Power Tunisia RFP 72066422R00001 Amendment No. 1 Q&A.pdf

5. PROJECT NO.

CODE

7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED

BPA NO. 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODE CODE

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:

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended,

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning __________ copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR AC-

KNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV. 10-83)

is required to sign this document and return ___________ copies to the issuing office. is not, A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

15C. DATE SIGNED

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES

SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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 telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER

BY

Contractor

16C. DATE SIGNED

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

STANDARD FORM 30 STANDARD FORM 30

(Type or print) (Type or print)

(Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

(No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

(If other than Item 6)

(Specify type of modification and authority)

(such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)

(If required)

(If applicable)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

(X)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

1 26

001 1/27/2022

72066422R00001

1/3/2022

X

The purpose of this Amendment No. 1 is to answer questions received by Offerors and revise the RFP based on questions received (See revisions in yellow in the attached RFP).

Karla Camp

Contracting Officer

X X

USAID/MERP (ME Regional – Frankfurt)

U.S Consulate General Frankfurt

Giessener Str 30

60435 Frankfurt am Main, Germany

X

X

January 27, 2022

Subject: Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 72066422R00001 Power Tunisia Activity

Amendment #1

The purpose of this Amendment is:

A. Amend the RFP as follows: All amendments to the RFP are highlighted in yellow in the RFP Amendment 1 document. Any highlighted strikethrough text (i.e., strikethrough) has been removed from the RFP. Changes to the RFP are noted below in USAID’s responses to questions; and

B. Answer questions received from potential offerors via email.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

GENERAL:

Q.1 In accordance with ADS 310, it appears that the cooperating country Tunisia does not fall under the geo code 937. Could USAID clarify and make the appropriate change to the authorized geo code under the RFP?

A.1 Per ADS 310.3.1.1 - Authorized USAID Principal Geographic Codes, Code 937 includes the United States, the recipient country, and developing countries other than advanced developing countries, but excludes any country that is a prohibited source. Therefore, Tunisia is included in the 937 Geographic Code.

Q.2 Cover Page 2. Can USAID clarify what "closing time" would be, as referenced in the cover page?

A.2 The closing time is 4:30 pm EST.

Q.3 Is there any opportunity to extend the timeline for the submission by 4 weeks? Our concern is that we will not have enough time to prepare a well-thought-out response and go through our internal approval processes.

A.3 The submission date is hereby extended to March 4, 2022 at 4:30 pm EST.

Q.4 The RFP cover page does not specify a submission time on February 14. However, p.

2 references the “designated date and time indicated in Block 9 of the RFP Cover page.” Would USAID clarify the time by which proposals must be submitted on February 14, 2022?

A.4 See response to question 3, above.

Q.5 Would USAID confirm that engineering design and supervisory services for construction activities may be billed under the Partnerships Fund or the Pilot Projects Fund?

A.5 Engineering design and supervisory services associated with construction activities should be charged against the appropriate fund category this work is implemented under.

Q.6 To allow offerors sufficient time to develop the most comprehensive and realistic proposals possible, would USAID kindly consider granting a 1-week extension for Power Tunisia Activity, setting the due date as February 22, 2022?

A.6 See response to question 3, above.

Q.7 Question: The cover letter does not include a submission time. However, SAM.gov states that the proposal is due by 04:30 pm EST on the February 14, 2022. Would USAID confirm that the submission time is 4:30pm EST?

A.7 See response to question 3, above.

SECTION B:

Q.8 Section B.5, Indirect Costs and Ceilings: Would USAID remove the requirement for an indirect cost ceiling from Section B.5, and revise the solicitation such that indirect costs will be reimbursed at the Prime’s and major subcontractors’ negotiated final or predetermined indirect cost rates?

A.8 Section B.5 will be discussed with the successful Offeror in accordance with FAR 42.707.

SECTION C:

Q.9 C.4.1.1. Component 1.1 - Utility Modernization; (A.) Reduction of Losses and Increased Payment, page 21. Can USAID please provide the source of the baseline information from STEG that will be used to calculate the reduction targets noted. If such information is not available from STEG how is it anticipated that the baseline will be calculated?

A.9 Attached is the Smart Grid Maturity Model baseline assessment of STEG developed under the U.S. Embassy’s Small Grid project as Attachment J.9 to the RFP. USAID is neutral on the report’s approach and findings. Such technical determinations are the Offeror’s responsibility, therefore it is up to the Offeror to obtain the required baseline data to monitor progress against expected results to inform the AMELP. For more information and assumptions, see the activity’s Theory of Change under Section C.3 of the RFP.

Q.10 C.4.1.1. Component 1.1 - Utility Modernization; (B) Integrating Technological Improvements, page 21. Is it correct to assume the Contractor will use Power Tunisia funds for the purchase of the MDMS (in full or in part)?

A.10 USAID confirms that obligated funds can be used to fully or partially fund the procurement, installation and training of MDMS during the Option Period.

Q.11 C.4.1.1. Component 1.1 - Utility Modernization; (B) Integrating Technological Improvements, page 22. Can USAID please clarify whether it wishes the Contractor to enable the digitization of management and controls for at least 2 substations?

Please also confirm that USAID recognizes that the installation of such equipment is necessarily dependent on the cooperation of, and the provision of appropriate technical resources by, STEG?

A.11 USAID confirms that the Contractor is responsible for enabling the digitization of management and controls for at least two substations. USAID recognizes that the installation of such equipment depends on the cooperation and the provision of appropriate technical resources by STEG for which the Contractor will be responsible for obtaining and facilitating.

Q.12 C.4.1.1. Component 1.1 - Utility Modernization; (D.) Increased Organizational Capability, page 23. Please clarify if there are any Expected Results, Minimum Requirements, or Deliverables for the Base Period in the RFP.

A.12 No activities are expected for the base period under section C.4.1.1 (D) of the RFP. The interventions and expected results included under this sub-component are only for the option period.

Q.13 One of the expected results for the base period and the option period is the same for Component 1.2B (at least a 10% reduction of uncertified products sold on the market, p. 26). Would USAID please confirm these expected results?

A.13 The activities included under the option period should result in at least an additional 10 percent reduction in uncertified products sold on the market, over the 10 percent reduction required under the base period. The option period result is hereby revised to read “At least an additional 10 percent reduction of uncertified products sold on the market over the 10 percent reduction expected under the base period.”

Q.14 C.4.2.1. Component 2.1 Diversify and Secure Energy Supply (A.) RE Regime Implementation Improved, pages 31, 32. The term “feasibility study” is an engineering term of art, which requires the completion of very detailed technical, financial, environmental and operations viability assessments. Typically, such studies are conducted by project developers, and are a necessary precondition of both regulatory approval and the ability to secure financing. It would be highly unusual for a third party (such as the Power Tunisia Project) to develop a feasibility study as a way of accelerating something as complex as a renewable energy site, because it is more than probable that - in due course - the final developer of the site would need to comprehensively revise / completely redo any prior study to RFP Section or Paragraph # Page Number Referenced Language Question progress the project towards completion. We recognize, and fully support, USAID’s desire to provide technical assistance to accelerate the development of renewable energy sites.

However, as has been successfully demonstrated in multiple other USAID energy engagements in Africa and around the world, the level of support relevant to this objective would be to require the contractor to develop a series of pre-feasibility reports (which can be successfully used to accelerate the interest of private sector and other investors) vs. mandating the highly resource intensive, less flexible, and potentially redundant feasibility study model. For the reasons outlined above, we would therefore request that USAID consider amending both of the referenced sentences to replace the word “feasibility” with “prefeasibility”

A.14 For the purpose of this RFP, feasibility studies refer to the studies required to accelerate the ability of the private sector to develop bids and to obtain project finance for renewable energy projects advanced under Power Tunisia.

Q.15 For various capacity building workstreams the desired outcome has been shown as a % increase in knowledge – e.g., C.4.2.1 A: “Power system stakeholders’ knowledge enhanced on global best practices in competitive procurement design increased by at least 80 percent” => How will this be measured under the program?

A.15 Section F.7.1 of the RFP requires that, after award, USAID’s Contractor develops and submits for USAID’s review and approval a rigorous Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Pan (AMELP) that includes appropriate data gathering methodology and instruments to monitor and evaluate activities, including those under C.4.2.1 A of the RFP.

Q.16 C.4.2.1 A: Is it possible for a consortium member to support the government on auction/competitive procurement design and also provide financing and transaction advisory to private companies interested in the authorization and concession regimes?

A.16 It is possible but it would be very difficult to mitigate the Conflict of Interest concerns given that the design work is related to the "authorization and concession regime". An Offeror could put forward an OCI mitigation plan explaining how a segregation of duties/knowledge would assure that no unequal access to information occurs but it would be a pretty high bar to meet.

Q.17 Does USAID/Tunisia intend to include a specific target for new renewable energy generation in the Base and/or Option Period Expected Results of Component 2.1 (e.g., number of MWs reaching financial close)?

A.17 The required targets for Component 2.1 are stated in the RFP. Following the award of a Contract, USAID’s Contractor must develop an AMELP (see Section F.7.1 of the RFP) that captures all targets for the activity based on their technical approach.

Q.18 C.4.3: “At least $10,000,000 in private sector investment mobilized for the energy sector.” => Since this would only translate to ~10MW in additional capacity, should the capital mobilization target be higher given Tunisia's ambitious renewable energy deployment target (30 percent of renewable energy generation by 2030)?

A.18 The $10 million in private sector investment mobilized is specific to Component 3. It is expected that the Contractor mobilizes additional funding for other components of Power Tunisia as required by the RFP. The RFP was amended accordingly.

Q.19 Page 36, C.4.3, Component 3, Expected Results, states “At least $10,000,000 in private sector investment mobilized for the energy sector.” Can USAID confirm that the expected result of $10,000,000 private sector investment mobilization target is specific to Component 3 only?

A.19 See response to question 18, above.

Q.20 Section C.6 Stakeholder Engagement provides five stakeholder categories that include in C.6.5 “Coordination with other U.S. Government Activities.” In Section F.7.1 Plans, Reports and Deliverables, item 6. Stakeholder Engagement Plan does not include the stakeholder category “Coordination with other U.S. Government Activities.” Would USAID please clarify whether engagement with other USAID programs and other U.S. government activities in Tunisia’s energy sector may be referenced as part of stakeholder engagement?

A.20 Section F.7.1.6 of the RFP is hereby revised to include the following category:

● Coordination with U.S. Government Activities: The plan must describe how the Contractor plans to coordinate closely with all other U.S. Government Activities to ensure that activities are strategic and to avoid duplication.

Q.21 The categories for stakeholder engagement in Section C.6 Stakeholder Engagement do not appear to include engagement with civil society organizations or labor unions that are engaged with the energy sector of Tunisia. Would USAID please clarify whether these groups may be included in the stakeholder engagement plan?

A.21 Section F.7.1.6 of the RFP is hereby revised to include the following category:

● Coordination with Civil Society Organizations and Trade Unions: The plan must describe how the Contractor plans to foster strategic collaboration between local civil society, trade unions and government leaders to promote Tunisia’s transition to clean energy, shift towards a low-carbon economy, and expansion of women’s participation in the energy sector.

Q.22 C.8 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT, page 47. Given the frequent references to AMELP in the RFP, would USAID consider requiring the submission of a draft AMELP as a requirement under this RFP?

A.22 Section L.6.2 4. - Technical Approach of the RFP is hereby revised to add a requirement for indicators, performance measures, and targets for the 3-year base performance period as an annex. This information will be part of the AMELP submitted after the award.

Section M.4.1 was also revised to evaluate this new requirement.

SECTION D:

No questions were received for this section.

SECTION E:

No questions were received for this section.

SECTION F:

Q.23 Section F.7.1 notes that all key personnel must be hired, in country, and ready for implementation no later than 10 days following the contract-effective date. However, the table in Section F.7.3 states 30 days. To allow key personnel who have existing employment commitments the time to transition, would USAID please confirm that key personnel must be furnished 30 days after the effective date of the award?

A.23 To eliminate any discrepancies in the RFP, Section F.7.1.1 is hereby revised to require the Contractor to furnish key personnel 30 days after the effective date of the award.

Q.24 RFP Reference: F.7.1.1, Page Number: 59, Relevant RFP Language: “Key Personnel Furnished: All Key personnel must be hired, in country, and ready for implementation no later than 10 days following the contract effective date.”

RFP Reference: F.7.3, Page Number: 67, Relevant RFP Language: “Key Personnel Furnished…30 days after the effective date of the award”

Question: It typically takes personnel approximately 30 days to resign from their current positions and be fully onboarded to the new project. Could USAID confirm that the contractor is required to furnish key personnel 30 days after award and amend Sect F.7.1.1 of the RFP accordingly?

A.24 See response to question 23, above.

Q.25 RFP Reference: F.7.3, Page Number: 67-68, Relevant RFP Language: “Base Period Work Plan…Submitted up to 30 calendar days after the effective date of the award”

“Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan…Submitted within 30 calendar days of contract effective date”

Question a: It typically takes personnel approximately 30 days to resign from their current positions and be fully onboarded to the new project. So that key personnel may fully participate in the Year 1 Work Plan development process and so that the contractor has time to engage Tunisian counterparts, would USAID kindly adjust the deadline for the Year 1 Work Plan to be 60 days after contract award?

Question b: So that the MEL Plan is due at the same time as the Year 1 Work Plan, would USAID also kindly adjust the deadline for the MEL Plan to be 60 days after contract award?

A.25 (a) See response to question 23, above.

(b) Section F.7.3 of the RFP was revised to 60 calendar days after the effective date of the award.

Q.26 Page 71, F.9 Key Personnel, USAID requests the Offeror to propose four Key Personnel positions. According to ADS Chapter 302.3.5.4(a) “The number of key personnel designated for any contract must not be more than five individuals or five percent of the contractor employees working under the contract, whichever is greater.” Could USAID allow five Key Personnel positions to be proposed?

A.26 Section F.9 of the RFP remains unchanged and requires Offerors to propose only four Key Personnel positions.

SECTION G:

No questions were received for this section.

SECTION H:

Q.27 Section H.3 of the RFP specifies the geo code “includes any area or country, including the recipient country, but excluding any country that is a prohibited source,” which is the definition for geo code 935 not 937 per the ADS 310.3.1.1. Could USAID clarify and make the appropriate changes to the authorized geo code under the RFP to be consistent with ADS 310?

A.27 H.3 is hereby revised to provide the correct definition for geo code 937. The correct definition is as follows: “Authorized Geographic Code 937 includes the United States, the recipient country, and developing countries other than advanced developing countries, but excluding any country that is a prohibited source.”

Q.28 Section H.3 (b), Authorized Geographic Code: While the Solicitation states that the Authorized Geographic Code is 937, the definition provided under (b) is for Geographic Code 935. Please confirm the Authorized Geographic Code of the solicitation.

A.28 See the answer to question 27, above.

Q.29 Section H.10(a)(1) states, “Salary ranges for ALL the professional positions in this Contract will be established based on the market value, based on duties and responsibilities of the position, in country and locality of contract performance. The established range must be realistic and reasonable for the responsibilities of each position and must not be based on the salary history or the qualifications of the candidate selected. The salary ranges must be certified by the Contractor and submitted to the Contracting Officer with the proposal for approval.” However, submission of salary ranges for all professional positions is not required in Section L or the J.11 Budget Template. Would USAID confirm that offerors will not have to provide salary ranges as part of their proposals?

A.29 The RFP is being amended (check Section L.7.1(b) iii Annex I) to request offerors to submit a salary scale for the various hiring categories (Long-term & Short-term Expatriates and Long-term and Short-term Local Staff) for the Contracting Officer (CO) to provide approval upfront and eliminate the need to approve rates each time the contractor hires a person. Also, the RFP Section L.7.3.2(b) was amended to include the requirement for the offerors to submit a salary scale.

Q.30 RFP Reference: H.10.a.1, Page Number: 85, Relevant RFP Language: “Salary ranges for ALL the professional positions in this Contract will be established based on the market value, based on duties and responsibilities of the position, in country and locality of contract performance. The established range must be realistic and reasonable for the responsibilities of each position and must not be based on the salary history or the qualifications of the candidate selected. The salary ranges must be certified by the Contractor and submitted to the Contracting Officer with the proposal for approval.”

RFP Reference: H.10.d, Page Number: 86, Relevant RFP Language: “Any initial starting salaries included in the contractor's proposal and accepted during negotiations, are deemed approved upon contract execution.”

RFP Reference: L.7.2.3.j, Page Number: 168, Relevant RFP Language: “CCN/TCN personnel. The Offeror must propose local labor by Labor Category and FSN Grade.

Based on USAID’s market research, the following daily salary rate ranges for Tunisia, as shown in the Attachment J.10, are considered fair and reasonable and realistic. If the Offeror’s proposed salary rate falls within the applicable market range in the tables below, that proposed rate will be considered reasonable and realistic and no further substantiation is required from the Offeror. Offerors proposing a salary rate that falls outside the applicable market range must support that outlier rate with additional data, such as biodata sheets, pay stubs, or data from the results of salary surveys, and must clearly show how such data was used to develop the proposed salary rate.”

Question a: If the salary ranges are approved as part of the award, can USAID confirm that professional staff not named in the proposal whose salaries fall within the approved range will be considered fair and reasonable and realistic?

Question b: If salaries within the approved range will be considered fair and reasonable and realistic, could USAID add a clause to Section H.10 stating that those salaries do not require separate approval?

A.30 RFP has been amended so that Contractors are requested to submit a salary scale to be approved by the Contracting Officer in order for the CO to provide approval upfront and eliminate the need to approve rates each time the contractor hires a person. Check the Answer to Question 29.

Q.31 RFP Reference: H.15.c, Page Number: 99, Relevant RFP Language: “Grants issued will not exceed $5,000,000 of the total estimated cost of the three-year base period and two-year option period of the contract.”

RFP Reference: L.7.3.7.b, Page Number: 170, Relevant RFP Language: “Grants Under Contract (GUC): Consistent with Section C, the Contractor will use a plug figure of $4 million of its total budget for the three-year base period-of performance, and $2 million for the option period, for Grants under Contract.”

Question: RFP Section H.15.c says that grants shall not exceed $5,000,000. However, RFP Section L.7.3.7.b instructs offerors to reserve $6,000,000 total for grants. Could USAID confirm the correct plug figure for grants in the budget?

A.31 H.15.c was revised to change the amount for GUCs to $6,000,000.

Q.32 Section H.15 indicates that all grants issued under the contract must be to local nongovernmental organizations. However, the regulations allow contractors to execute solely in- 2 kind grants to government entities. Would USAID confirm that solely in-kind grants to government entities will be allowed under this contract, pursuant to ADS 302.3.4.13?

A.32 In-kind grants to partner government entities are not contemplated under the GUC mechanism of the contract.

Q.33 Section H.15 states that the grants issued cannot exceed $5,000,000 of the total estimated cost of the three-year base period and two-year option period of the contract. However, Section L.7.3.7.(b) allows for a total plug figure of $6,000,000 for the base and option periods. Would USAID please clarify the Grants Under Contract plug figure amounts for the base and option periods?

A.33 Check Answer to Question No. 31.

Q.34 RFP Reference: H.20, Page Number: 101, Relevant RFP Language: “LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS AND REPORTING – Language skills at the following Foreign Service Institute proficiency level or equivalent: English Level IV.”

Question: This requirement could be interpreted to mean that all personnel must have English Level IV proficiency. It is unlikely that all project staff with the skills required to achieve Power Tunisia Activity expected results will have English Level IV proficiency. Could USAID confirm that only key personnel are required to have English Level IV proficiency to meet this language requirement in Clause H.20?

A.34 This language requirement must be adhered to where it is specifically stated in the RFP.

SECTION I:

No questions were received for this section.

SECTION J:

Q.35 Attachment J.9, Tables 2 and 3, outline activity deliverables to be aligned with fixed-fee payments. Several of the Activity Deliverables assign fixed-fee payments to program achievement targets that may change during implementation due to evolving needs and stakeholders’ priorities. To account for these potential shifts, would USAID consider adding the following language to Section B.7: “The Fixed-Fee Schedule may be adjusted during annual work planning to reprogram any unpaid fees from partially completed or nonaccepted deliverables from the past year into other or additional deliverables as mutually agreed to between the COR and the contractor, ensuring the fee remains fixed.” In addition, would USAID consider allowing offerors to propose programmatic deliverables in line with our technical approach?

A.35 RFP is amended to revise the fixed-fee structure. [Refer to revised fixed fee Section B.7.]

SECTION K:

No questions were received for this section.

SECTION L:

Q.36 RFP Reference: L.1, Page Number: 155, Relevant RFP Language: Clause 52.215-20

Question: Per FAR 15.403-1: Prohibition on obtaining certified cost or pricing data, could USAID confirm that certified cost or pricing data is not required because the proposal will have been competitively bid and received adequate competition, thus satisfying FAR 15.403-1(b)(1)? If so, can USAID remove clause 52.215-20 from page 155?

A.36 Clause 52.215-20 has been removed from the RFP.

Q.37 RFP Reference: L.6.1.2, Page Number: 159, Relevant RFP Language: “Offerors shall not make references to pricing data in the Technical Volume”

RFP Reference: L.6.2.3, Page Number: 163, Relevant RFP Language: “Annex D – Subcontracting Plan [9 pages maximum] (See Attachment J-2)”

Question: Page 163 instructs offerors to complete Attachment J-2 and include it in an annex to the Staffing and Management Plan. However, Attachment J-2: USAID Small Business Subcontracting Plan Template contains pricing data. Therefore, could USAID confirm that the Attachment J-2: USAID Small Business Subcontracting Plan should only be submitted as part of the Cost Volume (and not as part of the Technical Volume)? Accordingly, would USAID kindly delete Annex D – Subcontracting Plan from page 163?

A.37 Offerors are requested to only submit the subcontracting plan with the cost volume. The RFP was revised to remove this requirement from the technical volume.

Q.38 RFP Reference: L.6.2, Page Number: 160.

Question a: Section L.6.2: Content of the Technical Volume does not include space for a table of contents or acronym list. For ease of reading, would USAID allow offerors to include a table of contents and an acronym list for the Technical Volume on pages that do not count against the page limits?

Question b: Similarly, would USAID allow offerors to include an Executive Summary on separate pages that do not count against the page limit?

A.38 The RFP was revised to add one page for the table of contents and one page for the acronyms. An executive summary is allowed. Offerors opting to do so should note that the executive summary will count towards the page limit set for the Technical Approach.

Q.39 L.6.2 CONTENT OF THE TECHNICAL VOLUME, page 160. Given its strong links to Component 3, should the Technology and Partnerships Strategy (TPS): i. be a subcomponent or an element within Component 3; ii. be provided as a stand-alone element in the RFP technical response, or; iii. be provided as a supplementary Annex?

A.39 Offerors must propose a technology and partnerships strategy within the page limit of their Technical Approach submission. This strategy can be a subcomponent or an element within Component 3 or as a stand-alone element in the RFP technical response, but should not be included as an annex.

Q.40 RFP 159-160, L.6.2, Content of the Technical Volume, Would USAID allow the Offeror to include, Table of Contents, and an Acronym List not included in the page limit?

A.40 Check answer to question no. 38.

Q.41 Page 160, L.6.2.1, Introductory Page. In addition to the requirements listed for the Introductory Page, would USAID allow the Offeror to include additional information within the one-page guidelines?

A.41 Only required listed items for the introductory page are allowed.

Q.42 Page 160, L.6.2.2. Technical Approach, USAID’s scope of work for Power Tunisia is wideranging. Components 1-3 call for a minimum of 57 tasks against 65 results. In order to adequately convey our understanding of the work to be done and how we would accomplish it, would USAID allow the Offeror to include an additional five pages for the technical approach, making the total page limit 22 instead of 17?

A.42 Section L.6.2.2 (now Section L.6.2.4) of the RFP was revised to limit the total number of pages to 20, instead of 17.

Q.43 Page 160-161, L.6.2.2 – Annex A - Gantt Chart, a. Page 161, Would USAID allow the Offeror to use legal size paper (8 1⁄2 x 14”) to make the five-page Gantt Chart more reader friendly? b. Page 161, states “The Gantt Chart must reflect at least the following … E. The role of the proposed project partners under each intervention to show responsibilities and ensure accountability.” What level of detail does USAID want in the Gantt Chart to describe this requirement for each task?

A.43 Annex A – Gantt Chart can be submitted on a legal size paper.

Q.44 RFP Reference: L.6.2.2, Page Number: 160, Relevant RFP Language: “Technical Approach: (not to exceed 17 pages)”

RFP Reference: C.4, Page Number: 19-36

Question: Spread over 17 pages, the Scope of Work contains 13 components/sub-components and 65 expected results. However, in the instructions for the Technical Approach section of the proposal, USAID has only allotted 17 pages for offerors to clearly demonstrate how proposed interventions will lead to achievement of those results as well as to address additional requirements (e.g., Implementation Considerations). So that offerors may present a comprehensive approach to achievement all Power Tunisia Activity goals, outcomes, and expected results, would USAID kindly increase the page limit for the Technical Approach to 25 pages?

A.44 See response to question 42, above.

Q.45 RFP Reference: L.6.2.2, Page Number: 161, Relevant RFP Language: “ANNEXES to the Technical Approach…Annex A – Gantt Chart”

RFP Reference: L.6.2.3, Page Number: 162, Relevant RFP Language: “ANNEXES to the Staffing and Management Plan…Annex A – Resumes of Key Personnel”

Question: The Technical Approach and the Staffing and Management Plan have separate annexes, which results in both the Gantt chart with proposed interventions under components 1–3 and the key personnel resumes being labeled as Annex A. To avoid confusion, would USAID allow offerors to place all annexes at the end of the document with no duplication of annexes lettering?

A.45 Offeros are allowed to place all annexes at the end of the document with no duplication of annexes lettering.

Q.46 Page 161, L.6.2.3 - Management and Staffing Approach. Given the equal weight placed on the evaluation of the Staffing and Management Approach versus the Technical Approach (“Evaluation Factor #1 and #2 are of equal importance”) and the large volume of details required to be described, would USAID increase the page limit of the Staffing and Management Plan from seven to twelve pages? This would allow USAID to receive more thorough and clearly explained details of the potential staffing and management structure for achieving the results described in Section C in line with the evaluation criteria weighting.

A.46 Section L.6.2.3 (now Section L.6.2.5) of the RFP was revised to limit the number of pages to 10, instead of 7.

Q.47 Page 162, L.6.2.3, Annex A – Resumes of Key Personnel, states “inclusive of Professional Biography and references. [2 pages each maximum]. The Offeror must propose information to complete key personnel inputs to Section F.9 as identified within the section. This includes identifying key personnel positions, responsibilities, and required qualifications for each.” Would USAID allow the Offeror to include the Key Personnel references, positions, responsibilities, and required qualifications to be listed outside of the 2-page limit of each resume?

A.47 No, this is not allowed.

Q.48 Page 163, L.6.2.3, Annex B - Signed Letters of Intent states, “Each Key Personnel’s signed Letter of Intent must state that the proposed candidate will: 1) be available within one month of project start-up.” However, F.7.1, page 59, states “Key Personnel Furnished: All Key personnel must be hired, in country, and ready for implementation no later than 10 days following the contract effective date.” Can USAID confirm that Key Personnel candidates are required to be available within one month of project start-up?

A.48 See response to question 23, above.

Q.49 Page 163, L.6.2.3, Annex C - Organizational Chart states that this chart needs to display “the Activity’s anticipated staffing structure and office(s) with lines of authority, and general descriptions for all home office and field employees to implement Components 1-3.” a. Would USAID consider allowing the Offeror to use more than one page to adequately fulfil the stated requirements, particularly to provide general descriptions of the home office and field employees to implement Components 1-3? b. Can USAID clarify if “general descriptions of the home office and field employees to implement Components 1-3" is requesting that the Offeror: 1) describe the position and role for each proposed employee or 2) describe the relevant experience and background for each proposed employee envisioned to fill these positions?

A.49 (a) The page limitation for the Annex C under Section L.6.2.3 (now Section L.6.2.5) of the RFP was revised to a maximum of 2 pages, instead of 1.

(b) Should an Offeror opt to include an additional page, this page must be used to briefly and clearly describe how appropriate home office and field office employees, subcontractors, and long and short-term staff implement their proposed technical approach to achieve or exceed the contract requirements. Offerors should determine how best to present this information. Nonetheless, this additional information must complement, but not duplicate, the information already provided under the Offeror’s Staffing and Management approach section of their submission.

Q.50 Page 163, L.6.2.3, Annex D - Subcontracting Plan (Attachment J-2). Given that Attachment J2 links to the “USAID Small Business Subcontracting Plan Template,” which requests dollar values, and given that pricing data should not be included in the technical volume (RFP page 159, L.6.1), please confirm if the Offeror should omit dollar values and only include percentages when submitting Annex D - Subcontracting Plan in the technical proposal.

A.50 Check Answer to Question No. 37.

Q.51 Page 163, L.6.2.4. Contractor Performance Information:

a. Page 163, 4.1 (a), “1. Complete Attachment J.7: Past Performance Matrix.” Would USAID allow the Offeror to use legal size paper (8 1⁄2 x 14”) to make the Attachment J.7 Past Performance Matrix more reader friendly?

b. Page 164, 4.1 (a), “2. Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPARS),” states “Additionally, the Offeror must describe the relevance of the referenced contracts in its proposal. Finally, the Offeror must include the name of the Contracting Officer’s Representative and Alternate Contracting Officer’s Representative for each referenced contract, if applicable.” Is this request limited to projects that do not have a CPAR on file? If for all projects presented, would USAID like this information included in the Past Performance Matrix or is this information also required in a separate write-up?

c. Page 164, 4.1 (b), “If extraordinary problems impacted any of the referenced contracts, provide a short explanation and the corrective action taken (FAR 15.305(a)(2)).” Would USAID allow the Offeror to include the short explanation on extraordinary problems that “impacted the referenced contracts” as an additional insert in the Past Performance Matrix?

A.51 a. Past Performance Matrix can be submitted using legal size paper.

b. This information is only requested for projects that do not have a CPAR on file.

c. Yes, offerors are allowed to include a short explanation on extraordinary problems as an additional insert in the past performance matrix.

Q.52 L.6.2 ANNEXES to the Staffing and Management Plan, page 162 Annex D – Subcontracting Plan [9 pages maximum] (See Attachment J-2) In order to provide adequate space to fully demonstrate an offeror’s commitment to engaging small businesses, would USAID consider removing the page limit on the Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Annex D to the Staffing and Management Plan), which includes the small business utilization plan as required by the RFP?

A.52 The page limit remains unchanged.

Q.53 L.6.2 4.1 Overall Contractor Performance, page 163. Complete Attachment J.7: Past Performance Matrix - Include up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal performed within the last three years (six years for construction and A&E). The most relevant indicators of performance are contracts of similar size, scope and objectives. Can USAID clarify whether "performed in the last 3 years" means past performance examples where the projects have closed, but that closure happened up to 36 months ago, or if offerors can also include relevant projects that are still ongoing?

A.53 Offerors can include relevant ongoing projects.

Q.54 Would USAID provide a preferred template or form to be used for references from small businesses (Section L.6.4.2 (c)(3), p. 165)?

A.54 No template is available, offerors can use their own format.

Q.55 RFP Reference: L.7.1.b.iii, Page Number: 165-166, Relevant RFP Language:

“Annexes. The Offeror must submit Cost Volume Annexes as separate attachments limited to the following documents”

The instructions on pages 165-166 limit annexes in the Cost Volume to Annexes A through H. This list does not include space to present all of the supporting information required by subsequent instructions for the Cost Volume.

Question a: The instructions on page 166 state that offerors should include the Small Business Subcontracting Goal Plan as Annex G, but Section L.12 (page 175) says to label this plan as Annex J. Could USAID confirm that Annex G is the correct spot for the Small Business Subcontracting Goal Plan?

Question b: Section L.10 (page 175) allows offerors to submit requests for Consent to Subcontract as part of the proposal, but it is not included in the list of annexes on pages 165-166. Could USAID confirm that offerors should include these requests as an additional annex?

Question c: Section L.11 (page 175) requires offerors to submit Legislative Reporting Information as an annex, but it is not included in the list of annexes on pages 165-166. Could USAID confirm that offerors should include this information as an additional annex?

Question d: Section L.7.3.8 states, “The prime Offeror’s analysis of subcontractor pricing must not exceed 10 pages per proposed subcontract and must be contained as an annex to the Budget Narrative.” However, the list of annexes on pages 165-166 does not contain an annex for analysis of subcontractor pricing. Could USAID confirm that offerors should include this analysis as an additional annex?

Question e: Within the outline on pages 165-166, could USAID clarify where subcontractors’ budget narratives should be included? Could USAID confirm that offerors should include this information as an additional annex?

A.55 a. This is a typo, Annex in Section L.12 is wrong and was revised to Annex G.

b. Offerors can submit a Consent to Subcontract as an additional annex (Annex J).

c. Offerors can submit Legislative Reporting Information as an additional annex (Annex K).

d. This requirement has been removed from the RFP. Offerors are requested to submit a budget narrative for each proposed subcontract.

e. Subcontractor’s budget narratives must be included with the prime’s budget narrative and not as an additional annex.

Q.56 RFP Reference: L.7.1.d, Page Number: 166, Relevant RFP Language: “The Offeror must present all proposed costs and prices in U.S. Dollars (“USD”) and proposed costs must be rounded to the hundredth decimal place. Any decimals not rounded up to two decimal places will require further discussions and thus risk delaying this award.”

Question: Could USAID confirm if every cell presenting costs must be rounded up to two decimal places, or just the totals per year? Annual rounding would make a more accurate estimate of costs. For example, a local national making $80,000/year would count as $80,002 if their rate was divided by 260 days, rounded up, then multiplied by 260 days to represent a full year.

A.56 Every cell presenting costs must be rounded up to two decimal places. The example you gave is incorrect as when dividing $80,000 by 260, the daily rate would be $307.6923076.

Rounding this number to two decimal places will result in a rate of $307.69 and multiplying this number by 260 will result in a total of 79,999.40.

Q.57 L.7.3.2 PERSONNEL: (d), page 167. Can USAID clarify what "approved CDRs" means given that this is a standalone RFP and no CDRs range is designated under this RFP?

A.57 This subpart is being removed from the RFP.

Q.58. Section L.7.3.2 states, “The Offeror must provide a labor cost breakdown using the solicitation mandated labor groupings (e.g., long-term U.S. National, long-term professional TCN/CCN, long-term administrative TCN/CCN, home office, U.S.

National short-term technical assistance, TCN/CCN short-term technical assistance), as identified in Attachment J.11, Budget Template.” However, the labor groupings in Attachment J.11 under Direct Labor include Direct Long-Term Labor, Direct Short-Term Labor, Local Staff and Home Office. Would USAID please clarify which labor groupings that offerors should use to complete the budget template?

A.58 Offerors are requested to use the labor groupings outlined in Section L.7.3.2.

Q.59 Sections L.7.3.2(b) and (j) state that direct labor costs must be proposed by Labor Category/experience/FSN level. Section L.7.3.9 similarly requires offerors to use Labor Categories when proposing consultant rates and level of effort. Because this solicitation is a stand-alone RFP with no established Labor Categories or corresponding experience levels for personnel tied to rate setting, would USAID please confirm that identifying personnel according to Labor Categories or experience/FSN level is not required for this solicitation?

A.59 This amendment added the need for offerors to propose a salary scale which must include labor category/experience/level. Reference Q&As 29 and 30.

Q.60 Sections L.7.3.2(b), L.7.3.2(j), and L7.7.3.9(f) state that direct labor costs must be proposed by FSN level/grade. However, the budget template does not include a column for FSN levels, and Section L.7.3.2(d) requires offerors to propose direct salaries that comply with their personnel policies, which may not use the FSN for salary setting. Would USAID confirm that identifying personnel according to FSN level/grade is not required for this solicitation?

A.60 Identifying personnel according to FSN level/grade is not required. However, based on the requirement to submit a salary scale to be approved by the CO, the salary scale must include labor category/experience and level. Reference Q&As 29 and 30.

Q.61 RFP Reference: 7.3.2.b, Page Number: 167, Relevant RFP Language: “The Offeror must propose all direct labor costs by Labor Category/experience/FSN level and not by named person. USAID does not require a labor budget by person.”

Question a: As Key Personnel are already being named in the Cost Volume via their required biodatas, could USAID confirm that offerors may include names in the budget for the Key Personnel?

Question b: Could USAID confirm that offerors may not include names for any positions that are not key personnel?

A.61 a. Key Personnel names can be added in the budget.

b. This is to confirm that offerors may not include names for positions that are not key personnel positions.

Q.62 RFP Reference: L.7.3.2.d, Page Number: 167, Relevant RFP Language: “The Offeror must propose direct salaries and level of effort that…(iii) do not exceed the Offeror’s approved Ceiling Daily Rates (“CDRs”).

Question: Since the Power Tunisia Activity is not a task order under an IDIQ, could USAID confirm that CDRs are not required for the Power Tunisia Activity? If so, we request Clause L.7.3.2 (d) be modified to remove mention of Ceiling Daily Rates.

A.62 Item L.7.3.2(d)(iii) was removed from the RFP.

Q.63 Section L.7.3.2(d) states that direct salaries may not exceed the Offeror’s approved Ceiling Daily Rates (CDRs). Section L.7.3.9(d) similarly states that unburdened ceiling daily rates apply to consultant salaries. However, the solicitation is a stand-alone RFP with no government ceiling daily rates. Would USAID please confirm that no CDRs are applicable to labor rates for this solicitation?

A.63 The reference to CDRs was removed from the RFP.

Q.64 RFP Reference: 7.3.2.g, Page Number: 166, Relevant RFP Language: “Short-Term Technical Assistance (STTA). The Offeror’s Excel budget must clearly show annual STTA LOE calculated as the product of the number of annual STTA engagements times the average LOE per STTA engagement. Offerors must ensure their travel budgets accommodate STTA travel.”

Question a: May offerors propose separate engagements for junior-, mid-, and senior-level STTA for each year to better estimate costs? That way, a short senior-level engagement without travel would not be skewed by a longer junior- or mid-level engagement in the field, or vice versa.

Question b: How is an engagement defined? For example, would one individual participating in a monthly call with a stakeholder group be considered one engagement or 12?

A.64 a. This is acceptable.

b. STTA stakeholder engagement is not defined by regulation. Offerors should clearly describe in the budget narrative how STTA engagement is being calculated.

Q.65 RFP Reference: L.7.3.7, Page Number: 170, Relevant RFP Language: Program Activities Costs

Question: Can the plug amounts noted in L.7.3.7 include the related overhead for these costs (i.e., the plug amount of $10 million for Partnerships can include the projected overhead for it)?

A.65 The plug amounts should not include the projected overhead costs for the prime. However, it should include them under proposed subcontracts/grants.

Q.66 Section L.7.3.7 provides plug figures for Program Activity Costs, including Partnerships; Grants Under Contract; Advanced Technology Pilots; and Equipment, Software and Hardware costs. Would USAID please confirm that all cost elements related to these expenses (e.g., allocable salaries and associated fringe/overhead for relevant personnel, such as procurement and technical specialists) may be included within the plugs?

A.66 Plug figures should not include any expenses such as allocable salaries and associated fringe/overhead nor overhead expenses and fee for the prime. However, it should include them under proposed subcontracts/grants.

Q.67 Section L.7.3.7(e) requires offerors to “create a single separate Excel tab “Program Activity (PA) Detail” that break down total annual program activity costs ... to allow the CO to determine the reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs.” Would USAID please confirm that offerors should include the RFP-prescribed plug figures from Sections L.7.3.7 (a)-(d) in this tab but are not expected to provide a detailed breakdown of these plug figures beyond the detail that was provided in the RFP?

A.67 Offerors should include a detailed cost breakdown for all…