RFP 720-674-23-R-00003 Amendment 1 - Empower Southern Africa (ESA).pdf

Amendment 01 / 720-674-23-R-00003 Empower Southern Africa (ESA)

1. In Section C.7 Objectives and Results, Objective 3, Minimum Results, delete the first bullet which states “$5.5 billion of public and private funds mobilized for on-grid energy sector projects” and replace it with “$5.6 billion of public and private funds mobilized for on-grid energy sector projects”

2. In Section C.8 Indicators and Targets, delete the table in its entirety and replace it with the following:

Indicators Targets

Objective 1: 1.1 Number of new grid and off-grid actual direct connections

● A minimum of 1.5 million on-grid and 1.5 million beyond-the-grid

3,000,000

Objective 1: 1.2 Number of productive-use off-grid devices or systems sold as a result of USG/Power Africa assistance

35,300

Objective 2: 2.1 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, estimated in metric tons of CO2e, reduced, sequestered, or avoided through clean energy as supported by USG assistance

14,050,000 tCO2e

Objective 2: 2.2 Increased energy generation capacity (MWs) supported by USG assistance

2,500 MW to reach financial close

Objective 3: 3.1 Public and private funds leveraged for energy sector projects

● A minimum of $400 million must be funds leveraged for off-grid connections

● A minimum of $100 million must be leveraged for gender lens investing that aligns with the 2X Criteria (https://www.2xchallenge.org/criteria)

$6 billion

Objective 3: 3.2 Number of institutions adopting policies or procedures to promote gender equity in the clean energy sector workforce as a result of Power Africa support

To be included prior to award

Cross cutting: Total MWh of electricity capacity committed for regional trade through bilateral agreements

To be included prior to award

1,500 km

Cross-cutting: New transmission line reaching financial close 1,500 km

Cross cutting: Aggregate technical, commercial and collection electricity losses reduced and/or avoided among Power Africa supported utilities

To be included prior to award

Cross cutting: Total value of new electricity capacity committed for regional trade through bilateral agreements

To be included prior to award

3. 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.”

4. In Section C.10 Guiding Principles, subsection Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning, delete the first sentence which states “Collaborating, Learning and Adapting will be key to the success of

EECA, given its broad and cross-cutting approach.” and replace it with “Collaborating, Learning and Adapting will be key to the success of ESA, given its broad and cross-cutting approach.”

5. Delete Section F.4: Key Personnel in its entirety and replace with the below :

The following key personnel are required for the performance of this contract:

Position Title Name Chief of Party [to be added at award] Senior Technical Advisor [to be added at award] [additional 3 key personnel to be added at award] [to be added at award]

General roles, responsibilities and minimum qualifications for Key Personnel are as follows:

Chief of Party - Responsibilities include, but are not limited to:

● Providing overall vision, management, and strategic leadership to the Activity.

● Identifying adjustments in scope and operations to ensure that the project adapts to changes in need and context.

● Supervising and empowering all personnel.

● Establishing effective partnerships with other U.S. government agencies, African partners, development partners, non-governmental organizations, and a wide variety of other stakeholders.

● Effectively communicating in large public settings, as well as with senior government officials.

● Ensuring that managerial, administrative, and financial procedures comply with USAID policies and procedures.

● Regularly liaise with the Power Africa Coordinator’s Office, USAID missions, and other USG agencies, as appropriate.

The minimum qualifications for this position are as follows:

● Bachelor’s degree.

● A minimum of ten (10) years of project management experience implementing energy activities on- and/or beyond-the-grid. Sub-Saharan Africa work experience is strongly preferred.

● Experience with, and proven ability to form collaborative relationships with intergovernmental, government representatives and other stakeholders.

● A minimum of five (5) years of team supervisory experience, including demonstrated ability to motivate and lead a dynamic team of professionals across large geographies.

Senior Technical Advisor - Responsibilities include, but are not limited to:

● Provide technical leadership in delivery of expected results.

● Manage, supervise and coordinate technical services, prioritize the activities in-country, and provide thought leadership and technical support as needed to accelerate a support activity.

● Regularly liaise with the Power Africa Coordinator’s Office, USAID missions, and other

USG agencies, as appropriate.

● Maintain strong relationships with relevant regional organizations, such as the African

Development Bank, and with private sector companies and host country governments.

The minimum qualifications for this position are as follows:

● Bachelor’s degree.

● A minimum of 10 years of experience implementing energy programs, including leadership role(s)

● Experience implementing development activities in sub-Saharan Africa, and/or in a similar context.

The Personnel specified above are considered to be essential to the work being performed hereunder. Prior to replacing any of the specified individuals, the contractor must notify both the Contracting Officer and the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) at least thirty (30) days in advance and submit written justification (including proposed substitutions) in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of the impact on the activity. No replacement will be made by the contractor without the written consent of the Contracting Officer.

6. 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.”

7. In Section H.3 Language Requirements, delete the whole paragraph and replace it with the following:

“Language proficiency is dependent on assignment. Not all key and non-key personnel are required to be proficient in all the three languages, but at least one Key Personnel should possess Portuguese proficiency, and at least one Key Personnel should possess French proficiency to perform services required under the contract.”

8. 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

9. In Section J.1 Background Information, add J.1.9 Power Africa Productive Uses Of Energy Fact

Sheet.

10. 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.

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

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 ____________________

12. In Section L.1 NOTICE LISTING SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY

REFERENCE delete 52.237-10 IDENTIFICATION OF UNCOMPENSATED OVERTIME

MAR 2015

13. In Section L.11.1 Technical Proposal Sections and Annexes, delete point no. 4 in its entirety and replace it with: “Annex: Key Personnel Roles (not to exceed 1 page for both of the 3 additional proposed Key Personnel positions)”

14. In Section L.11.5 Staffing and Management Approach: Subfactor 2a, delete “The Offeror must clearly present the management and administration structures and functions for managing the EECA contract, including construction activities.” and replace it with “ The Offeror must clearly present the management and administration structures and functions for managing the ESA contract, including construction activities.”

15. In Section L.11.5 Staffing and Management Approach: Subfactor 2b, delete the second sentence

“Of these five positions, three positions….. proposed by the contractor” and replace it with “Of these five positions, two positions - Chief of Party and Senior Technical Advisor - must be included as described in Section F, with the remaining key personnel proposed by the contractor.”

16. In Section L.11.5 Staffing and Management Approach: Annexes for Staffing and Management

Approach make the following changes:

● delete point no. 2 Key Personnel Roles in its entirety and replace it with “Two key personnel positions have been defined in Section F. The Offeror should provide the following information for the two outstanding key personnel positions, bringing the total number of key personnel positions to five: (1) position title, (2) position description that reflect a clear understanding of technical and management skills necessary to achieve the results, explain the relationship to other key personnel, education and years of experience required, where the individual will be geographically located and the individual’s relationship with other offices, subcontractors and USAID.”

● Delete point no. 3 Resumes in its entirety and replace it with “Resumes for the 5 key personnel positions (2 defined in this solicitation and 3 defined by the offeror)”

17. In Section L.12, Part 2 Proposed Costs/Prices (I), delete “The total GUCs budget is $6.5

Million” and replace it with “The total GUCs budget is $5 Million”

Except as specified herein, all terms and requirements of RFP 720-674-23-R-00003 remain unchanged.

END RFP AMENDMENT 01

RFP No. 720-674-23-R-00003 ~ Clarification Questions Received and Answered

1. Question: In responding to this proposal, we seek to meaningfully incorporate input from stakeholders, many of whom are taking extended leave for the end of year holidays. To provide adequate time for response during this holiday season, would USAID extend the closing date and time for receipt of proposals to Tuesday, 14 February 2023?

RFP Reference: Cover page, Closing Date and Time for Receipt of Proposals: January 31, 5:00pm EST

USAID Response: USAID will not extend the proposal submission closing date and time.

2. 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 14, 2023? This extension would allow bidders adequate time to prepare a more informed and competitive proposal.

Reference: General

USAID Response: See response to Question No. 1, above.

3. Question: Based on the sam.gov posting, we understand that USAID/Southern Africa intends to modify Deloitte Consulting LLP (Deloitte) contract # AID-674-C-17-00002 for the purpose of increasing the contract Total Estimated Cost (TEC) by up to $5,000,000, from the current from $69,955,372 to $74,036,372 and extending the current period of performance and completion date specified in the contract (March 15, 2017 – June 14, 2023) by twelve months to June 14, 2024. Could USAID please clarify the status of this extension and the intended scope of work for the remaining time period?

RFP Reference: C.1, Page 6, “…including the Southern Africa Energy Program, which is scheduled to conclude in 2023. ESA will build upon these efforts.”

USAID Response: USAID has no additional information to provide to offerors regarding SAEP.

4. Question: The RFP indicates a goal of 2,500 MWs of generation capacity to be supported to reach financial close on page 16 but simply supported on page 18. Could USAID confirm that this target is 2,500 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 16, “2,500 MWs of generation capacity reach financial close”

RFP Reference: C.8, Page 18, Indicators and Targets, “Objective 2: 2.2 Increased energy generation capacity (MWs) supported by USG assistance [2,500 MW]”

USAID Response: The table is revised to state, ‘2,500MW to reach financial close.’ See RFP Amendment No. 1 Section C.8 Indicators and Targets table.

5. Question: (i) In the Indicators table, a target of 1,500 km is included. The corresponding cross-cutting indicator is “Total MW of electricity capacity committed for regional trade through bilateral agreements.” Could USAID confirm that the corresponding indicator relates to total new transmission lines supported through Power Africa assistance?

(ii) The RFP indicates a goal of 1,500 km of transmission lines to be supported to reach financial close on page 16, but other indicators on page 18 refer to results that are supported by USG assistance. 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 16, “The value of new electricity capacity committed for regional trade in MWh”

RFP Reference: C.8, Objective 2, Page 18, “Total MW of electricity capacity committed for regional trade through bilateral agreements…1,500 km”

USAID Response: C.8, Page #18 Table is revised to include two targets:

Cross-cutting: New transmission line reaching financial close . . . ‘1,500Km ’ Cross-cutting: Total MWh of electricity capacity committed for regional trade through bilateral agreements…To be included prior to award.

See RFP Amendment No. 1 Section C.8 Indicators and Targets table.

6. Question: On page 16, the target for new electricity capacity committed for regional trade is expressed in terms of MWh. However, on page 18, 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 16, “The value of new electricity capacity committed for regional trade in MWh”

RFP Reference: C.8, Objective 2, Page 18, “Total MW of electricity capacity committed for regional trade through bilateral agreements”

USAID Response: Correct, the correct unit for new electricity capacity committed for regional trade should be expressed in MWh. See RFP Amendment No. 1 Section C.8 Indicators and Targets table which revises the target to MWh.

7. Question: Section C.7 Objective 2 Minimum Results, page 16, indicates: “2,500 MWs of generation capacity reach financial close.”

Section C.8 Indicator and Targets Table, Objective 2, page 18, indicates: “Increased energy generation capacity (MWs) supported by USG assistance” with a Target of “2,500 MW.”

i) Can USAID clarify if these two statements are intended to reflect the same expected result?

ii) If yes, can USAID indicate the specific requirement – is USAID requiring increased energy generation capacity or is the goal to reach financial close of new energy generation?

iii) Can USAID clarify how fulfillment of the MW target will be validated. For example:

● Will USAID consider MW awarded via competitive procurement (supported with USG assistance) as fulfilling the 2,500 MW goal for “Increased energy generation capacity (MWs) supported by USG assistance”?

● Will USAID consider MW that reaches the commissioning stage (supported with USG assistance) as fulfilling the 2,500 MW “Increased energy generation capacity (MWs)”?

Reference: Statement of Work, Pages 16 and 18, Section C.7 and C.8 Objective 2

USAID Response:

i) Yes, these two statements are intended to reflect the same expected result.

ii) C.8, Page #18 has been revised to include, “C.8, Page #16 “Generation capacity reaching financial close . . . 2,500 MWs.”

iii) Offerors are welcome to propose additional indicators and targets, such as number of competitive procurements for power generation supported and MWs commissioned, but at a minimum 2,500 MWs reaching financial close must be supported.

See RFP Amendment No. 1 Section C.8 Indicators and Targets table.

8. Question: Section C.7, Cross-Cutting Minimum Results, page 16, indicates: “1,500 kilometers of new transmission lines reach financial close.”

Section C.8, Indicator and Results Table, page 18, indicates: “Total MW of electricity capacity committed for regional trade through bilateral agreements”, with a Target of “1,500 kilometers.”

i) Can USAID update the Indicators and Targets Table on page 18 to adjust the Target column as total MW (rather than 1,500 kilometers)?

ii) or Will USAID add an additional indicator to the Table to reflect the required target of “1,500 kilometers” of new transmission lines to reflect the requirement on page 16?

Reference: Statement of Work, Pages 16 and 18, Section C.7 and C.8, Cross-Cutting

USAID Response: See response to Question No. 7, above.

9. 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 17, : “Total value of installed energy storage capacity (MW, MWh)” (including under Obj 3) and ”

RFP Reference: L.11.4, Objective 3, Page 85, “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) See response to Question No. 6, above.

10. Question: 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?

Reference: Statement of Work, Page 17, C.7 Objective and Results

USAID Response: It should be treated as a cross-cutting IR contributing to both Objective 1 and Objective 2, as strengthening utilities and expanding the grids they manage are critical for both Development Objective 1: Ending Energy Poverty (increasing on-grid connections) and Development Objective 2: Accelerating a Carbon-free Future (delivering more grid-connected clean energy to end users via the grid, including through new kms of transmission lines and regional power trade, and also reducing grid losses).

11. Question: Could USAID confirm that public and private funds leveraged for energy sector projects may include projects such as investment in the grid, DRE, and other energy technologies related to the just energy transition such as green hydrogen and amend Section C.7 accordingly?

RFP Reference: C.8, Objective 3: 3.1, Page 18, Public and private funds leveraged for energy sector projects ($6 billion)

A minimum of $400 million must be funds leveraged for off-grid connections

A minimum of $100 must be leveraged for gender lens investing that aligns with the 2X Criteria (https://www.2xchallenge.org/criteria)”

USAID Response: The current Power Africa definition of public and private funds leveraged for energy sector projects includes the following disaggregation: “On-Grid power generation, Off- Grid power generation, Transmission, Distribution, U.S. vs. non-U.S. organizations, Public vs.

private organizations, Technology (Hydro, solar, geothermal, wind, renewable biomass).”

12. Question: Please clarify whether the required minimum result for public and private funds mobilized for on- and off-grid sector projects is $5.9 billion, as indicated on p. 17 in Section C.7, Objective 3, Minimum Results ($5.5 billion for on-grid and $400 million for off-grid), or $6 billion as indicated in the table on p. 18 in in Section C.8, Indicators and Targets, Objective 3 (Public and private funds leveraged for energy sector projects: $6 billion).

USAID Response: See RFP Amendment No. 1 Section C.7 Objectives and Results, Objective 3, Minimum Results.

13. 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 18, “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: This activity includes Grants Under Contract (GUC), which can include cost share. Power Africa believes this language is sufficiently flexible, incentivizing cost share and/or other forms of leverage but not making them a hard requirement.

14. Question: (i) On pages 18 and 90, under C.9 and L.12, there are two different GUCs plug figures provided (one of $5 million and the other of $6.5 million). In addition, on page 90 it states: “If the Offeror will deviate from the allocated USAID budget, the Offeror must provide an explanation.” Could USAID please confirm that $5M is the correct plug figure and confirm that all offerors must apply the same plug figure to allow for a fair cost evaluation that includes the same plug figures across Offerors?

(ii) 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”?

RFP Reference: C.9 & L.12, Page 18, The contract grants under contract (GUC) amount is $5 million (not including administrative costs to oversee the grants) in grants to support achievement of contract objectives and results.

RFP Reference: Page 90, “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: The correct plug figure is $5 million. Offerors cannot deviate from this amount. See RFP Amendment No. 1 Section L.12 Part 2 Proposed Costs/Prices (I).

15. Question: USAID states that the contract grants under contract (GUC) amount is $5 million.

Some of the illustrative activities mentioned (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 $5 million plugged figure?

Reference: Statement of Work, Pages 18-19, C.9 Grants Under Contract

USAID Response: The $5 million figure is only for grants under contract. However, it is correct that some of the illustrative activities may also be implemented through subcontracts.

16. Question: 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?

Reference: Statement of Work, Pages 18-19, C.9 Grants Under Contract

USAID Response: Offerors are encouraged to address illustrative activities for GUCs in the technical approach. It is up to Offerors to determine whether or not include a dedicated section.

17. Question: States the total GUCs budget is $6.5 Million, however, C.9 Grants Under Contract, states the GUC amount is $5 million. Please confirm the total GUC budget amount.

Reference: Cost Proposal, L.12, Page 90, Instructions for the preparation of the cost proposal, Part 2 – Proposed Costs/Prices, (I) Grants Under Contract page

USAID Response: See response to Question No. 14.

18. Question: Section C.9 states the Grants Under Contract budget for this program is $5 million.

However, Section L.12 states the Grants Under Contract budget for this program is $6.5 million.

Can USAID confirm that the Grants Under Contract budget is $5 million?

Reference: Section C.9, Page 18; Section L.12, Page 90

USAID Response: See response to Question No. 14.

19. Question: Could USAID please clarify whether the anticipated Grants under Contract budget for ESA is $5 million or $6.5 million? Both figures are referenced in the solicitation in Section C.9

(p. 18) and section L.12 (p. 90), respectively.

USAID Response: See response to Question No. 14.

20. Question: Please confirm this language is intended to be applicable for ESA.

RFP Reference: C.10, Page 20, Collaborating, Learning and Adapting will be key to the success of EECA, given its broad and cross-cutting approach.

USAID Response: This language has been revised. See RFP Amendment No. 1 Section C.10.

21. Question: (i) Does Power Africa have any restrictions on ESA implementing activities directly within Zimbabwe? An understanding of Zimbabwe’s inclusion in the place of performance will help support proper ESA 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 Zimbabwe?

RFP Reference: F.1, Page 26, “The place of performance is Southern Africa, which includes South Africa, Lesotho, Eswatini, Botswana, Namibia, Angola, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique, and Madagascar.”

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.

22. Question: We request USAID remove the requirement for French language skills for the Southern Africa Technical Lead as it is not a predominant language throughout the countries listed in the Place of Performance.

RFP Reference: F.4, Page 27, “Fluency in English and French” under Southern Africa Technical Lead

USAID Response: The Southern Africa Technical Lead position is removed as a required Key Personnel position. See RFP Amendment No. 1 Section F.4, Key Personnel.

23. 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, Portuguese speaking staff, and French speaking staff. However, the contractual language in Section H.3 could be interpreted to require all staff to speak English, Portuguese, and French. Would USAID amend Section H.3 to require contractor personnel and consultants to have English and/or Portuguese and/or French language proficiency, depending on the needs of their assignment?

RFP Reference: H.3, Page 38, “Contractor personnel and consultants must have English, Portuguese and French language proficiency to perform services required under the contract.”

USAID Response: See RFP Amendment No. 1 Section H.3, Language Requirements.

24. Question: In reference to the following statement, “Contractor personnel and consultants must have English, Portuguese and French language proficiency to perform services required under the contract.” Can USAID confirm that not all key and nonkey personnel are required to be proficient in the three languages?

Reference: General, H.3, page 38, Language Requirements

USAID Response: See response to Question No. 23

25. Question: The Southern Africa Technical Lead qualifications request fluency in French. Given the comparatively minor role French plays in the Southern Africa region, can USAID clarify the language requirements for this role?

Reference: Section C.9, Page 18; Section L.12, Page 90

USAID Response: See response to Question No. 22.

26. Question: As currently drafted, Clause H.3 could be read as to require that all contractor personnel be fluent in English, Portuguese and French. Can USAID confirm that the intent of this clause is to ensure contractors have sufficient personnel on their teams that are fluent in each and accordingly revise the clause to read as follows: “Contractor must have sufficient personnel and consultants that are fluent in the English, Portuguese and French languages as to perform the services required under the contract.”

Reference: Section H.3, Page 38

USAID Response: See response to Question No. 24

27. Question: We request that USAID remove the requirement for DRC experience from the Southern Africa Technical Lead key personnel position as DRC is not one of the countries listed in the Place of Performance

RFP Reference: F.4, Page 27, “DRC experience strongly preferred” under Southern Africa Technical Lead

USAID Response: The Southern Africa Technical Lead position is removed as a required Key Personnel position. See RFP Amendment No. 1 Section F.4.

28. Question: We note there is a significant overlap of responsibilities between the Senior Technical Advisor and the Southern Africa Technical Lead, can USAID clarify its vision for the two separate roles to avoid redundancy?

Reference: Technical Proposal, Pages 26-27, F.4 Personnel

USAID Response: The Southern Africa Technical Lead position was removed as a required Key Personnel position. See RFP Amendment No. 1 Section F.4

29. Question: In Section F.4, the minimum qualifications for key personnel (p. 27) state, “DRC experience strongly preferred” in addition to “fluency in English and French” for the Southern Africa Technical Lead. Please clarify whether these qualifications are required for the Southern Africa Technical Lead position.

USAID Response: See response to Questions No.22 and 27.

30. Question: Section L.11.1 (p. 85) for Annex 4 states that key personnel roles are “not to exceed 1 page for both of the 2 proposed Key Personnel positions.” Given that the solicitation asks for five key personnel, will USAID clarify if the other three positions’ roles (Chief of Party, Senior Technical Advisor, Southern Africa Technical Lead) are to be included in this annex as well or if this is only for the additional two positions proposed by the offeror?

USAID Response: The RFP has been amended to only include 2 listed Key Personnel roles. The page restrictions are for the additional 3 Key Personnel to be proposed by the offeror. See RFP Amendment No. 1 Section L.11.1

31. Question: Section L.11.1 states that Annex 4 can “not exceed 1 page for both of the 2 proposed Key Personnel positions.” However, Section L.11.5 states the Contractor must have five Key Personnel positions (3 named in Section F, and 2 additional proposed by the Contractor). Can USAID confirm that Annex 4 should include information on all 5 key personnel and have a page limit of 5 pages? Subsequently, can USAID confirm that Annex 5 is 2 3 pages max for each resume which would be a maximum of 15 pages; and Annex 6 is a maximum of 5 pages?

Reference: Section L.11.1, Page 85, and Section L.11.5 Page 86

USAID Response: See response to Question No. 30

32. Question: Can you share compensation ranges for key personnel?

USAID Response: USAID can provide the below compensation ranges as a guide:

LEVEL ANGOLA

US Dollar

BOTSWANA

Botswana Pula

(BWP)

ESWATINI

Swazi Lilangeni

(SZL)

LESOTHO

Lesotho Loti

(LSL)

NAMIBIA

Namibian

Dollar (N$)

SOUTH AFRICA

South African Rand

(ZAR) / (R)

Executive 172,091 - 258,131

946,168 - 1,371,938

796,963 - 1,195,482

657,111 - 1,015,541

1,138,513 - 1,574,979

1,495,135 - 2,093,172

Senior 120,957 - 225,637

565,631 - 994,171

489,558 - 917,140

383,196 - 771,599

721,236 - 1,230,340

829,377 - 1,567,176

Mid 85,150 - 156,702

389,693 - 621,238

296,157 - 562,604

264,438 - 523,483

493,195 - 826,513

538,467 - 976,761

Admin 54,102 - 101,314

230,390 - 407,576

176,922 - 362,308

169,416 - 329,716

347,763 - 535,822

319,150 - 537,395

Clerk 40,211 - 73,002

142,909 - 271,470

128,433 - 218,014

136,209 - 271,067

212,765 - 351,230

231,275 - 378,440

33. Question: We note that the responsibility to “regularly liaise with the Power Africa Coordinator's Office, USAID missions, and other USG agencies, as appropriate” is only listed in the descriptions for the Senior Technical Advisor and Southern Africa Technical Lead, and not included in the Chief of Party (COP)’s responsibilities. Can USAID clarify that the COP is also expected to liaise with PACO, USAID Missions and other USG agencies as part of the day-to-day responsibilities?

Reference: Technical Proposal, Page 27, F.4 Key Personnel

USAID Response: Correct, Chief of Party (COP)’s responsibilities are revised to include “regularly liaise with the Power Africa Coordinator's Office, USAID missions, and other USG agencies, as appropriate.” See RFP Amendment No. 1 Section F.4, Key Personnel.

34. Question: In minimum qualifications for the Southern Africa Technical Lead, USAID lists that “DRC experience is strongly preferred and fluency in English and French.” Can USAID clarify if this is in fact a requirement for the key personnel overseeing work in Southern Africa?

Reference: Technical Proposal, Page 27, F.4 Key Personnel

USAID Response: See response to Question No. 27, above.

35. Question: The table of deliverables on page 28 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: F6.1(6), Item 5, Page 28, “Annual reports – 30 calendar days before the end of the USAID fiscal year”

USAID Response: The RFP has been revised to state the report is due 30 days after the end of the fiscal year. See RFP Amendment 1 Section F.6.1.(6) Reporting.

36. Question: Section J.1 (p. 69) encourages offerors to review the Fiscal Year 2021 SAEP Annual Progress Report. Could USAID please provide additional relevant reports that are currently unavailable through the Development Experience Clearinghouse to ensure that all offerors have equal access to information? Specifically, could USAID please provide quarterly reports covering January through March 2021, April through June 2022, and July through September 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.

37. Question: (i) 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: I.1, Page 55, The table lists the following four clauses:

52.215-10 Price Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data

52.215-11 Price Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data-Modifications

52.215.12 Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data

52.215.13 Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data

USAID Response: The RFP has been revised. See RFP Amendment 1 Section I.1,

(ii) 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 69, “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.

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

RFP Reference: L.4.a, Page 83, “E-mail is the only acceptable method for submission of proposals.”

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

39. 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 84, “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.

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: L.10, Page 84, “The narrative for the cost proposal must be in Microsoft Word, Times New Roman font size 12, text accessible.”

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

USAID Response: The Budget Narrative for each and every budget line item in the cost proposal is mandatory.

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

RFP Reference: L.11.1, Page 85, “The Technical Proposal includes the following…”

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

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

RFP Reference: L.11.1, Page 85, “The Technical Proposal includes the following…”

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

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

RFP Reference: L.11.1, Page 85, “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.

44. Question: The list of annexes on page 85 only allows offerors space to include past performance information for previous work. However, the detailed Past Performance requirements on pages 87-88 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 85, Annex: Past Performance Information (1 page per award, up to 5 awards) “The Technical Proposal includes the following…”

RFP Reference: L.11.6, Page 87-88, “(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.

45. Question: Please confirm this language is intended to be applicable for ESA.

RFP Reference: L.11.5, Page 86, “The Offeror must clearly present the management and administration structures and functions for managing the EECA contract, including construction activities.”

USAID Response: This has been rephrased. See RFP Amendment No. 1 Section L.11.5

46. 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 87, “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.

47. 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 88, “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: A number of countries included in the RFP have bilateral assistance agreements in place with USAID. However, because implementation of these agreements may differ by country, offerors should include Value Added Tax as part of the cost proposal.

48. Question: L.12, Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost Proposal, Page 88 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.”

USAID Response: This is not a question, however, a number of countries included in the RFP have bilateral assistance agreements in place with USAID. However, because implementation of these agreements may differ by country, offerors should include Value Added Tax as part of the cost proposal.

49. 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 89, “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, “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.

50. Question: Page 92 instructs offerors to sign the last page of Section K. However, the last page of Section K on page 81 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: L.12, Part 3, Page 92 “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

51. 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. Since these costs generally are treated differently in cost accounting and application of indirect costs, could USAID please confirm Offerors can use their own templates as long as they adhere to the primary budget categories featured in the budget template?

RFP Reference: J.2.1, Detail Worksheet, Total Fringe Benefits

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

52. 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, Detail Worksheet, Total Fringe Benefits

USAID Response: Costs may be shown separately.

53. 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, Detail Worksheet, Total Supplies

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

54. (i) As a regional project, ESA’s place of performance is defined as occurring in 11 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?

(ii) 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, Travel Table worksheet

USAID Response: Offerors may include a regional travel section.

55. 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?

RFP Reference: J.2.1, Line 112, Host Country Taxes in the Fringe section

USAID Response: Kenya is not part of ESA.

56. Question: One of the tabs in the budget template is named “narrative” and requires offerors to provide a description of each cost. Section L.10 states that “The narrative for the cost proposal must be in Microsoft Word, Times New Roman font size 12, text accessible.” Please confirm whether USAID expects both the Excel based narrative filled out for each line item in the budget as well as a written Word based narrative describing the budget line items?

Reference: Attachment J.2.1 Budget Template

USAID Response: See response to question 40, above.

57. Question: Can USAID clarify if the “core principles” mentioned in the evaluation criteria should include all 11 guiding principles listed in Section C.10, pages 19-22?

Reference: Cost Proposal, Page 97, M.2 Technical Evaluation Criteria, Factor 1 – Technical approach

USAID Response: Correct, the “core principles” and “guiding principles” are the same.

58. Question: For cost realism purposes, would USAID allow the proposal budget to include annual increases to the Contractor Salary Threshold for subsequent years to reflect likely increases in this ceiling?

USAID Response: Yes, the proposal budget may include annual increases to the contractors salary.

59. Question: 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?

Reference: Technical Proposal, L.11.5 Staffing and Management Approach, Sub-factor 2a, page 86 and Section M, page 97

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

60. Question: Can USAID confirm that the Offeror will receive the fee amount associated with any results that have a fee associated with it, but are achieved after its expected completion date (still within the contract period of performance)?

USAID Response: The implementer will be paid for results achieved during the lifetime of the project. Payment of fee, will be in accordance with FAR 52.216-8.

61. Question: (i) Is Table 7 illustrative or the required expenditure format for contractors to invoice?

(ii) 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?

Reference: Cost Proposal, Page 34, G.1. Table 7

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

62.…