RFP 72067423R00002 Amendment No. 1 -Empower East And Central Africa (EECA).pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

N/A

Nancy Kleinhans Regional Contracting Officer

See page 2 for description of RFP changes and Attachment no. 1 for Questions and Answers.

USAID/Southern Africa Regional Office of Acquisition and Assistance 100 Totius Street, Groenkloof PO Box 43 Pretoria, South Africa

TO ALL OFFERERS

See Item 6

REQ-674-23-000003

720-674-23-R-00002

1 18

See Item 16C

12/06/2022

Amendment 01 / 720-674-23-R-00002 Empower East and Central Africa (EECA)

1. In Section, C.7, Objective 2, delete “The value of new electricity capacity committed for regional trade in MWh” and replace with “ The value of new electricity capacity committed for regional trade in MW

2. In Section C.9 Grants Under Contract, delete “ All grants must be completed six months prior to the end of the contract.” and replace it with “ All grants must be completed three months prior to the end of the contract.”

3. On the table in Section F.6.1.6 Reporting Table, see Item 5. Annual Report, delete the first sentence “ 30 calendar days before the end of the USAID fiscal year.” and replace it with “ 30 calendar days after the end of the USAID fiscal year.”

4. In Section I.1 FAR 52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998) delete the following references:

● FAR 52.215-10 PRICE REDUCTION FOR DEFECTIVE CERTIFIED COST OR

PRICING DATA

● FAR 52.215-11 PRICE REDUCTION FOR DEFECTIVE CERTIFIED COST OR

PRICING DATA-MODIFICATIONS

● FAR 52.215-12 SUBCONTRACTOR CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA

● FAR 52.215-13 SUBCONTRACTOR CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA

5. In Section J.1 Background Information add the following attachments:

● J.9 Annual Report

● J.10 Working With Marginal Populations

● J.11 Initial Environmental Examination (IEE)

6. In Section K.2 FAR 52.204-8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

(MAY 2022) [Deviation September 2022] (Deviation #: M-OAA-DEV-FAR-22-06c) (a)(1) delete 541990 and replace it with 541690.

7. In Section K Representations And Instructions, add the following:

[blank space left open intentionally]

Amendment 01 / 720-674-23-R-00002

K.9 Signature

By signature hereon, or on an offer incorporating these Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors, the Offeror certifies that they are accurate, current, and complete, and that the Offeror is aware of the penalty prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001 for making false statements in offers.

Solicitation No. ____________________ Offer/Proposal No. ____________________ Date of Offer ____________________ Name of Offeror ____________________ Typed Name and Title ____________________ Signature ____________________ Date ____________________

8. In Section L10 FORMAT, add the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph:

“in both the Technical Proposal as well as the Cost Proposal.”

9. In Section L12, Part 2.I delete the below:

Grants Under Contract - In budgeting for the grants under contracts line items, Offerors will use the following budget estimate for the grants to be distributed over the contract period. The total GUCs budget is $6.5 Million. This section is exclusively for the cost of the grant and must not include costs related to management or oversight of the grant. If the Offeror will deviate from the allocated USAID budget, the Offeror must provide an explanation.

And replace with the below:

Grants Under Contract - In budgeting for the grants under contracts line items, Offerors will use the following budget estimate for the grants to be distributed over the contract period. The total GUCs budget is $6.5 Million. This section is exclusively for the cost of the grant and must not include costs related to management or oversight of the grant.

Except as specified herein, all terms and requirements of RFP 720-674-23-R-00002 remain unchanged.

END RFP AMENDMENT 01

RFP No. 720-674-23-R-00002 ~ Clarification Questions Received and Answered

1. Question: We are a Business Process Outsourcing firm specializing in EOR, Bookkeeping, Cash Disbursement, and Tac filing services across African countries. We do provide the above-mentioned services to some USAID-funded programs across Africa, and we would like to know if we can participate as well in this solicitation?

USAID Response: Yes, the procurement will be conducted through full and open competition, under which any type of organization (large or small commercial [for profit] firms, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations) are eligible to compete. The procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 apply.

2. Question: The RFP indicates a goal of 700 MWs of generation capacity to be supported to reach financial close on page 17 but simply supported on page 19. Could USAID confirm that this target is 700 MW supported including other stages such as early-stage development or commissioning and amend Section C.7 accordingly?

RFP Reference: C.7, Objective 2, Page #17 “700 MWs of generation capacity reached financial close”

RFP Reference: C.8, Page #19 “Increased energy generation capacity (MWs) supported by USG assistance [700 MW]”

USAID Response: “700 MWs of generation capacity reached financial close” is a contractually required minimum target. This target does not include other stages (early-stage development, commissioning, etc.) although Offerors will need to track the various stages of Power Africa-supported transactions during implementation.

Financial close occurs when all the project and financing agreements have been signed and all the required conditions contained in them have been met. For transactions such as public sector investments, ‘financial close’ will be considered to mean the signing of a works or technical assistance contract.

3. Question: The RFP indicates a goal of 1,500 km of transmission lines to be supported to reach financial close on page 17 but simply supported on page 19. Could USAID confirm that this target is 1,500 km supported including other stages such as early-stage development or commissioning and amend Section C.7 accordingly?

RFP Reference: C.7, Objective 2, Page #17 “1,500 kilometers of new transmission lines supported through Power Africa assistance reach financial close”

RFP Reference: C.8, Page #19 “Cross cutting: Total length of Power Africa supported transmission line [1,500 km]”

USAID Response: This target should be expressed as “1,500Km to reach financial close.” This target does not include other stages (early-stage development, commissioning, etc.) although Offerors will need to track the various stages of Power Africa-supported transmission lines during implementation. Financial close occurs when all the project and financing agreements have been signed and all the required conditions contained in them have been met. For transactions such as public sector investments, ‘financial close’ will be considered to mean the signing of a works or technical assistance contract.

4. Question: On page 17, the target for new electricity capacity committed for regional trade is expressed in terms of MWh. However, on page 19, it is expressed in terms of MW. Could USAID confirm that the target for new electricity capacity committed for regional trade should be expressed in MWh?

RFP Reference: C.7, Objective 2, Page #17 “The value of new electricity capacity committed for regional trade in MWh”

RFP Reference: C.8, Page #19 “Total MW of electricity capacity committed for regional trade through bilateral agreements”

USAID Response: See RFP Amendment no. 1 Section C.7, Objective 2. The target for new electricity capacity committed for regional trade should be expressed in MW (megawatts), not MWh (megawatt hours).

5. Question: (i) The indicator “Total value of installed energy storage capacity (MW, MWh)” is included under Objective 3, but is not included in the indicator table in Section C.8. Could USAID clarify whether offerors are required to propose a target for this indicator even though it does not appear in Section C.8?

(ii) This indicator is expressed in total value, but the unit of measure is MW, MWh instead of dollars. Could USAID confirm that this indicator should be “Total amount”?

RFP Reference: C.7, Objective 3, Page #19 : “Total value of installed energy storage capacity (MW, MWh)” (including under Obj 3) and “

RFP Reference: L.11.4, Page #88 : “Offerors must propose targets noted in Section C.8 as ‘To be included prior to award.’”

USAID Response: (i) Offerors should propose a target for this indicator.

(ii) This indicator should be expressed in MW (megawatts) and MWh (megawatt hours). This indicator should not be expressed in dollars. See RFP Amendment no. 1 Section C.7, Objective 2.

6. Question: C.7 Objective and Results, page 17. In the Results Framework diagram, USAID includes a cross-cutting IR “strengthened and expanded grids delivering more power” connected to Objective 1 and Objective 2. However, in the cross-cutting Minimum Results section (same page), it only reflects results for Objective 2. Can USAID clarify if the cross-cutting IR should be treated as an additional IR under objective 2?

USAID Response: It should be treated as an additional IR for both Objective 1 and Objective 2, as strengthened and expanded grids are critical both for adding more on-grid connections (Objective 1) and for debottlenecking grid capacity constraints in order to enable more MW to reach financial close (Objective 2).

7. Question: Could USAID confirm that the target amount leveraged for gender lens investing is 5% of $450 million?

RFP Reference: C.8, Page #19 “Objective 3: 3.1 Public and private funds leveraged for energy sector projects ($3.25 billion)

● A minimum of $450 million must be funds leveraged for off-grid connections

● A minimum of 5% must be leveraged for gender lens investing that aligns with the 2X Criteria (https://www.2xchallenge.org/criteria)”

USAID Response: Yes, the target amount leveraged for gender lens investing should be 5% of $450 million.

8. Question: Given this project will be a contract, could USAID remove the reference to cost share and maintain the language related to leveraging funds from other sources?

RFP Reference: C.9, Page #19 “GUC should be structured in a way that incentivizes leveraged funding from other sources, either as cost share contributions or as parallel funding of similar activities that support the achievement of common results.”

USAID Response: Although this solicitation is for a contract, it includes a grants under contract component. Grants under contract can have cost share. USAID believes this language is sufficiently flexible, incentivizing cost share and/or other forms of leverage but not making them a hard requirement.

9. Question: (i) : The first two sentences of the quoted clause indicate that offerors must budget $6.5 million for GUCs. However, the last sentence of that paragraph gives offerors the option to propose a different amount for GUCs. To ensure an apples-to-apples comparison of offerors’ budgets, would USAID kindly amend the RFP to delete the following sentence: “If the Offeror will deviate from the allocated USAID budget, the Offeror must provide an explanation”?

(ii) If offerors are allowed to deviate, would USAID confirm that $6.5 million is the minimum amount that must be proposed for GUCs?

RFP Reference: L12, Part 2.I, Page#93 “In budgeting for the grants under contracts line items, Offerors will use the following budget estimate for the grants to be distributed over the contract period. The total GUCs budget is $6.5 Million…If the Offeror will deviate from the allocated USAID budget, the Offeror must provide an explanation.”

USAID Response: No deviation is permissible. See RFP Amendment no. 1 Section L.12, Part 2.I

10. Question: C.9 Grants Under Contract, pages 19-20: USAID states that the contract grants under contract (GUC) amount is $6.5 million. Some of the illustrative activities mentioned….on RFP No. 72067423R00002 Page 2 (structuring of innovative financing facilities; conducting feasibility studies; enabling energy companies to expand into new markets, implement demonstration projects, experiment with new business models, or offer new products and services; and support for advocacy efforts of energy associations) may be best implemented through subcontract agreements.

Would USAID allow Offerors to use both GUC and subcontracts within the $6.5 million plugged figure?

USAID Response: The $6.5 million figure is specifically for grants under contract.

However, it is correct that some of the illustrative activities may also be implemented through subcontracts.

11. Question: C.9 Grants Under Contract, pages 19-20. Can USAID clarify if a section dedicated to GUC illustrative activities should be added in the technical approach, independent from the requirement to include the management to GUC in the Staffing and Management Approach Section?

USAID Response: Offerors are encouraged to address GUCs in the Technical Approach while oversight of GUCs should be addressed in the Staffing and Management Approach Section. It is up to Offerors to determine whether or not include a dedicated section.

12. Question: (i) Does Power Africa currently have any restrictions on programs working in Ethiopia, Sudan, South Sudan, and Somalia? This could have a significant impact on budget allocation and assumptions, as well as targets.

(ii) If restrictions do exist, when does USAID anticipate that the contractor will be able to initiate activities in these countries?

RFP Reference: F.1, Page #27 “The place of performance is East and Central Africa, which includes Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi, Tanzania, Kenya, Ethiopia, Somalia, Djibouti, South Sudan, and Sudan.”

USAID Response: Legal restrictions are reviewed and can change on an annual basis. USAID recommends that offerors include technical proposals for the countries listed in the RFP, regardless of what current legal restrictions may exist.

13. Question: The table of deliverables on page 29 states that annual reports will be due 30 calendar days before the end of the USAID fiscal year (i.e., end of August) rather than customary due date for USAID annual reports 30 days after the end of the USAID fiscal year (i.e., the end of October). Having annual reports due 30 days before the end of the fiscal year will overlap with August preparation of annual work plans and not allow for the Q4 results to be fully captured (typically gathered with stakeholders in the weeks after the end of the fiscal year). Could USAID please confirm that annual reports should be due 30 days after the end of the USAID fiscal year and amend the RFP accordingly?

RFP Reference: F.6.1.6.5, Page #29 “Annual reports – 30 calendar days before the end of the USAID fiscal year”

USAID Response: See RFP Amendment no. 1 Section F.6.1.6 Reporting Table, Item 5.

14. Question: J.1 Background Information, page 71. Can USAID provide the East Africa Energy Program (EAEP)’s Evaluation Report?

USAID Response: To date, USAID has not conducted an independent evaluation of

EAEP.

15. Question: Section J.1 (page 71) encourages offerors to review the Fiscal Year 2021 EAEP Annual Progress Report. Could USAID please provide additional relevant reports that are currently unavailable through the DEC to ensure that all offerors have equal access to information? Specifically, could USAID please provide quarterly reports covering January through March 2021 and April through June 2021 and the annual report for Fiscal Year 2022?

USAID Response: The documents and additional information uploaded to www.sam.gov are the relevant reports. Current Partners have been reminded to upload all current reports to the DEC.

16. Question: The RFP documentation does not include the most recent PAOP evaluation.

Would it be possible to include that or the most recent activity report?

USAID Response: The RFP includes as attachments the 2021 annual report from the East Africa Energy Program and the 2022 annual report from the Southern Africa Energy Program. The most recently approved annual report from the Power Africa Off-grid Project is from 2021. That document is now included in the solicitation. See RFP Amendment no. 1 Section J.1.9

17. Question: Based on the requirements in Section C: Statement of Work and Section F.4: Key Personnel, we understand that the contractor will need to have English speaking staff and French speaking staff. However, the contractual language in Section H.3 could be interpreted to require all staff to speak both English and French.

Would USAID amend Section H.3 to require contractor personnel and consultants to have English and/or French language proficiency, depending on the needs of their assignment?

RFP Reference: H3, Page #39 “Contractor personnel and consultants must have English and French language proficiency to perform services required under the contract.”

USAID Response: USAID believes the current language is flexible and does not require an amendment. Language proficiency is dependent on assignment. USAID does not anticipate that all personnel will be fluent in both English and French except for those assigned in FRANCOPHONE countries.

18. Q: H.3 Language Requirements, page 39. In reference to the following statement;

“Contractor personnel and consultants must have English and French language proficiency to perform services required under the contract,” can USAID confirm that not all key and non-key personnel are required to be proficient in both English and French and English, except for the Central Africa/ DRC Technical Lead?

USAID Response: Language proficiency is dependent on assignment. USAID does not anticipate that all personnel will be fluent in both English and French except for those assigned in FRANCOPHONE countries.

19. Question: The RFP states: “Annex: Key Personnel Roles (not to exceed 1 page for both of the 2 proposed Key Personnel positions)”- could USAID clarify these directions considering there are 3 listed Key Personnel positions, and 2 additional to be proposed by the applicant?

USAID Response: The roles for the 3 listed Key Personnel have been provided. The page restrictions are for the additional 2 Key Personnel to be proposed by the applicant.

20. Question: As this RFP was released as a free and open competition, the FAR 15.403- 1 (b) (1) exemption from certified cost or pricing data was met via adequate price competition. As such, we request that USAID remove reference to FAR 52.215-10, FAR 52.215-11, FAR 52.215-12, and FAR 52.215-13 from Section I, as certified cost and pricing data has not been requested of the prime contractors, so these are not applicable.

RFP Reference: I1, Page #56 FAR 52.215-10, FAR 52.215-11, FAR 52.215-12, FAR 52.215-13

USAID Response: See RFP Amendment no. 1 Section I.1

21. Question: The RFP allows offerors to use smaller font for graphics and charts in the Technical Proposal. Could USAID confirm that offerors may also use smaller font size for graphics and charts in the Cost Proposal for a cleaner and more concise presentation of information?

RFP Reference: L.10, Page #87 : “The Technical Proposal must be compatible with Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF, Times New Roman font size 12, text accessible. There is no specified font for graphics and charts but font size may be no smaller than font size 6… The narrative for the cost proposal must be in Microsoft Word, Times New Roman font size 12, text accessible.”

USAID Response: Offerors may also use smaller font size for graphics and charts in the Cost Proposal. See RFP Amendment 1 Section L.10.

22. Question: For ease of reading, would USAID allow offerors to include a Table of Contents that does not count against the 25-page limit?

RFP Reference: L11.1, Page #88 “The Technical Proposal includes the following…”

USAID Response: A Table of Contents may be included which will not count against the 25-page limit.

23. Question: : For ease of reading, would USAID allow offerors to include an Acronym List that does not count against the 25-page limit?

RFP Reference: L11.1, Page #88 “The Technical Proposal includes the following…”

USAID Response: An Acronym list may be included which will not count against the 25-page limit.

24. Question: Would USAID allow offerors to include a 2-page Executive Summary that does not count against the 25-page limit?

RFP Reference: L11.1, Page #88 “The Technical Proposal includes the following…”

USAID Response: A 2-page Executive Summary may be included that will not count against the 25-page limit.

25. Question: Sections L.10 and L.11 (pages 87 and 88) provide instructions on the technical proposal's format and structure but do not mention a table of contents, a list of acronyms, or an executive summary. Would USAID please confirm that offerors may include a table of contents, a list of acronyms, and an executive summary in the technical volume and that they will not count against the combined 25-page limit for the Technical Approach and Staffing and Management Approach?

USAID Response:The table of contents, a list of acronyms, and an executive summary will not count against the combined 25-page limit for the Technical Approach and Staffing and Management Approach.

26. Question: L.11.1 Technical Proposal Sections and Annexes, page 88. Would USAID allow Offerors to include an 1) Executive Summary, 2) Table of Contents, and 3) Acronyms Page, independent of the 25 pages allocated for the technical approach and staffing and management approach?

USAID Response: The table of contents, a list of acronyms, and an executive summary will not count against the combined 25-page limit for the Technical Approach and Staffing and Management Approach.

27. Question: Would USAID consider including a 2-page Executive Summary that does not count towards the 25 pages for the technical approach and management and staffing sections?

USAID Response: A 2-page Executive Summary that does not count towards the 25 pages for the technical approach and management and staffing sections is allowable.

28. Question: Could USAID confirm that the 5-page Past Performance narrative in the technical proposal should be focused on quality, cost control, schedule, management, regulatory compliance, small business utilization, and other – degree of relevancy? Or could USAID provide relevant instructions if an overview of Offeror capabilities in response to Section C is preferred?

USAID Response: The Offeror is to provide Past Performance information as per L.11.6 of the RFP.

29. Question: (i) Could USAID confirm that offerors are not required to submit the Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan at the time of proposal submission?

(ii) If the Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan is required at the time of proposal submission, could USAID clarify whether it should be submitted as part of the Technical Proposal or as part of the Cost Proposal?

RFP Reference: L13, Page#97 “This plan should not be submitted with this proposal.

Before issuing the award, the CO will request that the apparently successful offeror submit a Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) and Marking Plan (MP). If there is a competitive range, all offerors in the competitive range will submit a Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) and Marking Plan (MP).” and “In response to this RFP, the Offeror must include: 1) a Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) and Marking Plan

(MP).

USAID Response:The plan should not be submitted with the initial proposal.

30. Question: For all contracts listed above that are not in CPARS, provide a list of contact names, job titles, mailing addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses…For projects that are in CPARS, could USAID confirm that USAID will use the existing CPARS evaluations rather than contacting the Contracting Officer and/or Contracting Officer’s Representative of the project?

RFP Reference: L.11.6.a.2, Page #90 : “USAID recommends that you alert the contacts that their names have been submitted and that they are authorized to provide performance information concerning the listed contracts if and when USAID requests it.”

USAID Response: USAID reserves the right to contact the Contracting Officer and/or Contracting Officer’s Representative for projects that are in CPARS should it be deemed necessary.

31. Question: Could USAID please clarify if offerors should include VAT only for those countries that do not have bilateral agreements permitting tax exemptions, or for all in-country operations, regardless of location? If the former, could USAID please share with offerors the list of countries that do not have bilateral agreements permitting tax exemptions for budgeting purposes?

RFP Reference: L.12, Page #91 “The cost proposal should be inclusive of Value Added Tax as some of the countries in which the contractor will operate do not have bilateral agreements permitting tax exemptions. During implementation, the contractor will be responsible for follow up with missions regarding tax exemptions and/or tax allowability.”

USAID Response: The following countries have framework bilateral agreements with certain direct and/or indirect tax exemptions – Burundi, CAR, Djibouti, DRC, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Somali, Sudan, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda. However, because implementation of these agreements may differ by country, offerors should include Value Added Tax as part of the cost proposal.

32. Question: L.12, Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost Proposal, Page 91 states, “The cost proposal should be inclusive of Value Added Tax (VAT) as some of the countries in which the contractor will operate do not have bilateral agreements permitting tax exemptions.” Can USAID clarify which project countries have bilateral agreements permitting tax exemptions?

USAID Response: The following countries have framework bilateral agreements with certain direct and/or indirect tax exemptions – Burundi, CAR, Djibouti, DRC, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Somali, Sudan, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda. However, because implementation of these agreements may differ by country, offerors should include Value Added Tax as part of the cost proposal.

33. Question: Can USAID clarify if there is a bilateral assistance agreement currently in place between the USA and Kenya and USA and Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and if so, whether it is foresees the standard local tax exemptions extended to implementing partners and any incountry expatriate staff?

USAID Response: For Kenya, the US government bilateral assistance agreement with the Government of Kenya does not cover direct taxes (which income tax is). It only covers indirect taxes. The Gratis permit exempts the applicant from paying the work permit processing fee. For DRC, there is a bilateral agreement in place that provides exemption for USAID implementing partners and their in-country expatriate staff regarding income, import and certain other taxes.

34. Question: In the Detail worksheet of the Budget template, Line 112 notes Host Country Taxes in the Fringe section. Can USAID confirm that the bilateral agreement with Kenya does not exclude personal income taxes for USN and TCN expatriates, and these taxes should be budgeted as a billable expense?

USAID Response: For Kenya, the US government bilateral assistance agreement with the Government of Kenya does not cover direct taxes (which income tax is). It only covers indirect taxes. The Gratis permit exempts the applicant from paying the work permit processing fee. However, because implementation of these agreements may differ by country, offerors should include Value Added Tax as part of the cost proposal.

35. Question: To ensure alignment with offerors’ cost structures, would USAID allow offerors to use their own budget templates as long as they adhere to the primary budget categories featured in the budget template?

RFP Reference: J.2.1, Page #71 “Budget Template (link to sam.gov)”

USAID Response: Offerors may use their own budget templates provided that they adhere to the primary budget categories featured in the budget template.

36. Question: The Instructions sheet in Attachment J.2.1 says that offerors should hide unused rows, but the requirements in Section L.12 say that the budget spreadsheet may not have hidden rows. If offerors are required to use the budget template in Attachment J.2.1, could USAID please clarify if unused rows should be hidden?

RFP Reference: L.12, Part 2.1.ii, Page 92 “The spreadsheet must not contain hidden columns, sheets or data and must not contain password protected cells or sheets.”

RFP Reference: J.2.1 Budget Template, Page# Instructions worksheet 92 “It is better to HIDE unused rows rather than delete.”

USAID Response: The spreadsheet must not contain hidden columns, sheets or data and must not contain password protected cells or sheets.

37. Question: In the Detail worksheet of the budget template, the fringe benefits category includes both traditional fringe benefits, as is consistent with most Offerors that have a NICRA, as well as allowances and staff training. Because these costs generally are treated differently in cost accounting and application of indirect costs, would USAID kindly allow these costs to be shown separately to minimize potential budget errors?

RFP Reference: J.2.1 Budget Template, Page# Detail worksheet “TOTAL FRINGE

BENEFITS.”

USAID Response: Costs may be shown separately.

38. Question: In the Detail worksheet of the budget template, the definition for Supplies is given as $1 to $4999. This is the definition for supplies for a cooperative agreement. Could USAID please change this to $499, which is the applicable amount for supplies under a contract?

RFP Reference: J.2.1 Budget Template, Page# Detail worksheet “TOTAL SUPPLIES.”

USAID Response: See sam.gov for the updated attachment no. J.2.1.

39. Question: (i) As a regional project, EECA’s place of performance is defined as occurring in 13 countries in Section F.1. The Travel Table template currently only includes two types of travel, International and Domestic. May offerors include a Regional Travel section as well?

(i) If offerors are not allowed to include a Regional Travel section, should regional travel be classified as International or Domestic travel?

RFP Reference: J.2.1 Budget Template, Page# Travel Table worksheet

USAID Response: Offerors may include a regional travel section.

40. Question: The budget template includes a Narrative worksheet, but the Instructions tab state that the Narrative sheet “should be modified, edited or deleted as needed.”

As Section L.10 requires the Cost Proposal narrative to be in Microsoft Word, could USAID confirm that the Narrative tab in the budget template is not required?

RFP Reference: L10, Page#87 “The narrative for the cost proposal must be in Microsoft Word, Times New Roman font size 12, text accessible.”

RFP Reference: J.2.1, Page# Instructions worksheet, Narrative worksheet, “The Budget Narrative is intended to assist the preparer, and should be modified, edited or deleted as needed.”

USAID Response: The Budget Narrative for the cost proposal is mandatory.

41. Question: G.1. Table 7, page 35. a. Is Table 7 illustrative or the required expenditure format for contractors to invoice? b. Can USAID confirm that Table 7 should be modified to have (under the description column): “Direct Costs, Indirect Costs, and Fixed Fee” instead to align with Section B.4 Contract Budget?

USAID Response: Table 7 is not illustrative and it should not be modified. USAID will provide invoicing information post award.

42. Question: L.10 Format, page 87. For ease of review, can USAID clarify if all portions of the cost proposal (except for the Excel budget) can be included in a text accessible PDF file only?

USAID Response:The Cost/Business Proposal must be compatible with Excel, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe, as appropriate. The budget must be compatible with Excel with unlocked formulas used to calculate data (the same requirement to include subcontractors’ spreadsheets) The narrative for the cost proposal must be in Microsoft Word, Times New Roman font size 12, text accessible. Other supporting documents may be in either Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF.

43. Question: L.11.6, Part 2, (H) Subcontracts, page 93. The RFP states, “Similar information as submitted by the prime Offerors on the cost proposal must be provided for all Subcontracts.” Offerors may propose specialized commercial subcontractors, many of whom perform solely on a firm fixed-price basis, utilizing pricing methodologies that are not based on a cost buildup (that includes breakdown of direct costs, indirect costs, etc.). Can USAID confirm that commercial subcontractors can provide information other than a cost buildup to demonstrate the reasonableness of subcontractor pricing?

USAID Response: Yes. Information permissible by the FAR is acceptable.

44. Question: Page 95 instructs offerors to sign the last page of Section K. However, the last page of Section K on page 84 does not include a space for signatures. Would USAID kindly amend the last page of Section K to add a place for the offeror’s signature and date?

RFP Reference: L12, Part 3, Page#95 : “The Offeror and each proposed subcontractor must complete all ‘Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offeror’ as required in Section K, and sign and date on the last page in the space provided and submit as an Annex to the cost proposal.”

USAID Response: See RFP Amendment No. 1. Added Section K.9

45. Question: Given the ongoing holiday season for many Offerors and their local partners, would USAID consider extending the proposal submission deadline by two weeks to February 7, 2023? This extension would allow bidders adequate time to prepare a more informed and competitive proposal.

USAID Response: USAID is not considering extending the proposal submission at this stage.

46. Question: C.1 Introduction, page 7. Does USAID anticipate any overlap between the current EAEP contract and the new EECA contract to occur during the Year 1 Implementation Plan?

USAID Response: No.

47. Question: C.4 Problem Statement, page 9. USAID defines distributed renewable energy (DRE) as a “broad range of energy access solutions that can be applied in off-grid areas where traditional approaches to grid extension are not feasible due to financial, geographic, or technical constraints; and in weak grid areas where power is unreliable.” Can USAID confirm if, in the context of the proposal, DRE covers off-grid solutions while "distributed energy resources” mentioned under objective 2 page 16 refers to both on- and off-grid solutions?

USAID Response: In the context of this proposal, distributed renewable energy (DRE) refers primarily to off-grid solutions but can also entail on-grid solutions in weak grid environments (e.g. grid-connected mini-grids). Distributed energy resources (DER) are small units of power generation that can be operated locally but are connected to a larger power grid.

48. Question: C.5 Theory of Change, page 14. Can USAID clarify the definition of “marginalized populations” in IR1.4, as it is not defined elsewhere in the rest of the

RFP?

USAID Response: Marginalized populations are those that have limited access to resources, assets, and services; and little social, political, or economic standing to change their situation. Marginality is created and continues through the experience of one or more social, political, economic, ecological, or biophysical circumstances that can limit an individual’s or group’s ability to benefit from opportunities and reduce their resilience to climate and non-climate stressors. This can include disaffected youths, refugees, women and politically oppressed minorities, among other groups.

See RFP Amendment 1 Section J.10

49. Question: C.5 Theory of Change, page 14. Can USAID define “advanced energy technologies” in IR3.3 as it is not defined elsewhere in the rest of the RFP?

USAID Response: Broadly, advanced energy technologies means the next generation of electricity technologies that support a low-carbon emission future. This can include, but should in no way be limited to, energy storage systems, grid digitalization and smart meters.

50. Question: C.8 Indicators and Targets, page 19. Can USAID confirm if the targets listed in the Results/Indicators tables are illustrative, and if the Offeror is encouraged to propose additional targets?

USAID Response: The Indicators/Targets on Page 19 are expected minimum results. They are required, not illustrative. Offerors are not encouraged to propose additional targets.

51. Question: L.11.4 requires that the “Offeror must propose targets noted in Section C.8 as “to be included prior to award.” Can USAID clarify whether they are asking for the offeror to set targets in their proposals or if USAID acknowledges that target setting is an important task best done in the region/country during startup?

USAID Response: USAID/Power Africa is asking for the Offeror to set targets in their proposals for all results/indicators categorized as “To be included prior to award.”

52. Question: C.10 Guiding Principles, Just Energy Transition, page 21: The Just Energy Transition, as implemented in South Africa, incorporates compensation to parties associated with the shutdown of coal mines, transport, and power plants. Does USAID anticipate that the EECA Activity will work on fossil fuel issues?

USAID Response: Currently, USAID does not anticipate work areas beyond those highlighted within Section C of the RFP. However, areas of work may change and/or be allowed/restricted based on the requirements of future funding types for EECA and/or emerging priorities.

53. Question: M.2 Technical Evaluation Criteria, Factor 1 – Technical approach, page

101. Can USAID clarify if the “core principles” mentioned in the evaluation criteria should include all 11 guiding principles listed in Section C, pages 20-23?

USAID Response: Yes, offerors should address each of the guiding principles from Section C.

54. Question: L.11.5 Staffing and Management Approach, Sub-factor 2a, page 89 and Section M, page 102. Can USAID clarify if the management/approach to construction and grant management activities should be the only two guiding principles discussed in the Staffing and Management Approach section of the proposal?

USAID Response: The Staffing and Management Approach should address all areas listed under Sub-factor 2a and 2b.

55. Question: Can USAID provide the local compensation plan for countries in East and Central Africa?

USAID Response: Compensation plans are not available at this time.

56. Question: Section B.7 (page 4) states that fee will be paid for deliverable completion and that "The Contracting Officer, in consultation with the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) and at the request of the contractor, may modify the below fee schedule, based upon changes in underlying assumptions, the development context or other extenuating circumstances." We appreciate this recognition that flexibility in the fee schedule may be necessary because of evolving technical needs, new opportunities, and shifting stakeholder priorities. We ask USAID to consider adding the following language to Section B.7 to account for the possibility that such factors may lead to the cancelation of deliverables during their preparation or after their completion: "The fee schedule may be adjusted to reprogram any unpaid fees from partially completed or non-accepted deliverables into other or additional deliverables as mutually agreed upon by the COR and the contractor, ensuring the fee remains fixed."

USAID Response: USAID believes the current language is flexible.

57. Question: Table C.8 (page 19), regarding Objective 3, states that "a minimum of 5% must be leveraged for gender lens investing." Would USAID please clarify whether the 5% is calculated based on the total target of $3.25 billion or the $450 million required to be leveraged for off-grid connections?

USAID Response: The 5% is calculated based on the $450 million required to be leveraged for off-grid connections.

58. Question: Section C.9 (page 20) provides a bulleted list of requirements for grants under contract, including that "All grants must be completed six months prior to the end of the contract." Would USAID please consider changing "six months" to "one month" to create greater flexibility in the last year of programming while ensuring there is sufficient time to close out the last remaining grants?

USAID Response: See RFP Amendment No. 1 Section C.9. All grants must be completed three months prior to the end of the contract.

59. Question: Section H.4 (page 40) states that the "contractor will prepare an Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan … describing how the contractor will, in specific terms, implement all IEE conditions that apply to proposed project activities within the scope of the award." Could USAID please provide a copy of the IEE (once approved) if the approval is finalized prior to the submission deadline?

USAID Response: See RFP Amendment No. 1 Section J.11

60. Question: H.12 (page 45) requires the contractor to obtain the contracting officer's written approval to purchase any IT services or equipment if they are "used by the agency directly" or "used by a contractor under a contract with the agency that requires either use of the services or equipment or requires use of the services or equipment to a significant extent in the performance of a service or the furnishing of a product." Conversely, H.12 does not require the contractor to obtain contracting officer approval to purchase equipment if it is "incidental to a contract that does not require use of the equipment." We consider the IT services and equipment that any offeror might propose in response to this RFP to be incidental to the contract, as the RFP does not call for specific IT services or equipment for the performance of the contract or for USAID's direct use. Therefore, we read the clause as saying that contracting officer approval is not required to purchase IT services or equipment — either as proposed by any offeror in its final proposal or during the performance of a service or furnishing of a product for a future award resulting from this RFP. Does USAID agree with our interpretation?

USAID Response: No. contracting officer's written approval is required to purchase any IT services or equipment.

61. Question: Section L.4 (page 86) explains that offerors must submit the technical volume and cost volume separately as attachments to emails. Would USAID please confirm that submission emails may be up to 10MB?

USAID Response: Attachment size limit is 25MB per email.

62. Question: Could USAID advise on the size limitation for individual emails?

RFP Reference: L.4.a, Page #86 “E-mail is the only acceptable method for submission of proposals.”

USAID Response: Attachment size limit is 25MB per email.

63. Question: L.4 Delivery Instructions (d), page 86. USAID notes that multiple emails may be sent to accommodate the proposal size and content. Can USAID advise what, if any, is the maximum size permitted for each email submission?

USAID Response: Attachment size limit is 25MB per email.

64. Q: G.1, AIDAR 752.7003 Documentation for Payment (Nov 1998), Page 35. This section states “The Contractor must submit either paper or fax versions of the SF- 1034.” Can USAID confirm that invoices may be submitted by email too, as indicated in G.6 INVOICES?

USAID Response: Email submissions for invoices are required.

65. Question: L.11.6. Past Performance Information, (d)(3) requires the Offeror to submit (A) a narrative summary of small business concerns, (B) a list of five of the most recent contracts for which subcontract reports were submitted to ESRS and a copy of any similarly recent subcontracting reports if not submitted to eSRS, and (C) the names and addresses of three SB concerns. Could USAID confirm that all the above can be included in an annex following Past Performance Information and not restricted by the Past Performance Information Annex’s 5-page limit?

USAID Response: As per RFP the Past Performance is not to exceed 5 pages. (1 page per award, up to 5 awards).

66. Question: Could USAID please confirm that they would like a 5-page written Past Performance narrative with the technical, in addition to the 5-page PPR annex?

USAID Response: Yes.

67. Question: L.11.6. Past Performance Information, Page 90. Would USAID allow Offerors to include any extraordinary problems within Annex 7: Past Performance Information?

USAID Response: USAID will allow Offerors to include any extraordinary problems within Annex 7: Past Performance Information.

68. Question: The list of annexes on page 88 only allows offerors spaces to include past performance information for previous work. However, the detailed Past Performance requirements on pages 90-91 also require offerors to present extraordinary problems, quality awards or certifications, and Performance in Using Small Business (SB) Concerns. Would USAID allow offerors to create an additional annex to present extraordinary problems, quality awards or certifications, and Performance in Using Small Business (SB) Concerns?

RFP Reference: L.11.1, Page #88 “7. Annex: Past Performance Information (1 page per award, up to 5 awards)”

“(b) If extraordinary problems impacted any of the referenced contracts, provide a short explanation and the corrective action taken (FAR 15.305(a)(2)).

(c) Describe any quality awards or certifications that indicate exceptional capacity to provide the service or product described in the statement of work. This information is not included in the page limitation.

(d) Performance in Using Small Business (SB) Concerns (as defined in FAR 19.001)…”

USAID Response: Offerors may create an additional annex to present extraordinary problems, quality awards or certifications, and Performance in Using Small Business (SB) Concerns.

69. Question: L.11.6. Past Performance Information, Pages 90 to 91. Would USAID allow Offerors to include a separate annex, without a page limitation, for the Performance Using Small Business Concerns to properly address the substantial amount of information required for this section?

USAID Response: USAID will allow Offerors to include a separate short annex, for the Performance Using Small Business Concerns.

70. Question: Can USAID please clarify what the correct NAICS for this acquisition is? In the letter it is 541690 while on Page 72; K.2, it is 541990.

USAID Response: See RFP Amendment No. 1 Section K.2 has been revised to reflect 541690.

71. Question: Would USAID consider an additional annex for inclusion of a MEL plan?

USAID Response: Any information related to MEL should be included in the Technical Approach.