, 3 & 5) for the following reasons:

a. On p. 23, USAID states that “In advance of this award, USAID, the MOH/EPSS and other donors will develop a common maturity assessment tool and conduct the first round of maturity assessments at EPSS Central, all 19 hubs, MOH, all RHBs and select SDPs under each specific region.” Thus, it is our understanding that the baseline assessment report in Year 1 would be completed in advance of the start of SCS.

b. Given the requirement that the reports are completed by a third party, achievement of this deliverable would not reflect performance of the contractor.

Response : The baseline assessment will be conducted jointly with the apparently successful offeror.

4. Sec�on B.7-B.8, pages 12-13: Sec�on B.7 states that “Pursuant to FAR 16.306 (d) “Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Contracts,” payment of the fixed-fee will be divided between fixed payments (25%) and payments based on the completed Fixed-fee Schedule (75%) found in Sec�on B.8.” However, the Fee Distribu�on Schedule in Sec�on B.8 allocates 100% of fixed-fee payments to the fixed-fee schedule (75% to performance deliverables and 25% to ac�vity deliverables). Will USAID please amend either Sec�on B.7 or Sec�on B.8 to rec�fy this discrepancy?

Response: Sec�on B.7 is amended, this is reflected in Amendment 1. Sec�on B.8 remains unchanged.

5. Page 50 - Under sec�on F.7.3.3 Quarterly Accruals and Financial Repor�ng, one bullet point lists “The budget es�mate for the upcoming quarter”. Does the RFP really mean “es�mated expenses” instead of “budget”?

Response : Sec�on F.7.3.3 is amended, this is reflected in Amendment 1.

Grants Under Contract

6. Page 28 of the RFP states, “The Contractor will be expected to provide Grants Under Contract (GUCs) to local.” Could USAID please clarify which en��es are eligible for Grants Under Contract?

Response : The Contractor will be expected to provide Grants Under Contract (GUCs) to local organiza�ons. Sec�on C.5(b) is amended accordingly.

7. Page 28 - Sec�on C, Objec�ve 2, IR 2.1: ends with an incomplete sentence (“The Contractor will be expected to provide Grants Under Contract (GUCs) to local …”). Please provide the complete text for this IR.

Response : The Contractor will be expected to provide Grants Under Contract (GUCs) to local organiza�ons. Sec�on C.5(b) is amended accordingly.

8. Sec�on C.5, page 28: There appears to be a missing clause or end of the sentence on page 28 in the first paragraph under C.5 (b) (ii); IR 2.1. Could USAID please update the text to clarify what is expected regarding grants under contract?

Response : The Contractor will be expected to provide Grants Under Contract (GUCs) to local organiza�ons. Sec�on C.5(b) is amended accordingly.

9. Sec�on C.5.(b)(ii), p.28, appears to contain a typo in the final sentence, “The Contractor will be expected to provide Grants Under Contract (GUCs) to local…” Would USAID clarify the remainder of this sentence?

Response : The Contractor will be expected to provide Grants Under Contract (GUCs) to local organiza�ons. Sec�on C.5(b) is amended accordingly.

10. On page 30 of the RFP it states, “Sub-IR 2.1.7: Improved medical device/Equipment contract communica�ons among EPSS, the target facili�es and vendors.” Directly following this sub–IR is the following paragraph:

“Specific data and informa�on subsystems that support data for decision-making at the central Federal, regional, woreda and facility levels includes District Health Informa�on

System (DHIS) 2.0 for rou�ne health informa�on, Automated Pharmaceu�cal Transac�on Systems, Pa�ent Management Informa�on Systems, Dagu 2.1, integrated disease surveillance and repor�ng for priority and no�fiable diseases, logis�cs management informa�on systems (electronic and or paper-based) for supply chain management laboratory informa�on system”.

Is this paragraph misplaced? Does USAID intend for the contractor to achieve specific results related to data systems?

Response: The expected result for this subsec�on will be to ensure smooth and �mely communica�ons of medical equipment contracts signed between EPSS and the suppliers to the user health facili�es to ensure �mely installa�on, repairs and use of warranty.

Branding and Marking

11. Sec�on F.7 Reports and Deliverables: On page 43, the report table includes a Branding and Marking Plan with a �metable of “With proposal in Mandatory Template”; and A Branding Implementa�on Plan and Marking Plan is also referenced in sec�on L.10, page

145. However, the inferred plan is not included in Sec�on L.9 Technical Proposal Instruc�ons. Could USAID please confirm that a Branding and Marking Plan is not required with the proposal.

Response : Sec�on F.7, ‘Reports’ chart item #1, Branding and Marking plan ‘Descrip�on / Timetable’ is amended to require the submission of a Branding Implementa�on Plan and Marking Plan a�er proposal evalua�on and only to the apparently successful offeror.

These changes are reflected in Amendment 1.

12. Sec�on L.10, page 145-146: Should offerors include the required Branding Implementa�on Plan with the technical volume or the cost volume?

Response : The Branding Implementa�on Plan and Marking Plan is no longer required for proposal submission. A Branding Implementa�on Plan and Marking Plan the Contrac�ng Officer will request these documents from the apparently successful offeror at a later date, a�er full evalua�on of the proposals received. Sec�on L.10 is amended, this is reflected in Amendment 1.

13. In sec�on L.10 of the NOFO, it states, “In response to this RFP, the Offeror shall include a Branding Implementa�on Plan (BIP) which describes how they will communicate to beneficiaries and stakeholder audiences that the work of this contract is from the American people.” However, a BIP is not included in the outline of the technical proposal and annexes summary on page 139. Could USAID please confirm that a BIP is not required with technical proposal submissions at this stage?

Response : The Branding Implementa�on Plan and Marking Plan is no longer required for proposal submission. A Branding Implementa�on Plan and Marking Plan the Contrac�ng

Officer will request these documents from the apparently successful offeror at a later date, a�er full evalua�on of the proposals received. Sec�on L.10 is amended, this is reflected in Amendment 1.

14. Page 145 - Under Sec�on 1.1, D, and L.10 where the Branding Implementa�on Plan (BIP) is discussed, the RFP does not specify how and when the required project BIP and marking plan should be submi�ed. Please clarify if the BIP and Marking Plan should be submi�ed with the proposal, or following award. Also, if submi�ed with the proposal, please specify whether it is to be included as an annex and whether it counts against the total allowed page count for the technical proposal (30 pages)?

Response : The Branding Implementa�on Plan and Marking Plan is no longer required for proposal submission. A Branding Implementa�on Plan and Marking Plan the Contrac�ng Officer will request these documents from the apparently successful offeror at a later date, a�er full evalua�on of the proposals received. Sec�on L.10 is amended, this is reflected in Amendment 1.

Key Personnel

15. Sec�on F.4, p. 40, states “The following posi�ons have been designated as key personnel and are essen�al to the work being performed under this contract: Chief of Party, Deputy Chief of Party, and up to three posi�ons proposed by the Contractor.” P. 41 states, “The Contractor must propose for the performance of this Contract the following key personnel posi�ons: Chief of Party, Deputy Chief of Party, TBD, TBD, TBD.” Can USAID kindly clarify if offerors are able to propose a minimum of two key personnel, the Chief of Party and Deputy Chief of Party, or if all five key personnel are required?

Response : Chief of party and deputy chief of party respec�ve job descrip�ons and specifica�ons are specified in the RFP and the three TBD posi�ons are open for the offeror to provide job specifica�ons and descrip�ons along personnel resume without sta�ng their specific names. Offerors may propose a minimum of two key personnel (the COP and DCOP) and a maximum of five key personnel, it is at the discre�on of the offeror.

16. To encourage more women candidates at the leadership level, would USAID consider flexibility in key personnel requirements?

Response : Offerors have the opportunity to propose their own key personnel requirements; however the key personnel responsibili�es must be met.

17. On page 143 of the RFP it states, “The Offeror may propose addi�onal Key Personnel posi�ons to those iden�fied in Sec�on F” and then on the same page states, “The offeror may not propose more than five (5) key personnel”. Could USAID please clarify if offerors are permi�ed to name addi�onal key personnel posi�ons beyond the 5 that are listed in Sec�on F?

Response : Offerors may propose a maximum of five individuals as key personnel.

Sec�on L.9.4.b is edited, this amendment is reflected in Amendment 1.

18. Sec�on L.9.4 Technical Approach (p. 143) states that the proposal must not include individual names and resumes. However, on the same page the RFP states that the offeror must proposal a highly qualified team with the required knowledge and experience to fulfill the leadership and management needs for this ac�vity. Can USAID please confirm that, while proposals should not include names and resumes of any staff, professional history and other key but non iden�fying details of key personnel can be included within the proposed Management and Monitoring Approach?

Response : Confirmed, names should not be included. USAID is reques�ng that offerors provide details to explain the requirements of the proposed roles that the offeror deems necessary to achieve a “highly qualified team.” Specific candidates do not need to be iden�fied at the �me of proposal.

19. L.11: On page 148 of the RFP it states, “Bio Data Sheets are required for any individual specifically iden�fied in the cost or technical proposal”. However, the RFP also states that offerors should refrain from naming any personnel (page 41). Could USAID please clarify if offerors are required to name staff in the cost proposal and/or if Bio Data sheets are s�ll required?

Response : The sentence ‘Bio Data Sheets are required for any individual specifically iden�fied in the cost or technical proposal’ is removed; Bio Data Sheets are not required for proposal submission. This is reflected in Amendment 1.

20. Page 143 - Under sec�on F.4 Key Personnel, there is a statement that “Offerors must not propose any specific individuals for key personnel posi�ons as part of their proposals, nor provide resumes for any individuals. The successful Offeror will be required to propose candidates for the Key Personnel posi�ons for USAID approval within 7 days of contract execu�on.” Yet in the sec�on L.11 Instruc�ons for the Prepara�on of Volume II - Cost Proposal, the RFP states that “Bio Data Sheets are required for any individual specifically iden�fied in the cost or technical proposal.” Can we assume the la�er statement is irrelevant un�l a�er an award is made?

Response : The sentence ‘Bio Data Sheets are required for any individual specifically iden�fied in the cost or technical proposal’ is removed; Bio Data Sheets are not required for proposal submission. This is reflected in Amendment 1.

21. Page 142 – Key Personnel – “The Offeror may propose addi�onal Key Personnel posi�ons to those iden�fied in Sec�on F. Addi�onal Key Personnel proposed by the

Offeror must demonstrate how the proposed Key Personnel posi�on’s qualifica�ons, skills, educa�on, experience, and accomplishments will assist the Offeror to implement the Ac�vity, achieve the results. … The final number of Key Personnel will be determined by the Contractor’s approach.” Then, in the 2nd paragraph following this text: “The offeror may not propose more than five (5) key personnel.” Please explain which narra�ve Offerer’s are to follow.

Response : Per ADS 302.3.5.4, offerors may propose a maximum of five individuals or five percent of the contractor employees working under the contract, whichever is greater.

The language of the referenced paragraph in L.9.4.b is amended, this is reflected in Amendment 1.

22. Sec�on L.9.4, page 143: The RFP states: “For each of the addi�onal Key Personnel posi�ons, the Offeror must include the job �tle, the minimum requirements for the posi�on, and the posi�on descrip�on in Annex A.” On page 139, USAID indicates that Annex A should be the Contractor Past Performance Matrix and U�liza�on of Small Businesses. Will USAID permit offerors to include an addi�onal Annex D: Key Personnel Requirements and Posi�on descrip�ons that does not count against the 30-page limit for the technical volume?

Response : The statement is revised and reflected in Amendment 1. The key personnel informa�on will be included in the seven page page limit of Annex B.

Sec�on H & K

23. Sec�on H.1, page 59: Given the global nature of supply chain ecosystems, would USAID please consider changing the authorized geographic code from 937 to 935 to ensure the Supply Chain Strengthening Ac�vity can provide USAID with the best available services?

Response : The authorized geographic code 937 remains unchanged.

24. Sec�on H.18(h), p. 72, states that the Contractor may also use a Fixed Obliga�on Grant format when appropriate as described in ADS 303. Would USAID kindly replace “Fixed Obliga�on Grant format” with “Fixed Amount Award” as described in ADS 303?

Response : The “Fixed Obliga�on Grant format” is a reference in ADS 303.5.f, which directs to ADS 303sal. For clarity, Amendment 1 edits the language to replace “Fixed Obliga�on Grant'' to “Fixed Amount Award Template”

25. Sec�on H.18(m), p. 73, states that payment of any interest, fees, program income and other refunds generated by grant recipients hereunder will be made to a special, non-commingled, interest-bearing account. However, as 2 CFR 200.307 does not require a separate non-commingled, interest-bearing account for program income, would USAID please adjust this clause accordingly?

Response : Sec�on H.18(m) is amended to read “The grant must provide that payment of any interest, fees, program income and other refunds generated by grant recipients in accordance with 2 CFR 200.307.” This is reflected in Amendment 1.

26. H.18(o): We respec�ully request that USAID remove the following sentence from sec�on H.18(o), p. 73, “Copies of all reports received from grantees will be promptly forwarded to the COR,” given that there is no requirement for the COR to receive grantee reports in the GUC authorizing language for ADS 302. We also respec�ully request that USAID remove the following sentence from the same sec�on: “At the conclusion of the contract, the Contractor must consult with the Contrac�ng Officer for direc�on as to which records must be transferred to USAID.” While USAID retains the rights to visita�on and inspec�on for three years a�er the grant comple�on date, all records under this contract are considered property of the contractor and must be retained in accordance with the contractor’s records reten�on policies that originate from audit requirements.

Response : Sec�on H.18(o) is amended to remove the following sentences: “Copies of all reports received from grantees will be promptly forwarded to the COR.” and “At the conclusion of the Contract, the Contractor must consult with the Contrac�ng Officer for direc�on as to which records must be transferred to USAID.”

27. H.18(p): Would USAID kindly consider upda�ng the clause within Sec�on H.18(p), p.73, to reflect that there is no longer a Required As Applicable Standard Provision en�tled “Publica�ons and Media Releases”? This has been replaced by the Mandatory Standard Provision en�tled “Submissions to the Development Experience Clearinghouse Data Rights” and within this clause COR approval is not required prior to submission to DEC.

Response : Yes, the language is amended to reflect the guidance in ADS 303mab (mandatory reference), standard provisions, M.8. These changes are reflected in Amendment 1.

28. Sec�on K.7, p. 124, details the restric�on on severance payments to foreign na�onals;

however, Sec�on I, p. 80, includes FAR 52.237-9 Waiver of Limita�on on Severance Payments to Foreign Na�onals by reference. Would USAID kindly remove sec�on K.7?

Response : Sec�on K.7 is deleted and �tled as “Reserved”.

Sec�on L

29. Sec�ons L.6 (page 136) and L.9 (page 139): Please confirm that the references to an offeror “slide deck” in the RFP are erroneous and should be ignored.

Response : Confirmed. The reference to a “slide deck” is removed from L.6 and L.9, this is reflected in Amendment 1.

30. Sec�on L.6 & L.9: Page 136 of the RFP states that “The wri�en proposal may not deviate from the slide deck or incorporate approaches that were not ini�ally presented.” Can USAID clarify that a slide deck is not required at this �me?

Response : Confirmed. The reference to a “slide deck” is removed from L.6 and L.9, this is reflected in Amendment 1.

31. Sec�on L.6 General Instruc�ons to Offerors, page 136, item number 6, Award without discussions and L.9.1 Volume 1: Technical Proposal, page 139: These items refer to a slide deck, but in no other part of the instruc�ons does the solicita�on indicate that offerors will be submi�ng a slide deck. Would USAID please revise or remove this item?

Response : A slide deck is not required at this �me. The reference to a “slide deck” is removed from L.6 and L.9, this is reflected in Amendment 1.

32. Sec�on L.8, page 139: Please confirm that the forma�ng requirements for the cost volume (single spacing, 12-point font, and one inch margins) apply only to the offeror and subcontractor budget narra�ves and do not apply to the documents such as NICRA/indirect cost informa�on, Sec�on K Representa�ons and Cer�fica�ons, or the Excel budget which are either not edible or for which USAID has already provided a template.

Response : Confirmed. Sec�on L.8 Proposal Submission/ Delivery Instruc�ons (Volume II), bullet 4, is edited to add language to reflect this informa�on.

33. Sec�on L.8: Please confirm that offerors should submit the templates USAID provided with the forma�ng embedded in those files? For instance, the budget template provided does not conform to the 1” margins or font specifica�ons required by Sec�on L.8.

Response : Confirmed. Offerors should submit the templates that USAID provided with the forma�ng embedded in those files. Sec�on L.8 Proposal Submission/ Delivery Instruc�ons (Volume II), bullet 4, is edited to add language to reflect this informa�on.

34. Sec�on L.9.1 Page 138-139 notes “Electronic submission must be organized as follows: ii.

Volume I - Technical Proposal in Adobe Acrobat PDF and Word.” Separately, Sec�on L.9.1 states “For Volume 1: Technical Proposal, slide deck, the technical proposal must adhere to the following:”. Kindly clarify the correct submission format (slides or Word and Adobe PDF) for Volume I: Technical Proposal.

Response : The correct submission format for Volume I - Technical Proposal is in Adobe PDF and Word, as indicated in Sec�on L.8.

35. The RFP, p. 32, lists Coordina�on with external stakeholders, Private sector engagement, Financial sustainability, Gender, and Sustainability and innova�on under Cross-cu�ng Requirements and Other Considera�ons. Can USAID clarify that these are the issues to be covered under subsec�on c? Should any other issues be included?

Response : Yes, confirmed; those are some issues to be addressed under this sec�on.

However, offerors should propose any other cross-cu�ng ini�a�ves they deem appropriate to the success of this ac�vity.

36. Sec�on L.9.1, page 139: USAID’s summary of required sec�ons/annexes in Volume I – Technical Proposal includes 6c. Past Performance (not included in the page limita�on).

However, all of the requirements included for Past Performance on pages 144-145 of the RFP would appear to belong in Annex A: Contractor Past Performance Matrix and U�liza�on of Small Business. Would USAID please clarify what, if any, informa�on is required in 6c Past Performance. If offerors must include all past performance informa�on in Annex A, we kindly request that USAID remove 6c from the summary list on page 139.

Response : Sec�on L.9.1.b.6.c is removed, this is reflected in Amendment 1. Past performance informa�on must be included under Annex A: Contractor Past Performance Matrix and U�liza�on of Small Business.

37. Sec�on L.9.1, p. 139 lists Past Performance as a sec�on without page limita�on separate from Annex A; however, L.9.4.c, p. 144 only indicates past performance informa�on should be included in Annex A. Would USAID please confirm that no narra�ve is required and Annex A is what will be evaluated for past performance?

Response : Sec�on L.9.1.b.6.c is removed, this is reflected in Amendment 1. Past performance informa�on must be included under Annex A: Contractor Past Performance Matrix and U�liza�on of Small Business.

38. Page 139 - Sec�on L.9.1 has past performance listed under 6.c as well as 7.a. However, the explana�on of past performance content on page 144 states that past performance should be contained in Annex A (which was listed under 7.a above). Please confirm that all past performance informa�on should be submi�ed only in Annex A using a�achments J.2.a and J.2.b.

Response : Sec�on L.9.1.b.6.c is removed, this is reflected in Amendment 1. Past performance informa�on must be included under Annex A: Contractor Past Performance Matrix and U�liza�on of Small Business.

39. Sec�on L.9.4, page 144: We kindly request that USAID remove the requirement to secure a wri�en reference for all contracts that are not in CPARs and relevant assistance awards highlighted in Annex A as past performance references, considering that the �ming of this RFP aligns with several interna�onal and Ethiopian holidays. Some offerors may be unable to secure reference le�ers from client counterparts who are on holiday leave, crea�ng an unfair disadvantage for those offerors.

Response : Sec�on L.9.4.c.a.ii is edited to add: ‘If the offeror is unable to obtain a wri�en reference by the �me of proposal submission, the offeror must provide, at a minimum, the point of contact for associated past performance reference.’

40. L.9.4: Page 145 - For past performance informa�on that is not in CPARS, the offeror will collect wri�en references using a�achment J.2.b. If the client for such contracts is not available or does not respond in �me, is there an alterna�ve for collec�ng this informa�on?

Response : Sec�on L.9.4.c.a.ii is edited to add: ‘If the offeror is unable to obtain a wri�en reference by the �me of proposal submission, the offeror must provide, at a minimum, the point of contact for associated past performance reference.’

41. Sec�on L.9.4, page 144: Please confirm that, for contracts without CPARS and all coopera�ve agreements used as past performance references (for both prime offerors and major subcontractors), offerors must 1) fill out Sec�on A of the J.2b and 2) secure responses from the contact person named in Sec�on A for Ques�ons 1 through 8 in Sec�on B prior to the January 10 proposal submission deadline.

Response : Yes, this is confirmed. Sec�on L.9.4.c.a.ii is edited to add: ‘If the offeror is unable to obtain a wri�en reference by the �me of proposal submission, the offeror must provide, at a minimum, the point of contact for associated past performance reference.’

42. Page 145 states that: “In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), if extraordinary problems impact any of the referenced contracts, provide a short explana�on and the correc�ve ac�on taken. Describe any quality awards or cer�fica�ons that indicate excep�onal capacity to provide the service or product described in the SOW.” These two items are not currently included in J.2.a. Can they be added? Otherwise, please indicate where this informa�on should be listed.

Response : Please include “any quality awards or cer�fica�ons that indicate excep�onal capacity to provide the service or product described in the SOW” under column D, “Skill/Exper�se required.” And please list “extraordinary problems impact any of the referenced contracts, provide a short explana�on and the correc�ve ac�on taken” under column C, “Scope of work or complexity/diversity of tasks.”

43. Sec�on L.8.ii, p.139, states that the technical proposal must be submi�ed in PDF and Word. The technical volume includes CPARS in Annex A that would require the full page images to extend past the 1” margin requirement to maintain font legibility. Would USAID please confirm that:

a. offerors are only required to submit the main body of the technical proposal (Execu�ve Summary and Factors 1 and 2) in Word, not front ma�er or annexes?

b. if the en�re technical proposal must be submi�ed in Word, offerors may insert pages with signatures and CPARS as images and that the images may extend into the 1” margins?

Response : (a) & (b): Please follow the guidance in Sec�ons L.8 and L.9.1, as amended.

44. Sec�on L.8 and L.9.1, p.139, indicate that offerors should format the proposal with 1” margins and Calibri 12 font and that Excel may only be used for the budget; however, A�achment J.2a is an Excel file in Century Gothic 10 with .7” margins. Would USAID please consider allowing offerors to use size 9 font in Annex A’s table and expanding the page to 11”x14” (legal) with 1” margins to be�er present the required informa�on?

Response : Sec�ons L.8 and L.9.1 are amended, this is reflected in Amendment 1.

45. L.11: Can USAID confirm that if an organiza�on does not possess a NICRA, but would like to charge an indirect cost rate, that in accordance with 2 CFR 200.332, pass-through en��es may allow subcontractors to propose a de minimis indirect cost rate of 10% applied to modified total direct costs (MTDC) by including the following informa�on: “(4)

(i) An approved federally recognized indirect cost rate nego�ated between the subrecipient and the Federal Government. If no approved rate exists, the pass-through en�ty must determine the appropriate rate in collabora�on with the subrecipient, which is either: (A) The nego�ated indirect cost rate between the pass-through en�ty and the subrecipient; which can be based on a prior nego�ated rate between a different PTE and the same subrecipient. If basing the rate on a previously nego�ated rate, the pass-through en�ty is not required to collect informa�on jus�fying this rate, but may elect to do so; (B) The de minimis indirect cost rate. (ii) The pass-through en�ty must not require use of a de minimis indirect cost rate if the subrecipient has a Federally approved rate. Subrecipients can elect to use the cost alloca�on method to account for indirect costs in accordance with § 200.405(d) .

Response : Please follow the guidance in Sec�on L.11, Part II, including added paragraph through amendment.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/section-200.405#p-200.405(d)

46. Sec�on L.11, page 146: Please confirm that the 10MB file size limita�on issued in sec�on L.11 applies only to the Excel budget spreadsheet, and that the 20MB email a�achment limita�on from sec�on L.8 remains in effect for the overall technical and cost proposal volumes.

Response : Sec�on L.11 is adjusted to delete the 10MB size limita�on. For other requirements, please follow the guidance in Sec�on L.8.

47. Sec�on L.11, page 147: Please confirm that the an�cipated award date should read June 1, 2024 rather than June 1, 2023.

Response : Confirmed. Sec�on L.11 is amended accordingly.

48. L.11, Part 1 (B)(a), p.147, states that all offerors are to u�lize an an�cipated start date of June 1, 2023, for budget purposes. Would USAID kindly confirm that the an�cipated start date should instead be June 1, 2024?

Response : Confirmed. Sec�on L.11 is amended accordingly.

49. L.11: USAID states that for budget purposes offerors should u�lize an an�cipated award date of June 1, 2023, which has passed. Could USAID please provide an an�cipated award date?

Response : This was incorrectly stated. The an�cipated award date is amended to read June 1, 2024. Sec�on L.11 is amended accordingly.

50. Sec�on L.9.1, page 139: Please confirm that the page size, margins, font, and font size requirements do not apply to A�achment J2.a. (the past performance matrix) as it would be very difficult for USAID to review as an 8 ½ by 11 inch file given the number of columns.

Response : Confirmed. A�achment J2.a. should be submi�ed in the format provided in the template. Sec�on L.8 Proposal Submission/ Delivery Instruc�ons (Volume II), bullet 4, is edited to add language to reflect this informa�on.

51. Sec�on L.9.1: Can USAID please clarify font size? Would USAID consider allowing the use of a smaller font size for proposal charts, graphs, and tables?

Response: Sec�on L.9.1.a is edited to read: ‘The Technical Proposal must be wri�en in Calibri font (do not use a type smaller than 12-point font) , single spaced and shall be wri�en in English. The text used in tables and charts may be adjusted as appropriate but must be no smaller than 10-point font . Graphs, charts, and tables larger than 8 1/2" x 11" shall be included as an annex (Annex D) , which will not count against the page limit . Text a�achments shall adhere to the same forma�ng specifica�ons given above. For visual clarity, graphs, charts and/or scanned documents must be readable.’

This is reflected in Amendment 1.

52. The RFP does not specify font size for the technical proposal only cost, should we assume the font size for the technical proposal is also size 12 Calibri font?

Response: Sec�on L.9.1.a is edited to read: ‘The Technical Proposal must be wri�en in Calibri font (do not use a type smaller than 12-point font) , single spaced and shall be wri�en in English. The text used in tables and charts may be adjusted as appropriate but must be no smaller than 10-point font . Graphs, charts, and tables larger than 8 1/2" x 11" shall be included as an annex (Annex D) , which will not count against the page limit . Text a�achments shall adhere to the same forma�ng specifica�ons given above. For visual clarity, graphs, charts and/or scanned documents must be readable.’

This is reflected in Amendment 1.

53. Sec�on L.9.1 Volume 1: Technical Proposal: Technical Proposal, on page 139 states “For visual clarity, graphs, charts, and/or scanned documents must be readable.” Could USAID please provide a font and size specifica�on to ensure consistency among offerors?

Response: Sec�on L.9.1.a is edited to read: ‘The Technical Proposal must be wri�en in Calibri font (do not use a type smaller than 12-point font) , single spaced and shall be wri�en in English. The text used in tables and charts may be adjusted as appropriate but must be no smaller than 10-point font . Graphs, charts, and tables larger than 8 1/2" x 11" shall be included as an annex (Annex D) , which will not count against the page limit . Text a�achments shall adhere to the same forma�ng specifica�ons given above. For visual clarity, graphs, charts and/or scanned documents must be readable.’

This is reflected in Amendment 1.

54. Sec�on L.9.1, page 139: The RFP states that “graphs, charts, and tables larger than 8 1/2" x 11" shall be included as an a�achment.” Please confirm that, in this instance, “a�achment” is synonymous with “annex” and that offerors may include such graphics, charts, and tables as addi�onal annexes to the technical volume that do not count against the overall 30-page limit to the volume.

Response : Response: Sec�on L.9.1.a is edited to read: ‘The Technical Proposal must be wri�en in Calibri font (do not use a type smaller than 12-point font) , single spaced and shall be wri�en in English. The text used in tables and charts may be adjusted as appropriate but must be no smaller than 10-point font . Graphs, charts, and tables larger than 8 1/2" x 11" shall be included as an annex (Annex D) , which will not count against the page limit . Text a�achments shall adhere to the same forma�ng specifica�ons given above. For visual clarity, graphs, charts and/or scanned documents must be readable.’ This is reflected in Amendment 1.

55. Sec�on L.8 and L.9.1, p.139, indicate that the proposal should use Calibri 12-point font, and seem to indicate that graphs, charts, and scanned documents may be smaller so long as they are “readable.” Would USAID please confirm that charts, maps, graphics, tables, and text boxes may use smaller font, such as Calibri 9, for “visual clarity”?

Response : Response: Sec�on L.9.1.a is edited to read: ‘The Technical Proposal must be wri�en in Calibri font (do not use a type smaller than 12-point font) , single spaced and shall be wri�en in English. The text used in tables and charts may be adjusted as appropriate but must be no smaller than 10-point font . Graphs, charts, and tables larger than 8 1/2" x 11" shall be included as an annex (Annex D) , which will not count against the page limit . Text a�achments shall adhere to the same forma�ng specifica�ons given above. For visual clarity, graphs, charts and/or scanned documents must be readable.’ This is reflected in Amendment 1.

56. Page 139 - Sec�on L states that text shall be in Calibri font, single-spaced; are there also other submission requirements besides single-spacing, such as font size requirements?

Response : Sec�on L.9.1.a is edited to read: ‘The Technical Proposal must be wri�en in Calibri font (do not use a type smaller than 12-point font) , single spaced and shall be wri�en in English. The text used in tables and charts may be adjusted as appropriate but must be no smaller than 10-point font . Graphs, charts, and tables larger than 8 1/2" x 11" shall be included as an annex (Annex D) , which will not count against the page limit . Text a�achments shall adhere to the same forma�ng specifica�ons given above. For visual clarity, graphs, charts and/or scanned documents must be readable.’

This is reflected in Amendment 1.

57. L.9.1: The RFP instruc�ons, bulleted list on p. 139, list a Cover Le�er and Title Page. Page 140 gives addi�onal details on requirements for the Cover Le�er, including offeror’s name, subcontractors, and contact informa�on, but no Title Page is listed. Can USAID clarify whether both a Cover Le�er and Title Page are required and the desired content for each?

Response : The Title Page is not required but it may be provided by Offerors at their discre�on and will not count against the page limit. Sec�on L.9.1.b.2 is amended, this is reflected in Amendment 1.

58. Sec�on L.9.1 Volume 1: Technical Proposal: Item b on page 139 lists the separate sec�ons or components that must be in the technical volume, including both a one-page cover le�er and a one-page �tle page. However, in L.9.1 on page 140, the instruc�ons only provide details on the required contents for the cover le�er, not the �tle page.

Could USAID kindly provide guidance on the required elements for the �tle page?

Response : The Title Page is not required but it may be provided by Offerors at their discre�on and will not count against the page limit. Sec�on L.9.1.b.2 is amended, this is reflected in Amendment 1.

59. L.8: Under sec�on L.8 on page 139 it states that the Volume – I Technical Proposal must be submi�ed in Microso� Word or PDF and that Microso� Excel only applies to the budget as part of the Volume – 2 Cost Proposal. However, on page 144 under Past Performance, the RFP states, “The offeror is to list the most recent (within the past five years) and relevant contracts or assistance awards for efforts which are similar to the work in the subject proposal in A�achment J.2a and submit as Technical Annex A”.

A�achment J.2a is also an Excel spreadsheet. Does USAID intend for offerors to use the Excel a�achment J.2a to submit their past performance informa�on or should this informa�on be submi�ed via a different template?

Response : RFP A�achment J.2a may be submi�ed in Excel.

60. Sec�on L.8.iii, p.139, states that the cost proposal shall be submi�ed in Word (budget narra�ve) and Excel (budget only). The cost volume includes cer�fica�ons that are neither narra�ve nor budget spreadsheets and would need to be included as full-page images to preserve signature security and legibility. Would USAID please confirm that the cost proposal (including budget narra�ve, signed le�ers, and cer�fica�ons and excluding budget sheets) should be submi�ed in PDF, and only the budget narra�ve must be presented in Word?

Response : The following language is added to Sec�on L.8: ‘Document other than the proposed budget and budget narra�ve (such as signed le�ers, NICRA, etc.) may be submi�ed in PDF format.’ This is reflected in Amendment 1.

61. Sec�on L.9.4, page 144: The RFP requires that offerors include in their proposed MEL systems and clearly demonstrate their MEL approach (among other related MEL requirements). However, these requirements appear under the Key Personnel subheading of the Management and Monitoring Approach chapter. Please confirm that offerors may include a third “Monitoring, Evalua�on, and Learning System and Approach” sub-sec�on of the Management and Monitoring Approach chapter, rather than including this por�on of the response under “Key Personnel”.

Response : Yes, offerors may include a “Monitoring, Evalua�on, and Learning System and Approach” sub-sec�on of the Management and Monitoring Approach por�on of the proposal.

62. L.11: Page 149 of the RFP states, “When proposing Time and Material subcontracts, the Offeror shall provide the mul�plier and its costs breakdown.” Can USAID clarify what it means by “mul�plier”? Is this the factor that a base salary is increased in order to achieve a loaded rate?

Response : The paragraph ‘Mul�pliers’ is removed. This is reflected in Amendment 1.

63. L.11: Could USAID please confirm that the $2,000,000 amount for the Increased Quan�ty Op�on (IQO) is included in the $40-$45 million total es�mated cost-plus fixed fee for services as men�oned in the second paragraph of the cover le�er on page 1?

Response : Confirmed.

64. L.11: Page 151 - Please confirm that the IQO budget of up to $2,000,000 is with the $45,000,000 total award ceiling.

Response : Confirmed.

65. L.11: Could USAID please confirm that the $1,000,000 Grants Under Contract ceiling only applies to the base and op�on year, and addi�onal grant funds can be allocated as part of the $2,000,000 Increased Quan�ty Op�on?

Response : No. A maximum of $1,000,000 is approved for Grants under Contract over the five years of performance for the en�rety of the contract.

66. On page 72 of the RFP, USAID states, “The total for Grants under Contract may be up to $1,000,000 over the life of the project.” Would USAID consider increasing the total Grants under Contract ceiling given the strong emphasis in the RFP to work with local partners and stakeholders?

Response : No. A maximum of $1,000,000 is approved for Grants under Contract over the five years of performance for the en�rety of the contract.

67. In sec�on L.11 on page 146, the RFP states that “Offerors do not have to sequen�ally number pages in the cost proposal” in the first paragraph. In the third paragraph, it states that “All pages must be sequen�ally numbered, and each part shall be separated by a tab. Failure to include all informa�on, or to organize the proposal in the manner prescribed, may result in rejec�on of the proposal as being unacceptable”. Can USAID confirm that offerors do not need to sequen�ally number pages in the cost proposal if they clearly iden�fy each sec�on and provide a table of contents so that the individual sec�ons are easily iden�fiable?

Response : Offerors must have sequen�ally numbered pages and each part shall be separated by a tab or by a page break. This is reflected in Amendment 1.

68. Sec�on L.11 Instruc�ons for the Prepara�on of Volume II – Cost Proposal: On page 146 of the RFP, it states that “Offerors do not have to sequen�ally number pages in the cost proposal” but then goes on to say “The Cost Proposal shall include the following informa�on. All pages must be sequen�ally numbered”. Could USAID confirm if the cost proposal pages need to be sequen�ally numbered?

Response : Offerors must have sequen�ally numbered pages and each part shall be separated by a tab or by a page break. This is reflected in Amendment 1.

69. L.11: On page 146 of the RFP, it states that each part shall be separated by a tab. Could USAID confirm that a page break is sufficient to meet this requirement?

Response : Confirmed. This is reflected in Amendment 1.

70. L.11 Part 3 on page 151 of the RFP, it states “The preferred method for submission of cer�fica�ons and other statement is to complete the statements at the USG Online (System for Award Management) website at www.sam.gov, the signed and dated printout must then be submi�ed with the proposal as an annex (see Sec�on K)”. Would USAID prefer us to use the Sec�on K provided in the RFP or the version from the link above?

Response : The preferred method is to use SAM.gov, USAID asks that a printout of the completed record is provided as an annex of the offeror’s proposal submission.

71. Per Sec�on L.11, Part II (B), p. 148, “Labor cost for TCNs and CCNs should not exceed the thresholds in the US Embassy’s local employee compensa�on table (LCT) A�achment J.3” and “salaries proposed in excess of…the Local Compensa�on Plan will require appropriate clearances and approvals per the awarded contract.” We respec�ully request that the above-men�oned LCP salary restric�on be removed from the RFP as it appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007 Personnel Compensa�on, incorporated in the contract under Sec�on H.16, p. 70, which s�pulates that personnel compensa�on be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and prac�ces, with reimbursement subject only to the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold. The salary restric�on above may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and prac�ces, as required by AIDAR 752.7007.

Response : Please refer to Sec�on I.30, Employment of Third Country Na�onals and Coopera�ng Country Na�onals (AIDAR 722.170), specifically paragraph (b). Sec�on L.11, Part II(B) has been amended to provide the reference. Please carefully read Sec�on L.11, Part II and follow the guidance regarding salaries or rates proposed above the referenced limits.

72. Sec�on L.11, Part 7, p.152, asks for "Informa�on to Support Consent to Subcontract to Major Subcontractors" in its �tle but then goes on to men�on “proposed subcontractors” in the instruc�ons. Would USAID please clarify if this applies to major subcontractors only or to all proposed subcontractors?

Response : Sec�on L.11, Part 7 applies to Major Subcontractors.

73. Sec�on L.11: Page 12 - This RFQ lists the prime award type as “Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee” yet in Part II - Budget Line Item Defini�ons and Illustra�ons, there is the following statement: “Please note that USAID’s preferred subcontract type remains the firm fixed price type.” Would it detract from an offerer’s cost submission if they proposed subcontrac�ng under other fee types?

Response : It is at the discre�on of each offeror to determine which contract type makes the most sense for the subcontrac�ng work being performed.

74. L.9.4 The RFP’s instruc�ons for the technical proposal, p. 141 on Services and Task Required, call for presen�ng the “expected number and type of beneficiaries reached along with an�cipated costs to allow cost-efficiency/effec�veness reviews for the base period, op�on period, and increased quan�ty op�on.” However, the delivery instruc�ons on p. 138 state that “The Volume I - Technical Proposal MUST NOT make reference to pricing data in order that the technical evalua�on may be made strictly on the basis of technical merit.” Can USAID clarify that cost informa�on should not be included in the technical proposal and should only be presented in the cost proposal as per USAID standard prac�ce?

Response : Confirmed. No cost or price informa�on should be provided in the technical proposal. The language “along with an�cipated costs to allow cost-efficiency/effec�veness reviews” is removed.

75. Page 142 - Sec�on L states that “For each intermediate result, the Offeror will detail the expected targets, results and deliverables, inclusive of an�cipated costs, to allow cost-efficiency/effec�veness reviews.” However, Sec�on L also states that “The Volume I

- Technical Proposal MUST NOT make reference to pricing data in order that the technical evalua�on may be made strictly on the basis of technical merit.” Please confirm that no cost or price informa�on should be included in the Technical proposal.

Response : Confirmed. No cost or price informa�on should be provided in the technical proposal. The language “along with an�cipated costs to allow cost-efficiency/effec�veness reviews” is removed.

76. Sec�on L.8 and L.9, pages 138-142: The RFP clearly states – “ Volume I - Technical Proposal and Volume II - Cost Proposals must be kept in separate email submissions from one another. The Volume I - Technical Proposal MUST NOT make reference to pricing data in order that the technical evalua�on may be made strictly on the basis of technical merit.” However, later in Sec�on L.9.4, on pages 141 and 142, USAID includes the following requirements:

a. “For each intermediate result, the Offeror will detail the expected number and type of beneficiaries reached along with an�cipated costs to allow cost-efficiency/effec�veness reviews for the base period, op�on period, and increased quan�ty op�on. ” [emphasis added]

b. “Note 1: For each intermediate result, the Offeror will detail the expected targets, results and deliverables, inclusive of an�cipated costs, to allow cost-efficiency/effec�veness reviews. Within the SOW, some results have an “X” where the Offeror must specify its proposal for target achievement, i.e., assess 150 service delivery points to establish baseline performance targets. The Offeror must propose a �ered approach to the type of technical assistance (i.e., intensive, light touch, etc.) applicable to all support levels, based on performance data, projected costs , and other relevant factors.” [ emphasis added ]

We kindly request that USAID revise Sec�on L.8 to remove references to cost/pricing informa�on, in keeping with the RFP statement that the technical proposal must not make reference to pricing data.

Response : Confirmed. No cost or price informa�on should be provided in the technical proposal. The language “along with an�cipated costs to allow cost-efficiency/effec�veness reviews” is removed.

77. Sec�on L.9.4(c), p.142, states that “the offeror will detail the expected number and type of beneficiaries reached along with an�cipated costs to allow cost efficiency/effec�veness reviews for the base period, op�on period, and increased quan�ty op�on.” This is restated in Note 1 on p. 143. This contradicts with the RFP’s instruc�on on p. 138 that “Technical Proposal MUST NOT make reference to pricing data.” Would USAID clarify the language in regard to which informa�on should be included within this sec�on?

Response : Confirmed. No cost or price informa�on should be provided in the technical proposal. The language “along with an�cipated costs to allow cost-efficiency/effec�veness reviews” is removed.

78. Sec�on L.9.4 Technical Approach: On page 142, Note 1 provides the following instruc�on: “For each intermediate result, the Offeror will detail the expected targets, results, and deliverables, inclusive of an�cipated costs, to allow cost-efficiency/effec�veness reviews.” Further, on page 141 the RFP states “Offeror will detail...an�cipated costs to allow cost efficiency/effec�veness reviews.” However, on page 138, in Sec�on L.8, Proposal Submission/Delivery Instruc�ons, the RFP says “The

Volume I - Technical Proposal MUST NOT make reference to pricing data in order that the technical evalua�on may be made strictly on the basis of technical merit.” Can USAID please delete the clause “inclusive of an�cipated costs” from the sentence in L.9.4?

Response : Confirmed. No cost or price informa�on should be provided in the technical proposal. The language “along with an�cipated costs to allow cost-efficiency/effec�veness reviews” is removed.

79. Page 142 - Sec�on L states that “For each intermediate result, the Offeror will detail the expected targets, results and deliverables, inclusive of an�cipated costs, to allow cost-efficiency/effec�veness reviews.” However, Sec�on L also states that “The Volume I

- Technical Proposal MUST NOT make reference to pricing data in order that the technical evalua�on may be made strictly on the basis of technical merit.” Please confirm that no cost or price informa�on should be included in the Technical proposal.

Response : Confirmed. No cost or price informa�on should be provided in the technical proposal.